- #31
member 5645
Adam said:
www.english.aljazeera.net[/URL]
Read the comments by people interviewed in the middle east.
Last edited by a moderator:
News Is the death of Nicholas Berg a result of George W. Bush's actions in Iraq?
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Click For Summary
Nicholas Berg's remains were returned to the U.S. after he was beheaded by Islamic radicals in Iraq, prompting his father to blame President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his son's death. The discussion highlights the father's grief and his pre-existing anti-war sentiments, while others argue that Berg, as an independent contractor, bears some responsibility for placing himself in a dangerous situation. Participants debate the morality of blaming victims in violent acts, with some asserting that the terrorists' actions are unjustifiable regardless of the circumstances. The conversation also touches on broader themes of war, personal responsibility, and the complexities of terrorism. Ultimately, the tragic event raises questions about accountability and the nature of violence in conflict zones.
www.english.aljazeera.net[/URL]
Read the comments by people interviewed in the middle east.
- #32
Artman
- 1,506
- 40
Adam said:
I was using hyperbole. Certainly there are many in every country who feel this was a horrible crime. But if you read a few public opinion polls from the middle east, you will find some that believe it was justified.
- #33
studentx
- 7
- 0
GRQC said:
I always do, theyre just as horrible.
When an Iraqi POW is killed, the focus is on him being a civilian(endlessly repeated, as should be). When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on him being american, him possibly deserving it for Abu graib and new theories.
Already for many ppl (including regulars here), Nicks horrible death is blamed on both sides when its these sick terrorists that are solely responsible.
And Adam i will explain what i meant with the robot girl if it was too deep for you. According to Christianity and Islam god gave us free will, so if we lived in the perfect world without crime where naked girls could swarm us, there would be no free will (if you can't do evil, good isn't a choice either is it?). So we would be robots!
- #34
member 5645
studentx said:
I am laying the responsibility for this on anyone except the young man who took a risk, al beit one that I understand why he took it, and the gamble didn't pay off - and the terrorsts that killed him.
Perhaps we should blame Berg's dad for not stopping him from going?
- #35
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
I was talking about this with my boss, who is somewhat to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He thought it was a disgrace: I agree with you. I'll let him slide on this one.Chen said:
- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
Important point: there is a double standard here (and Artman is right - though its not absolute, there are a lot of people who by into it). When a POW (a soldier at best, possibly a terrorist) is abused/killed, the focus is (rightfully so) on the criminal act done by the soldiers/cia to the individual. When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on the justification of the killing due to the fact that he was an American.studentx said:
But then, we already covered this in the 'dehumanizing of america' thread (Njorl's excellent post). In the eyes of our enemies, Americans are not worthy of individual human rights and can be killed to avenge an affront to the rights of "their people" (an irony I'm certain is lost on them)(I put "their people" in quotes because by and large, the people they claim to represent don't want anything to do with them - as moral people should).
Last edited:
- #37
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
Sorry for so many posts, but I have a theory:
I think its unwise to underestimate terrorists (though my opinion of them is quite low). Is it possible that they knew about the flaw in using a civilan to avenge the death of a soldier but didn't have an american soldier available to kill in that way? IIRC, he mentioned in his rant about coffins of soldiers.
Not that I necessarily believe he makes the distinction, but its a possibility.
I think its unwise to underestimate terrorists (though my opinion of them is quite low). Is it possible that they knew about the flaw in using a civilan to avenge the death of a soldier but didn't have an american soldier available to kill in that way? IIRC, he mentioned in his rant about coffins of soldiers.
Not that I necessarily believe he makes the distinction, but its a possibility.
- #38
honestrosewater
Gold Member
- 2,133
- 6
phatmonky said:
My father punished me when he disapproved of my behavior. Would you consider my father a government?
- #39
member 5645
honestrosewater said:
Will your father stop be from killing you? or him?
- #40
honestrosewater
Gold Member
- 2,133
- 6
phatmonky said:
Well, I don't know what he would do. He was a firefighter and put himself in danger to save many lives. He is now in prison for murder and attempted murder. He broke into our house in the night and attacked my mother with the intention of killing her (by his own confession). My mom's new husband awoke and was stabbed to death, saving my mom's life. My father said he did it to get custody of his children. (My mom was granted full custody in their divorce, and refused to let him visit us.) He gave up trying to get custody by going through the courts. The government didn't work for him, so he worked for himself. Now he is in their custody. The government didn't work for my stepfather, and now he is dead. True story and relevant to your question (which is the reason I told it).
The point is that individual people can reward and punish, protect and harm, with or without governments. Governments don't interact with people. People interact with people. Governments don't kill people. People kill people. Governments don't love people. People love people. Governments don't punish people. People punish people. Etc.
The concept of governments only complicates the situation. The concept of anarchy can be frightening if it is not understood or explored. That is why it has become synonymous with disorder and chaos. And that is why I brought up the subject of parents raising children.
Well, this is a complex issue and perhaps beyond your interest. I just wanted to point out what I perceived as a misunderstanding.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
- #41
Simon666
- 93
- 0
Yes there is a just cause, if it is a threat to US business interests or when people ask social rights they should be killed. You can even get promoted for it to UN ambassador. conservatives love speaking about scum in the UN, well, they are in at least one occasion absolutely correct.studentx said:
John Negroponte:
He is accused of sponsoring terrorism for supporting the Contra insurgency against the left wing Sandinistas, the first ever democratically elected government of Nicaragua. He is also accused of inciting Contra attacks on civilians.
- #42
Shahil
- 115
- 21
russ_watters said:
Interesting viewpoint and I do agree with it. As I said earlier, there ARE 2 sides here and you must respect that. You may not like one side but you MUST empathise! Can any bosy here relate here! Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!
- #43
Shahil
- 115
- 21
Just thought of something.
A war normally has opposing factions. So the factions here are:
Coalition vs. Terrorsist
Am I the only one to see the bias and stupidity in that statement!
A war normally has opposing factions. So the factions here are:
Coalition vs. Terrorsist
Am I the only one to see the bias and stupidity in that statement!
- #44
studentx
- 7
- 0
Shahil said:
So, when terrorists blow up civilians, you remind us we must empathise with them. When Americans blow up civilians, will you remind us to empathise with them?
I hope for Allahs sake that you don't insinuate Coalition is as much a terrorist as Osama.
- #45
Simon666
- 93
- 0
I think he insinuates that besides terrorists there are genuine resistance fighters who do not like to be occupied by any foreign country or organisation like the UN.
- #46
jimmy p
Gold Member
- 399
- 73
I don't think I can REALLY blame Nick Berg or anyone. The only thing I can say is that he was a little naive. But then, who would have gone to Iraq and expected to have been beheaded? No-one. How many reports have there been of News-teams and other Western civilians being kidnapped AND brutalized. I don't think I have heard recently. There are quite a lot of reporters in Iraq and they DO get about a bit. But they don't seem in much danger. Maybe they have military protection, but when is that going to stop a terrorist.
Before this event occurred can anyone honestly say that this is what they would expect to happen to THEM if they went to Iraq? I know I couldnt. But then, bad news happens to other people.
Before this event occurred can anyone honestly say that this is what they would expect to happen to THEM if they went to Iraq? I know I couldnt. But then, bad news happens to other people.
- #47
kat
- 42
- 0
I think there are far more sides then 2.Shahil said:
Some I can respect, others I cannot and..no, I do not have to empathise.
There's a lot here I can't relate to, one is the singularity of some peoples views. Such as there only being the 2 sides, or the view that Iraqi's do not want, or somehow are not advanced enough to grok self determination through democracy, or that they somehow don't desire it. All the while closing your eyes to who it is that are the "terrorist"/"Militants" and continueing to claim what Iraqi's feel or Iraqi's want.
I don't think it's neccesary to "understand" where they are coming from in the manner that I think you're suggesting. I think it's important to understand what their goals and methods are in order to defeat them and allow Iraqi's the self determination they desire and that is supported by Article 21 of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.