QandO

Sadly, I'm in agreement w/ you on this. Don't really know what else to post. Sitting here in disbelief.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 11, 2004 01:30 PM

bs. Berg was a deadman from the moment of his capture. Abu ghraib was just the pretext de jour. If not abu ghraib it would be falluja or the crusades or afghanistan or the palistinians etc...

Posted by: ron at May 11, 2004 01:53 PM

I agree. The name Daniel Pearl ring a bell? This guy was toast when he was captured, the prisoner abuse issue is a convenient cover for them is all.

The Fallujah contractors were mutilated well before the scandal broke. What was their excuse?

Posted by: shark at May 11, 2004 02:03 PM

...and still other captives were held, then released in the recent past.

Without Abu Ghraib, maybe he would have died and maybe he wouldn't. With Abu Ghraib, he did.

The people responsible for Abu Ghraib have only stirred the pot.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 11, 2004 02:16 PM

I disagree with you, John. These guys were holding Berg to use him to get some of their buddies released from Abu Gharib.

The chance of that happening? Zero. The United States does not cut deals with terrorists.

As mad as I am at the slimy guards at Abu Gharib, these terrorists have just demonstrated that there are worse things than making prisoners act out gay porn.

Hopefully, this will jar the US out of its post Abu Gharib funk. We are fighting a ruthless enemy here that kills without remorse or feeling. THis is a war that will go on for decades, and it may yet cost millions of lives.

Posted by: John Rogers at May 11, 2004 02:22 PM

The perps deserve to be humilated (be forced to wear women's lingerie and dog collars, etc) and then decapitated - off-camera.

and after a speedy trial, of course...

unless they resist arrest...

As to the blame: NOTHING we do or say can incite them to worse actions than what they've already done and what they're ALREADY inspired to do by their own warped fanatical reading of Islam!

Those who slaughtered 3000 on 9/11 (while trying to kill 50,000!) or danced to that slaughter cannot be appeased, and are not on a rampage because of anything we do.

They have an indpendent agenda: re-establish the Caliphate and implement Sharia according to their narrow precepts. Al Qaeda and its allies have openly and repeatedly acclaimed this since 1998, though their offensive truly first began in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah.

Our counter-attack - beginning in Afghanistan -is NOT AND CANNOT BE the cause or the blamne for ANY action they might undertake -- INCLUDING IF-AND-WHEN THEY SUCCESSFULLY USE WMD IN A TERROR ATTACK AND SLAUGHTER TENS OF THOUSANDS.

Posted by: dan at May 11, 2004 02:28 PM

The people responsible for Abu Ghraib have only stirred the pot.

By this logic, we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq because it "stirred the pot"

The pot doesn't need stirring, it's already been boiling over for a long time.

Or to put it another way- a group of animals who would behead someone to avenge someones humiliation hardly need provoking....

Posted by: shark at May 11, 2004 02:40 PM

A bit of a followup-

Jon-
I know what you're saying, and I agree 100% that what happened at that prison will make things more difficult (though I am sorely tired of all the Islamic hypocracy on this issue) but you gotta give blame where due. And the fact is that the scum who did the beheading were probably gonna do it anyway. If it's your mindset to butcher someone, you're gonna butcher someone. If the rationale wasn't Abu Ghirab, it would be [INSERT ANTI-ISLAMIC "OUTRAGE" HERE]

Posted by: shark at May 11, 2004 02:46 PM

The fact is that blaming the idiots in Abu Ghraib for what happened to Mr. Berg is silliness and shows a bit of ignorance towards the depravity that exists in the minds of these Islamo-Fascist jerkoffs. I hope the book is thrown hard at the idiots of Abu Ghraib but isn't it amazing that apparently these jerks think decapitating someone on camera is the equivalent to humiliating prisoners? It's sick.

P.S.- Those Abu Ghraib guards are going to pay for their crimes. These slimey Islamic fanatics won't.

Posted by: Allen Speir at May 11, 2004 03:14 PM

No no no. Nick Berg's death is not a response to Abu Ghraib. It isn't a response to anything. This is another play in their strategy of terror and intimidation. Their labeling it a response just makes it more politically difficult for America.

Posted by: Aaron at May 11, 2004 04:24 PM

Jon, for the first time in my memory, you and I are going to stoutly disagree.

Consider Daniel Pearl.
Consider the four whose bodies were dragged through the streets and then hung from an overpass. What 'reason' are we going to attribute to that, hmmm?

If we're going to attribute this latest arab barbarism to Abu Girab, then could one logically argue that Abu Girab was a return for Daniel Pearl? If that moral equivalence is offensive to you, (and it should be) then the other direction, it should be, as well.

Consider it this way; If you cannot affirmatively argue that had Abu Girab not occurred, then Berg would be alive at the moment, then Abu Girab is decidedly NOT the reason for Berg's death.

And finally ask yourself a question: What 'reason' have these people EVER needed?

Posted by: Bithead at May 11, 2004 05:16 PM

Hey, I now expect the King of Jordan to go on American TV and apologize to us for the barbaric death of this poor man.

I expect loads of contrite arab media types (Al-Jazeera, I'm looking at you) to express shock outrage and anger over this incident.

Oh wait.......we won't get any of that. We're the only suckers who flagellate ourselves, beat our breasts in guilt, and fall all over ourselves to show contrition.

This is one of the reasons I was against President Bush giving any apology for Abu Ghraib. The people we're dealing with don't respect apologies. Nor do they believe them. All they see is that they can send a few AL Jazeera hacks to do interviews, send a few Burqua-clad women to protest (probably at gunpoint) for the cameras, and we'll do the rest of their work for them. Our willingness- our need- to "apologize" is a weakness. And they know it. And they use it.

And they'll continue to use it.

Posted by: shark at May 11, 2004 06:26 PM

Yeah, this will be largely redundant given previous comments in this thread but here goes anyway...

Abu Ghraib was not the reason for the death of Nick Berg. It was convenient, sure, but they would have come up with some other "reason" if the events at Abu Ghraib had not happened or not come to light.

Their goal is the intimidation and demoralization of the American people. They want us to blame ourselves for their atrocity in the hope that we'll decide it's not worth it and walk away. Instead, we must strengthen our resolve and show these people (I use the term loosely) that we're not going to give them what they want. I can understand why Mike over at Cold Fury had this to say:

Unserious proposal put forth by VRWC member that for every time in future al Qaeda beheads one of ours we behead ten of theirs, publicly, quickly, and with extreme prejudice, followed immediately by the utter destruction of one (1) random Arab city: right now, right here, by me.

Posted by: RadarRider at May 11, 2004 07:04 PM

When assigning blame for Berg's beheading don't forget NBC-CBS-ABC-CNN-NYTimes-WaPo-LATimes and all the others.

Their constant coverage of the Abu Ghraib "atrocities" and demands for apologies from every goverment official without a "D" after his name probably gave Al Queda the idea to produce this little video for the prime time new hour.

Smokey

Posted by: Old Smokey at May 11, 2004 07:53 PM

Holy crap! Another chance at unity shot down.

I was going to try to break it down as you guys don't seem to get the point, but quite frankly, the response from you guys is pretty disgusting. It's understandable to be mad but we can't stoop to their level. That's the point.
And to say that these guys won't pay for what they did is ludicrous. We've been after them, WE'RE AT WAR! The Daniel Pearl killers have already been brought to justice. We lit up a whole city for the contractors' mutilation. It's not like we're sitting around not doing anything.

Jon, you can't show any sad emotions, you're seen as weak instead of human. I mean, look...
"Berg was a deadman from the moment of his capture."
"This guy was toast when he was captured..."
"...these terrorists have just demonstrated that there are worse things than making prisoners act out gay porn."
"The perps deserve to be humilated (be forced to wear women's lingerie and dog collars, etc) and then decapitated - off-camera."
"The pot doesn't need stirring, it's already been boiling over for a long time."
"If the rationale wasn't Abu Ghirab, it would be [INSERT ANTI-ISLAMIC "OUTRAGE" HERE]"
"Those Abu Ghraib guards are going to pay for their crimes. These slimey Islamic fanatics won't."
"Nick Berg's death is not a response to Abu Ghraib.It isn't a response to anything."
"If we're going to attribute this latest arab barbarism to Abu Girab, then could one logically argue that Abu Girab was a return for Daniel Pearl?"
"Our willingness- our need- to "apologize" is a weakness."

These guys don't even realize that they are answering their own tirades. Jon, from these responses I assume that you were taken aback as you haven't posted and you usually do rather quickly. I'm sure you see the difference now.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 11, 2004 08:08 PM

I've been away from the computer, but I did respond to the comment thread. I put my response in an update to the post.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 11, 2004 08:20 PM

but they are responsible for provoking those who would kill our soldiers and workers. Certainly those who killed Berg were already willing to kill, but the abuses at Abu Ghraib provoked them more. I do not believe that the Abu Ghraib abuse is solely responsible for his death, or the death of others.....but it does provoke those who would kill us

Sorry, reasonable people can disagree, so I will. I absolutely refuse to give these animals even a tiny amount of legitimacy by saying we "provoked" them.

As if, even a little bit, we're complicit in this sick, brutal abomination.

It's giving them even a tiny opening of an excuse for their actions.

They deserve none of it.

Posted by: shark at May 11, 2004 09:10 PM

I believe it is not correct to say that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners "provoked" the murder of Mr. Berg. The correct analysis is that it provided a handy "excuse" for their actions. And if that type of criminal conduct against a person (whom all acknowledge as having nothing to do with the abuse of prisoners--he was not even in the military)succeeds in recruiting Arabs to AQ's cause, shame on the Arabs. Such would demonstrate beyond dispute how bankrupt their "cause" really is!

Posted by: RAZ at May 11, 2004 10:27 PM

Certainly those who killed Berg were already willing to kill, but the abuses at Abu Ghraib provoked them more. I do not believe that the Abu Ghraib abuse is solely responsible for his death, or the death of others.....but it does provoke those who would kill us.

Jon, I agree with you in theory, but not in this particular case. Yes, those who would kill us are further provoked. (I'd argue here that they already spend days and nights figuring out ways to kill us, further provocation is pretty meaningless, but I do see your point.)

However, it appears that Berg was kidnapped in early to mid April (last known contact was around April 9), weeks before the prison abuse was widely known. And the al Qaeda operatives who killed Berg first offered him in trade for some of the prisoners. When no trade was made, they killed him. At that point, they would have killed him even if the prison abuse wasn't known.

This killing wasn't about Abu Ghraib, it was about al Qaeda.

Posted by: Steverino at May 11, 2004 10:46 PM

"This killing wasn't about Abu Ghraib, it was about al Qaeda." --
How true. The ones we should've been focused on in the first place before we went after Sadaam and his cronies. al Qaeda is still running rampant. We stretched our military too thin by not finishing al Qaeda and marching into Iraq.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 12, 2004 12:26 PM

Those Abu Ghraib guards are going to pay for their crimes. These slimey Islamic fanatics won't

Danny Boy included this (something I wrote earlier) among his list of statements above. I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with this statement. It is completely true! Explain to me what about this comment is untrue?

Posted by: Allen Speir at May 12, 2004 02:16 PM

The ones we should've been focused on in the first place before we went after Sadaam and his cronies. al Qaeda is still running rampant

Are you denying any link between Iraq and al Qaeda?

It's not just a war on al Qaeda, it's a war on terrorism; al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization in the world. The battle in Iraq has been a crucial step in the War on Terrorism. Let's not forget that Iraq offered funding and logistical support to terrorist organizations. To concentrate our entire military on just one terrorist organization before taking out others (and the states that support them) is a foolish, wasteful strategy.

Posted by: Steverino at May 12, 2004 02:21 PM

Allen, do you really think that the U.S. is going to let these guys get away? I remember thinking the same w/ Daniel Pearle and then they caught that haggard-looking dude (I'm pretty sure you remember the pic, looked more like a hairy child molester). I mean, what do you propose we are to do?
Steverino, if you mean a connection before the war, no, there were none, not to my knowledge. Please provide me w/ one if you have one. NOW, in the other hand, of course, Iraq is a hotbed for terrorists.
We lost focus on the one who attacked us, Osama. And last I checked he's still at large. True, it's not about one man, but cutting him off early on would've probably made it easier for us. Instead, he's still loose and came out looking like the man who went after the U.S. successfully. More ammunition for the terrorists to use as recruitment tools.

Posted by: DannyBoy at May 12, 2004 02:48 PM

DannyBoy, among others, there was Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda connected group that received logistical support from Iraq.

Osama bin Laden may or may not be still alive. It's funny that we haven't heard much from him, other than tapes that may be doctored.

It's a war on terrorism, NOT a war on al Qaeda. The war is directed not just at terrorist organizations, but at the states that support them. These organizations have to train somewhere, they need to buy their materials somewhere. If we can discourage states from providing shelter for the organizations, we can find them easier and make it harder for them to accomplish their goals.

We haven't lost focus on bin Laden,but he's just one man. Ever hear of Carlos the Jackal? He was an international fugitve, MANY agencies across the world were looking for him. It still took years to track him down. We're not going to send 130,000 troops looking for OBL, that would be a waste. But we've got more than one battle to fight in this war, and taking Iraq's support of terrorists out was an important goal.

Posted by: Steverino at May 12, 2004 06:49 PM

Damn right ,the best way to deal with sadistic bully is to avoid irrotating him any father, just quietly cower in the corner hopeing not to offend or irrotate him in some way knowing that after all it is your own falt becouse you're an american,jewish ,gay thespian lesbian whatever--just be quiet,don't piss him off.Of course it's becourse of the couple of morons taking pictures of a insulted arab prisoner.
QANDO,the thought that you and I are supposed to be the same species makes me puke.

Posted by: Bess at May 13, 2004 03:34 AM

Certainly those who killed Berg were already willing to kill, but the abuses at Abu Ghraib provoked them more. I do not believe that the Abu Ghraib abuse is solely responsible for his death, or the death of others.....but it does provoke those who would kill us. That is undeniable. And it leads to more US deaths.

No it doesn't.
You're still tryng to link this to a cause and effect, Jon, and I'm not buying. Proof? Well, in the name of arab Unity, let's look at the charter of Hammas:

Article 7: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

Article 13: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]."

Does it sound to *you* like they think they need a reason to kill? Our mere *existance* is enough to get them to kill. That's the bottom line.

What you're doing, Jon, is blaming the victim; a popular past-time in Democrat camps, to be sure, and I'm sure the Arab world smiles when reading your comments, but I'd not expected it from you.

I'm starting to get really annoyed about this. Damn it.....At what point do we stop weeping about how the west is the aggressor, and stop looking for a way to blame ourselves and WAKE UP, and start dealing with the fact that we are under unrelenting attack by an outright insane group of people that don't WANT peace, and don't feel they need a reason to kill us, other than we're taking breath???

Posted by: Bithead at May 13, 2004 07:54 AM

Ok, look guys...I didn't say the Abu Ghraib abuse caused the Nick Berg death. Nor did I say that it provoked them to kill him. I simply said that it "provoked them".

And you'll note that I specifically said of the US soldiers, "They're not responsible for his death...".

Try to understand the difference between being responsible for his death, and being responsible for feeding the terrorist fire. Certainly (as I noted), they were already willing to kill. But the abuse at Abu Ghraib provoked and reconcentrated their desires. And it very probably created more enemies.

Similarly, I would NOT blame a woman for being raped, but I WOULD regard it as very stupid if she walked into a room full of drunken guys, got naked, and expected nothing untoward to happen. It's still their fault, but her actions would still be stupid...a provocation. Not, in any way, legitimizing the rape....but still a provocation.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 13, 2004 08:07 AM

Try to understand the difference between being responsible for his death, and being responsible for feeding the terrorist fire

I do understand the difference, Jon, and I understand you're not as a matter of intent trying to legitimize the actions of our attackers. But what I'm saying is that in their eyes, when you label Abu Grirab a provocation toward Berg's killing, isn't that in reality what you're doing... giving them justification? They need to be dealt with as seperate issues.

But the abuse at Abu Ghraib provoked and reconcentrated their desires.

Not really. It simply gave them an excuse. Someone looking to blame another for THEIR actions will do it wihtout any provokation, real or imagined.

Consider the words of Chucklehead Rangel on the news yesterday, saying that if the "Bush economy" hadn't lost 3 million jobs people like Berg wouldn't have had to go over to Iraq looking for work.

Says Bortz this morning:

"Imagine the self-satisfied smirks on the faces of the Islamic killers who sawed Nick Berg's head off. "Yeah, we killed the infidel, and then we sent them a tape! But now American politicians are blaming his death on the evil Bush!"

He's right of course, in more levels than this. Similarly, consider the looks on their faces as they see us blaming ourselves for their actions under ANY banner... inclduding Abu Girab.

Another point, here, that's directly related about all of this self-blame, that I brought up on my own page this morning, as regards this heapoing on of Self-Doubt over Abu Girab:

Isn't it odd, though, how Berg has just about disappeared from the front pages, and yet our old freind, Abu Griab, remains there, along with calls for Don Rumsfeld's head? (Yes, I know, sick play on words. I don't care) The images of Berg having his head removed with a dull blade are too graphic a picture to show the American people, and so that outrage gets muted... but Abu Girab? That's just Naked Arabs. And, Heck, it doesn't even need to be real... witness the story I ran yesterday regarding the Globe and it's bogus pics.

Just for a moment, here, let's suppose that this non-coverage of the bigger outrage of Berg, is misdirecting the anger of American voters. Follow that thought to it's logical conclusion, and ask yourself if you're falling victim to that ploy, yourself.

I tell you; there's fact and public opinion manipulation going on here by Democats and their supporters, seeking at any cost, and I mean ANY cost, to regain power. And I wonder how many Americans have the wit to see it for what it is.

Posted by: Bithead at May 13, 2004 11:16 AM

I belive these men were working for the CIA.

Posted by: walter at May 17, 2004 08:03 PM