Video apparently showing american getting beheaded

[conjur]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
I don?t have a problem with anything you excerpted from the Geneva convention except:

?(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; ?

Outrages upon personal dignity? Self-esteem is not in my category of things that must be maintained when our people?s LIVES are on the line.

1) Initial reports of abuse mentioned no details. That doesn't make for good news. For all we knew, a couple of prisoners were roughed up a bit.

?That doesn?t make good news.?

Indeed!!! I couldn?t have summed it up any better myself. In other words, there wasn?t a chance for those in the media to turn it into a yellow dog to sell more ad space.

I'm glad that so many of you have a copy of the Geneva convention in your back pocket. I'm sure thats only when it suits your anti-Bush agenda.

Well, it's a good thing people like you aren't in charge.


Oh wait...people like you *are* in charge and now look at the mess we're in!!

Haha, that?s a laugh. I could say the same thing about you. Let me offer a few examples of messes that "people like you" failed to act on:

The 1993 WTC bombing- six killed, 1000 injured

The perpetrators were caught, tried, and sentenced.

The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia- killed five U.S. military personnel

Not sure of the outcome of the group that claimed responsibility

The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing- killed 19, and injured 200 U.S. military personnel

Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted in June 2001 on charges relating to the attack.

The 1996 offer by the Sudanese to hand over bin Laden refused by the Clinton administration because of ?no legal means of trying him?.

Incorrect.

The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa- killed 224, injured 5,000

Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qua'ida camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A US Federal Grand Jury has indicted others who remain at large, including Osama Bin Laden.

Dec. 14, 1999 - Ahmed Ressam is caught entering the U.S. with 130 pounds of explosives at the Canadian border at Port Angeles, Washington. Ressam had links to other Al Qaeda militants and trained in an Afghanistan Al Qaeda camp. Authorities eventually learn his intended target was Los Angeles International Airport. Through his interrogation, a cell is discovered in Montreal, Quebec.

The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole- killed 17, and injured 39 U.S. sailors

Jan. 27 2001 - The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

Rumsfeld said too much had time had passed to address the USS Cole incident directly.

That's roughly seven years of playing Johnny Diplomat and seeking legal remedies. What did it get us? More of the same.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I doubt those affected by the collapse of the WTC towers would've minded very much if Clinton had just invented some reason to detain him and any other known thug we might've rounded up.

OTOH, if Clinton HAD detained bin Laden, we?d have pie-in-the-sky?ers like you Conjur trumpeting his release because we would?ve been holding him ?illegally?.

The problem is, people like you, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry want to play cops-and-robbers with individuals who are utterly barbaric.

It wasn't until late in 1998 that the depth of the Al Qaeda organization was really known. Until then, bin Laden was looked upon as an outside "financier".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

 

[JzL]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I think they just got Dubya out of trouble.

Ditto.

 

[hokiezilla]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1996 offer by the Sudanese to hand over bin Laden refused by the Clinton administration because of ?no legal means of trying him?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.


No, correct. Here are my references:


Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Audio of Clinton stating why he couldn't take bin Laden

I heard the taped interview myself wherein Bill Clinton explained why they had not taken bin Laden when offered by the Sudanese.

You only prove my point further. Clinton pursued diplomatic and legal solutions to the terrorist attacks both foreign and abroad. Again, what did it get us? We got hit on 9/11.

 

[conjur]

"MANSOOR IJAZ"

:roll:

He's been discredited. He's merely an attention whore.

And the audio tape has also been dismissed by many as Clinton giving an overly simplistic answer and possibly misunderstanding the question. Esp. since that answer is counter to anything he's ever said before and counter to any evidence.

Both of those issues have been brought up here before and they didn't stick then and they won't stick now.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: conjur
"MANSOOR IJAZ"

:roll:

He's been discredited. He's merely an attention whore.

And the audio tape has also been dismissed by many as Clinton giving an overly simplistic answer and possibly misunderstanding the question. Esp. since that answer is counter to anything he's ever said before and counter to any evidence.

Both of those issues have been brought up here before and they didn't stick then and they won't stick now.

He's merely an attention whore? You mean like Richard Clarke? The assertions "don't stick" for those who lack intellectual honesty is what you should've said.

The recording was discredited? He was confused? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!!!! Did you even listen to it?

 

[conjur]

Yes, I've heard the recording. Even Dick Morris (now a Bush pundit) dismissed the recording in an interview on Hannity and Colmes.

As for Richard Clarke, he proved to be VERY credible and never was found to be in contradiction with anyone, other than the couple of lies Condi Rice told.

You should check out the various Clarke threads. This has all been done before.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a very key point that many of the neocons and non-thinking sheep, like burnedout, fail to comprehend. I mean, come on! Don't those Arab newspapers know they were supposed to wake at 3am, recall all of their papers, and reprint them with scathing remarks of the beheading??

Can you shut the fvck up with the name calling.. you are trashing on the wrong dude.. burnedout is not one you need to pick a fight with.. GROW UP And realize who your real enemies are.. he is not one of them.. You are doing a better job of making an enemy than you are of listening... geezus..

You fail to understand the simple mind of burnedout and his jealousy of my living in a "big city". He's been personally attacking me for days...much more severely than I have done above. You have a bone to pick, direct it toward him to "grow up".

Why is it that I have a feeling this is a blatant lie? Every since i brought up my concern about Berg's death yesterday afternoon, i've recieved nothing but immature, snide remarks and replies that weren't very well thought out. And, well, they'll continue shortly after this one from me, i'm sure.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Don_Vito
I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to see a reasoned argument presented with intelligence and grace, with supporting evidence no less! It's such a marked contrast to the hyena-like antics usually displayed in here. *thumbs up*

Thanks for your kind words. I try to call 'em as I see 'em, though I am certainly not free from bias.

In that light, it troubles me that there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who view politics as moral combat, and who refuse to acknowledge the strengths in the positions of others and the weaknesses in their own. The words "liberal" and "neocon" are used here like curse words, and that's a shame.

This kind of marginalization of one's political adversaries is really harmful to a reasoned discourse IMO. Ironically I think it is analogous to the kind of absolutist dogma that underlay the Taliban, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazi Party, and any number of other savory organizations.

I am also bothered by the kind of mean-spirited mockery I see here sometimes, as a substitute for real discussion. It's just chaff, and it makes it hard to stay focused on what's important (i.e., the underlying issues). For the same reason, I really resent silly trolling and other efforts to spark angry arguments. This all adds heat but no light, and interferes with real discussion.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Don_Vito
I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to see a reasoned argument presented with intelligence and grace, with supporting evidence no less! It's such a marked contrast to the hyena-like antics usually displayed in here. *thumbs up*

Thanks for your kind words. I try to call 'em as I see 'em, though I am certainly not free from bias.

In that light, it troubles me that there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who view politics as moral combat, and who refuse to acknowledge the strengths in the positions of others and the weaknesses in their own. The words "liberal" and "neocon" are used here like curse words, and that's a shame.

This kind of marginalization of one's political adversaries is really harmful to a reasoned discourse IMO. Ironically I think it is analogous to the kind of absolutist dogma that underlay the Taliban, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazi Party, and any number of other savory organizations.

I am also bothered by the kind of mean-spirited mockery I see here sometimes, as a substitute for real discussion. It's just chaff, and it makes it hard to stay focused on what's important (i.e., the underlying issues). For the same reason, I really resent silly trolling and other efforts to spark angry arguments. This all adds heat but no light, and interferes with real discussion.

Which is pretty much why I've given up on this forum - very little intelligent discussion, and lots of mindless spewing. It gets very old, very fast.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: burnedout
In related news, Arab Media Play Down, Ignore Beheading

Did you read the actual article, or just the headline? On the whole it describes a sensitive handling of the whole matter by most media outlets, not some kind of whitewash.

You'll have to understand his nickname comes from an overdose of the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.

This again - conjur, is there ever a thread wherein you don't resort to calling someone a "Limbaugh and Hannity fanboy"? Does this pass for intelligent discussion among your kind? Is name-calling all you know?

 

[conjur]

Of course you pick out one of the posts where I use that. And, of course, it's one directed at burnedout who certainly deserves it, considering the crap he's hurled my way.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a very key point that many of the neocons and non-thinking sheep, like burnedout, fail to comprehend. I mean, come on! Don't those Arab newspapers know they were supposed to wake at 3am, recall all of their papers, and reprint them with scathing remarks of the beheading??

Can you shut the fvck up with the name calling.. you are trashing on the wrong dude.. burnedout is not one you need to pick a fight with.. GROW UP And realize who your real enemies are.. he is not one of them.. You are doing a better job of making an enemy than you are of listening... geezus..

You fail to understand the simple mind of burnedout and his jealousy of my living in a "big city". He's been personally attacking me for days...much more severely than I have done above. You have a bone to pick, direct it toward him to "grow up".

Why is it that I have a feeling this is a blatant lie? Every since i brought up my concern about Berg's death yesterday afternoon, i've recieved nothing but immature, snide remarks and replies that weren't very well thought out. And, well, they'll continue shortly after this one from me, i'm sure.

Just go look at his posts and you'll see.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur
Of course you pick out one of the posts where I use that. And, of course, it's one directed at burnedout who certainly deserves it, considering the crap he's hurled my way.

That's right - one of your many, many posts with that line. Here's another - and that's just today. If you're not throwing out the tired Hannity/Limbaugh line, you're accusing people of either being Bush apologists/Bush lovers, or being sheep. It's all very tired, and not the slightest bit constructive.

 

[conjur]

Yeah...you got me...one post out of 5-6 on that page and I rail against an ignorant newb...yeah...I'm not the slightest bit constructive.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: rickn
after seeing that beheading, I like my buddy's solution

No weapons on the streets..if so..shot. No one out after nightfall...if so..shot. Celebrate around a burned up vehicle..shot. drag dead bodies thru the streets..shot

how long is it before we really take off the gloves. we pussy-foot around to much.

Pft

:roll:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

At this point we have no idea whether this humiliation and torture garnered any information, much less "valuable information." Research has shown that intel produced through torture is frequently unreliable anyway.

Exactly, we don't know. Yet, so many on this board are making proclamations of this and that without having all of the facts upon which to base an opinion of the wide-sweeping variety offered by many here.

I thought I deliniated my opinion adequately. I do not consider humiliation for the sake of gaining valuable intel to be "torture". But that's just my opinion.

My my, after all those pictures, after the generals being put on administrative leaves, after the military court, even after Bush himself issuing the half a$$ apology, there are still people saying oh we don't have enough info......

Boy, the length people go to defend the indefensible.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur

Just go look at his posts and you'll see.

See what, oh U of Smell grad? Your partisan approach to transforming the debate into little more than contentiously bastardized discourse? Respect is mutual as is lack thereof.

By the way, Señor, the reason I'm leaving Austin and NOT relocatiing to either Lou or Knoxville is primarily because of disfunctionally idiotic attitudes such as your own. Therefore, don't even attempt that 'jealous' crap.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
Of course you pick out one of the posts where I use that. And, of course, it's one directed at burnedout who certainly deserves it, considering the crap he's hurled my way.

That's right - one of your many, many posts with that line. Here's another - and that's just today. If you're not throwing out the tired Hannity/Limbaugh line, you're accusing people of either being Bush apologists/Bush lovers, or being sheep. It's all very tired, and not the slightest bit constructive.

Come on i like brunedout but him callng him drug induced idiot can't be helpful either. These things have a way of carring over to other threads and other poeple till it becomes a big ol' muddy the watters fest and nothing gets discussed. Both guilty as charged.

 

[Carnage4]

I don't know if anyone else has posted a link to the video, but you should still be able to access/download it at www.consumptionjunction.com. (WARNING: Site contains explicit material not suitable for those under 18 years of age or for the easily offended).

 

[syf3r]

Not sure if these points have been brought up in this thread because I started getting too bogged down in all the namecalling and bickering... In any case, here are some things that should be considered:

The man's name was "Berg" not Burg. He was Jewish. However, his citizenship has not, as far as I know, been mentioned in the news. Does anyone know for sure that he was an American citizen and not an Israeli citizen? The fact that his family lives here doesn't mean they are citizens. Some have speculated that he may have been Israeli secret police. Someone referenced the Pearl killing from a little while back. Remember the outcry from his family when Pearl was outed by an Israeli newspaper as actually being a Mossad agent?

Berg's family runs a company that installs and maintains communications towers. He had been travelling back and forth between Iraq and the US for the past year, without any problems. On the last trip, he was detained by Iraqi police and then turned over to the US military. The US military kept him in detention for almost 2 weeks, without charging him, and without giving him access to telephone or lawyer.

Not everyone knows this, but the actual beheading took place over a month ago. It didn't just happen a few days ago. Why the wait to release the info? Why was it held and then released days after the story of US war crimes/torture break around the world? Is it a clever deflection in a moment of crisis? Have you suddenly (read: conveniently) forgotten all about the shame and disgust at seeing US soldiers degrade and humiliate Iraqi's and now are almost in a bloodrage at seeing this man killed?

When he was released by the US military, they dropped him off in the middle of nowhere, just when the violence was beginning to really flare up in the area. Has anyone noticed how interesting it is that he was still wearing the orange jumpsuit that all our "detainees" are made to wear in US custody? That suggests that when he was dropped off, he didn't even have time to change before he was quickly "abducted." Additionally, a star of david was reportedly scrawled onto the back of the jumpsuit, almost like a target, but I can't make it out in the copy of the tape I've seen.

Some people have suggested that the skintone of the hooded men is much too light to be middle-eastern. Likewise, that they look very well-fed, fat almost, which doesn't make sense if you try to think of them as "insurgent" guerrilas living on the run and living off scraps. Additionally, their stance and posture is not that of the typical Iraqi.

For anyone who has seen the videotape, do you notice how many edits there are in it? It's been cut and spliced numerous times, the vocal track does not line up with the video track, etc.

Notice the guy who is reading the sheets of paper? Notice how he shuffles them and turns them over and twists them around and then ends up reading the same page he started on??? Makes me think the guy doesn't even know how to read arabic.

If the guy who carried out the attack was really this al-zarqawi guy, why did numerous news outlets report months ago that he'd been killed in Fallujah? We know what he looks like, there've been dozens of photos posted of him on news sites and on news tv. He knows his identity/image are not a secret, so why wear a hood?

The head of CNN's middle-eastern bureau has commented that the one references in the beginning of the tape that sounds like the man is saying 'al-qaeda' (translation: the base) is actually the word 'al-qaed' (translation: the one sitting; he who sits). If you yourself do not speak arabic, or farsi or whatever language they are speaking, then you do not, and can not, know for sure what they are saying. You are trusting the government's translation of the tape.

Furthermore, Al-zarqawi was a jordanian. The head of CNN's middle-eastern bureau has stated unequivocally that the man's accent on the videotape is NOT jordanian.

Your body's blood pressure is at something like 18psi (I might be off a little on this, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Even after death, for a short time, blood pressure remains at nearly that level. For those of you who have seen the tape.. do you see blood shooting out of that guys neck and spraying all over the place? Does the guy who actually does the cutting look like his hands have been dipped in blood when he holds the head up, or are his hands pretty darn clean? Given the way the tape cuts in and out, are you 100% sure that the victim was alive right at the very moment when they began cutting his neck, or does the camera conveniently jump right in when the cutting starts?

Just some questions to fuel some more (hopefully intelligent and observant) conversation.

/syf3r