Reply
Wed 12 May, 2004 07:36 pm
It has been determined that the be-headers were not Al Q.
Two preliminary, minimal conclusions that cast doubt on the Berg murder video:
1. The murder and beheading do not take place in "real time." The video is not a record of a single event taken from a single perspective. It is at least spliced or edited record from two cameras that happen to have different time settings.
At worst, the seizing and beheading took place 11 hours apart and are recorded by the same camera.
This tells us nothing about the who or why. But it does tell us that the video record is not what it purports to be -- a real time record of seizing and beheading. Therefore, at minimum, its veracity is called into question.
2. The person who is beheaded was already dead when he was beheaded. The behavior of the blood, even though difficult to see, is not consistent with the beheading of a person with a beating heart and live blood pressure.
3. The audio and video have been edited together from separate audio and video recordings.
There are some strange things here, yes. For one thing, the body had already been found a couple of days before the video was delivered. For another, the timing is way too convenient. The "killers" say they are executing Berg because of the Abu Ghraib atrocities. But the atrocities had not been made public yet at the time of the "execution." What's you take on it all, pistoff?
Pistoff, nothing in your post gives any reason to believe that they were'nt Al-Q. What makes you think so?
?
Maybe these guys are mercs who took it upon themselves to villanize Iraqi insurgents in the face of the Faluja mass killing of at least 600 Iraqis, over half were civilians, non-combatent older men, women and children and the ongoing al Sadr resistence malitia. Demonizing the "enemy" is always top priority in any Occupation.
This video defenitely does not have the hallmark of any Al Q operation.
The Web site whre this Vid 1st surfaced is the key to this mystery. A puter expert may be able to ascetain if this iste is or was an official site of the Insurgency linked with Al Q.
I suspect that this was a set-up. It is a sad situation or his family. I do not condone this action whatever it turns out to be.
never did see the stie where it first surfaced
just a site owned by someone in Oregon.
?
At 1st the person that translated the statement got it wrong. They did not say that they were al Q. Also, if they were al Q. why would the leader disquise himself while revealing his name. The world already knows what he looks like. This Vid. just does not make sense.
Found this. Implies Pakistani involvement.
Quote:The savage murder through beheading of Nick Berg, a 26-year-old American civilian, reportedly somewhere in Iraq last week by a group of five masked men bring to mind the cruel beheading under similar circumstances of Daniel Pearl, a journalist of the Wall Street Journal in the beginning of 2002 by a group of Pakistani jihadi terrorists belonging to the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen-Al Alami (HUM-International) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), all the three members Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF), the world-wide activities of which are now being co-ordinated by Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET).
The modus operandi is similar and the denunciation of not only President Bush, but also Pakistan's military dictator Pervez Musharraf by the killers in their statement read out before beheading Berg, is an indicator of a Pakistani jihadi involvement in the killing.
Even though the video-recording of the beheading as displayed on the jihadi web site associated with Al Qaeda was titled "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American", reliable sources in Karachi, who had seen the video, say that the beheading has the clear finger-print of the same three organisations, which had kidnapped and brutally killed Pearl.
If it is proved to be correct that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was, in fact, the person who did the beheading, this would show that these three Pakistani organisations are working in tandem with the organisation of Abu Musab.
Full story
here
There are a lot of very strange things about this story. What they are telling us just doesn't make sense.
1. An ordinary American who goes into a war zone without being a part of any organization to look for business. He travels through many very dangerous places that GIs and journalists don't dare to go. Can you imagine doing this?
2. His father claims he was held by the Americans for a week and a half, the Americans deny it.
There is more to this story. Whether we will ever know the truth remains to be seen. But what we are hearing now can't possibly be right.
?
The language of the announcer on the Vid can be determind by those who know about the accents of various people in these regions. The fact that Bushco immediately announced that this act had NO correlation to the Prison Torture is also suspicious and of course strange because that is exactly what was stated in the Vid.
pistoff:
Prepare for a full-frontal assault from the Bushites on able2know who will deride you until the sun sets for this one.
But, there are a number of odd things about this story.
1.) how did Nick Berg get into Iraq not once, but twice (he was there in December too) without clearance from the US government who controls all access to Iraq?
2.) how did Nick Berg reach Baghdad? As deecups pointed out on another thread, there are no commercial flights into Iraq.
3.) why was Nick Berg 'held' by the US military for 2 weeks (according to his father Michael) and not allowed to make a phone call?
4.) Nick Berg was unemployed and had no visual means of support, but he was somehow able to make the 10,000 mile journey from West Chester, PA, to Iraq?
5.) Nick Berg's telecommunications skills served him at the 2000' GOP Convention too, where he worked for the RNC and became well known to RNC insiders.
Anyway, I'm sure it's all a coincidence, or Clinton's fault, or the usual "blah, blah, blah" from the right. But, the pieces of the puzzle don't add up.
Someone isn't telling the truth.
I'm not sure, but I think I just found a conspiracy thread! Cool!
I'm not sure if it's a conspiracy, but it sure looks peculiar and asks more questions than it answers.
3.) why was Nick Berg 'held' by the US military for 2 weeks (according to his father Michael) and not allowed to make a phone call?
This is the question I've been asking, and have not gotten an answer to. No one in the mainstream press has even questioned it that I've heard so far. His father hasn't given a reason that I've heard of either. Has anyone heard an explaination??
Sometimes I can hardly believe my eyes...
My tinfoil hat seems to be missing...
I can't get an answer from the tin foils or any one else!
The Berg beheading video resembles the one depicting the beheading of a supposed Russian sniper by a Chechen guerrilla, slit through the larynx and sawed-off with a knife.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace