maybe a silly question?

[Guest Low Roller]

The future looks like one more retaliation after another. I hope those responsible at least feel bad about it.

If you think about it, it's basically like Israel and Palestine, but on a much bigger scale.

[Velvet]

"If you think about it, it's basically like Israel and Palestine, but on a much bigger scale."

Precisely what I was thinking. And how's that working out?

The 'mericans are awesome at retaliation. Remember the embassy bombings? Remember how Clinton got them back by bombing an aspirin factory in Iraq? Like a mini 911.

Seems the Americans think they're the only one's with the right to retaliate.

As for the argument about who did worse - the military abusers or the beheaders...Obviously both are badbadbad. But for those wondering how the two can even be compared...So far it seems like one Amercan got beheaded, but those prisoner abuse pictures seem to be merely an indication on what's going on with prisoners all over the place. The Iraqis obviously have known about it and fear it, and now I know about it and fear it. Nothing will change because of it. A police state thrives on spreading fear. It's not the actions so much as the repurcussions. Everybody is more scared now.

What a fucking world.

[secondtube]

please, Dima, check your facts, because this is really, really incorrect:

"The POWs, although their torture and humilation are awful, are still POWs. They are soldiers that were out killing or trying to kill american soldiers."

I'm not going to bit by bit explain how incorrect that statement is, but please, for your own sake, before you utter those words again, research what you are saying.

[MarcO]

Remember, the US is not at "war" with Iraq, so there can be no POW's. The end of combat operations was declared by Dubya over a year ago. [color:"purple"] US Troops are there now to bring dignity and hope back to the Iraqi people, and a true democracy denied to them by their tyrannical leader. ::

[secondtube]

and tim,

"One question for you Sheikyerbouti, would you rather be humiliated or beheaded? Me personally I would take the former rather then the latter."

You'd rather be embarrased, and humiliated, over beheaded? I know i certainly can't say the same.

If put in teh position of the INNOCENT iraq's being abused, or the INNOCENT american getting beheaded as a RESULT OF THE DUMBASS YANKEE'S, i'd take the latter.

I can't even imagine being an iraqi right now. I'd do everything in my power, whether that meant stabbing an american with a plastic butter knife, or tying bombs to my body and walking into a 'check point', to stop this stupid, pathetic, pig headed invasion.

Yes, i think the iraq's sticking up for their land and their freedom are MORE CORRECT, and MORE JUSTIFIED, than the yankee's doing whatever papa bushie tells them to do!

Steve

[secondtube]

Fishy Circumstances and Flawed Timelines Surround American's Beheading

Infowars.com

05-12-04

UPDATE 12:45PM Central: This just in -- U.S. spokesman says decapitated American was never held by U.S. forces

With several news outlets reporting that Berg's family is angry from the US government over their son's violent death and revelations that "Berg was detained by Iraqi police at a checkpoint in Mosul on March 24. He was turned over to U.S. officials and detained for 13 days" (in other words, he was detained by the US military just prior to his death) -- (AP 5/11/04) we have to question what really happened and who was really behind Berg's horrific murder.

We have received several emails from listeners questioning what really happened including this one:

me and a friend were discussing recent news events and trying to piece together the information presented to us, thought you might want to look into this further, they said in the news that nicholas berg was killed 2 weeks ago (i think), however in the video the culprits who killed him said they were "avenging iraqi prisoner abuse" but those photos weren't released until last week, so my question is how is that even a possible motive if he was killed prior to the abuse photos being released?? maybe i am misinformed but thought id ask the question to someone who would look into it

And this one:

Hey Alex, I know people like me who have learned not to trust our government tend to see a conspiracy under every rock. With that said... The picture the media is now showing of the guy the terrorist beheaded as revenge for what went on in the Iraqi prisons looks odd to me. If you look at the men dressed in black, they all seem well fed. Actually most look fat. That bothers me, because these guys are fighting a war and eating on the run. They are constantly on the move and should be either very fit and trim or scrawny and malnourished because of the same reasons. One thing they should not be is fat like couch potatoes. If you look at all of the photos of the prisoners who were naked who supposedly were just plucked of the street, most of them are thin. Just an observation Alex

And this one:

1) extremely convenient "wag the dog" timing at the height of furor

regarding U.S. torture of Iraqis

2) CNN poll question: "Is the Berg killing a reason for withholding any

remaining Iraq prisoner abuse pictures?" Bush has been reported to be

struggling with question of whether Pentagon should release additional

torture photos. Given that the alleged decapitation of Berg was allegedly

prompted by the first wave of torture photos, Bush could now cite "national

security" issues for witholding additional materials.

3) Berg's last known whereabouts was in U.S. custody.

4) Berg shown in video wearing orange jumpsuit known to be of U.S. issue

(compare with pictures at Guantanamo).

5) Berg mysteriously captured by Al-Quaeda (still wearing jumpsuit). Either

he escaped from U.S. captors or U.S. let him out -- with orange suit and

all -- to be immediately apprehended by Al-Quaeda (before he had a chance to

change).

6) Tape obviously spliced together and heavily edited. Goes from a) Berg

sitting in chair talking about family, to Berg sitting on floor with

hooded "militants" behind, to c) blurry camera movement, to d) almost

motionless Berg on floor as head cut off.

7) Audio clearly dubbed in.

"Arab" reader flips through pages of "statement" and keeps ending up on

the same page. Perhaps doesn't even known enough Arabic to recognize what

page he's on?

9) "Arabs" have lily-white hands and (other exposed) skin.

10) "Arabs" have Western-style body posture and mannerisms.

11) When Berg decapitated, there was almost no blood. If Berg were still

alive at this point, with the cut starting at front of throat, blood would

have been spraying everywhere. Berg's severed head, the floor, Berg's

clothes, and even the hand of the "Arab" who decapitated Berg had no visible

blood on it.

12) Berg's body didn't move while on the ground. Although held down, Berg

would have tried to instinctively wiggle and writhe away from captor's grip.

13) Camera angle made it impossible to see if Berg's eyes were even open.

14) Alleged "scream" from Berg sounded to be that of a woman and was clearly

dubbed in.

15) Berg goes to great trouble to identify himself, providing information

about his family. Why? To elicit greater sympathy? Or to provide a

positive ID. FBI visited Berg family in an attempt to "verify his

identity". Guy in video looks very little like Berg photos provided by

family.

I believe that Berg (or this lookalike character) was first killed (perhaps

by lethal injection, poisoning, etc.), then decapitated after dead (explains

lack of blood spraying everywhere). Berg was killed by Al-Quaeda (known to

be a CIA - Mossad joint venture). Berg video released at height of furor

over U.S. torture of Iraqis and just before Bush was to decide whether to

release additional torture videos. Now torture videos will be witheld from

public for reasons of national security. Now "patriots" everywhere will

laud the virtues of U.S. torture of "enemies". Sensitivity level of public

gets heightened in terms of what's acceptable treatment of prisoners.

Juxtaposed with decapitation, piling naked men into pyramid is nothing.

Such treatment will be considered more and more acceptable even in domestic

situations. George W. Bush sleeps well tonight while Berg family lives in

torture. Serves Berg's father right for opposing Bush and the war of

aggression against Iraq.

Jeff Rense has compiled some important information on Berg's detainment and questioning what really happened in his article, " Why Did The US Take

Custody Of Nick Berg?"

[secondtube]

one thing they are looking at is a gold ringed finger of the chopper himself, apparently islam fundmentalists dont wear gold.

[Stapes]

Second tube that's some spooky shit.

I was in Korea when Sept 11th happened and wasn't as bombarded with western Media. I watched "Wag the Dog" for the first time days before 911 happened and it was frightningly similar even down to the countrey and western song.

Schwa that list is awesome.

And FYI I didn't know what the Geneva convention's laws were so here's the short and the long of it for those who don't know. They don't really seem that hard to follow but I'm not trained to wage war.

The Rules

In very broad strokes, here are the major points mandated in the tens of thousands of words and hundreds of rules known as the Geneva Conventions, as identified by the International Red Cross:

1) Prisoners of war should be "respected and protected" without regard to gender, race, politics or creed.

2) Prisoners may not be murdered, tortured or subjected to scientific experiments.

3) War combatants are obligated to search for, collect and care for the wounded and sick after a battle, and they are required to report these activities (as well as the names of prisoners) to the Red Cross.

4) Combatants may not capture independent parties attempting to provide humanitarian aid or perform search-and-rescue missions.

5) Hospital facilities may not be used for military purposes.

6) Prisoners must be allowed to communicate with their families. They must not be subjected to "violence, insults and public curiousity."

7) POWs are only obligated to provide their captors with their name, rank, serial number and date of birth.

8) POWs must be provided with reasonable and hyginic shelter, including food, clothing and medical care. They can't be used as human shields. If they are forced to work, they must be compensated and provided with reasonable workplace conditions.

9) POWs may be tried by their captors in a fair and impartial manner, and they are entitled to competent representation.

10) At the end of a war, all POWs must be returned to their home countries.

11) The Red Cross must be permitted to visit privately with POWs, to examine the conditions of their confinement and to distribute humanitarian supplies.

12) Civilians unfortunate enough to be living in the middle of a war must be allowed to "lead normal lives."

13) Occupiers of a land must honor the safety, dignity, religious beliefs and cultural mores of the people there.

14) Civilians are entitled to all the protections accorded to POWs (above), as well as protection from collective punishment or deportation.

15) Civilians cannot be forced to do military work for an occupying force.

16) Occupying powers are obliged to support the health and safety of the population with food and medical supplies (or by allowing humanitarian shipments of the same).

17) "Indiscriminate" attacks on civilians targets are forbidden.

18) Dams, dikes, nuclear plants, places of worship, cultural landmarks and "objects indispensible to civilian survival" (such as crops or drinking water supplies) may not be specifically targeted.

19) Soldiers must be over the age of 15.

Weapons which cause inordinate environmental damage, "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" are prohibited.

20) Using a protected emblem (like the Red Cross) to hide military activity or personnel is a war crime.