Alot is being made about how the media isn't focusing enough attention on the Berg case and certainly given the amount of exposure that the prison abuse scandal is getting this is somewhat understandable. But are people actually advocating that this video be shown on television? Do you really want your kids to see this?
I agree that the prison photos also should have been kept more low-key and that certainly there are many pictures that only go further to add to the degradation of the prisoners.
The principle difference in the two events is that the Americans are the occupiers, and currently hold the bulk of the power (although they aren't yet exercising much of it) while the Iraqis are backed into a corner. Regarding the Berg case, as well, there are a significant number of eyebrow-raising issues surrounding the entire affair including why his parents are saying he was held by the US and why the US is denying this ... perhaps the media blackout in this case isn't conspiratorial on the part of the media?
Just speculating ...
I agree that the prison photos also should have been kept more low-key and that certainly there are many pictures that only go further to add to the degradation of the prisoners.
The principle difference in the two events is that the Americans are the occupiers, and currently hold the bulk of the power (although they aren't yet exercising much of it) while the Iraqis are backed into a corner. Regarding the Berg case, as well, there are a significant number of eyebrow-raising issues surrounding the entire affair including why his parents are saying he was held by the US and why the US is denying this ... perhaps the media blackout in this case isn't conspiratorial on the part of the media?
Just speculating ...
Hi honey bun,how ya doin how you been?
CBS didn't have any problem showing princess Di as she lay dying in a pool of blood.
No the Berg thing should not be shown,only to those who want to see it.I just bitch about the double standard...All the hand wringing and hysteria over over the prison abuse goes beyond the pale....These guys should be punished to the hilt,no doubt....What pisses me off is the lack of supervision.Which means lack of troops and supervisors to run an ordely detention center...which falls on the planning of this mess.....I'm still dumb enough to think that this whole thing might have worked with proper planning.
CBS didn't have any problem showing princess Di as she lay dying in a pool of blood.
No the Berg thing should not be shown,only to those who want to see it.I just bitch about the double standard...All the hand wringing and hysteria over over the prison abuse goes beyond the pale....These guys should be punished to the hilt,no doubt....What pisses me off is the lack of supervision.Which means lack of troops and supervisors to run an ordely detention center...which falls on the planning of this mess.....I'm still dumb enough to think that this whole thing might have worked with proper planning.
Indirectly? Yes.
Ask yourself this - would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)
If the answer is "probably not" (or anything else corresponding to < 50% of a chance) then one must assert that Bush is indirectly responsible (at least in part) for Berg's death (amongst the thousands of other innocent causulties).
On the same token, if you draw this same conclusion regarding the probability of Berg's decapitation but fail to assert than Bush is indirectly responsible then you are living in a fictional world without regard to logic and reason.
Ask yourself this - would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)
If the answer is "probably not" (or anything else corresponding to < 50% of a chance) then one must assert that Bush is indirectly responsible (at least in part) for Berg's death (amongst the thousands of other innocent causulties).
On the same token, if you draw this same conclusion regarding the probability of Berg's decapitation but fail to assert than Bush is indirectly responsible then you are living in a fictional world without regard to logic and reason.
A little story I must relay to you guys....I will warn you beforehand it's a little tasteless, or tacky....whatever you think of it you probably would have thought the same thing upon seeing this:
I was helping the boss out in his basement with a remodeling project....one of his young daughters was playing with some dolls and she dropped one of the male dolls, upon which the head of the doll fell off.....she was trying to snap the dolls head back on....
....with all this Berg stuff in the news of late....this is the point where you may have said the same thing.....
I looked at my boss and asked him if that was a Nick Berg doll.....he didn't get it right away....then he figured out what I meant and he said that was awful....
Sorry, guys.....but I think most if not all of you in this forum put in the same position would have thought the same thing and said something to the same effect as I had....
Sorta off topic but I had to pass this one on..
I was helping the boss out in his basement with a remodeling project....one of his young daughters was playing with some dolls and she dropped one of the male dolls, upon which the head of the doll fell off.....she was trying to snap the dolls head back on....
....with all this Berg stuff in the news of late....this is the point where you may have said the same thing.....
I looked at my boss and asked him if that was a Nick Berg doll.....he didn't get it right away....then he figured out what I meant and he said that was awful....
Sorry, guys.....but I think most if not all of you in this forum put in the same position would have thought the same thing and said something to the same effect as I had....
Sorta off topic but I had to pass this one on..
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Indirectly? Yes.
Ask yourself this - would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)
If the answer is "probably not" (or anything else corresponding to < 50% of a chance) then one must assert that Bush is indirectly responsible (at least in part) for Berg's death (amongst the thousands of other innocent causulties).
On the same token, if you draw this same conclusion regarding the probability of Berg's decapitation but fail to assert than Bush is indirectly responsible then you are living in a fictional world without regard to logic and reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll admit, I certainly don't think the invasion of Iraq helped Berg's chances of survival.
However, can anybody really prove that an American civilian who decides to travel the Middle East with no security is @ greater risk in 2004 than they would've been in 1999, 1997, etc?
I'm sure there are numerous terrorist groups who would've captured and killed Berg in 1999. He was American, he was Jewish, he had an Israeli-stamped passport. He might as well have walked around Iraq eating hot-dogs and pork rinds while singing:
Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel
I made it out of clay,
Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel,
Then dreidel I shall play!
Anyway, it isn't as though terrorists necessarily need a good reason to kill anybody. Did they have a good reason for 9/11?
Indirectly? Yes.
Ask yourself this - would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)
If the answer is "probably not" (or anything else corresponding to < 50% of a chance) then one must assert that Bush is indirectly responsible (at least in part) for Berg's death (amongst the thousands of other innocent causulties).
On the same token, if you draw this same conclusion regarding the probability of Berg's decapitation but fail to assert than Bush is indirectly responsible then you are living in a fictional world without regard to logic and reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll admit, I certainly don't think the invasion of Iraq helped Berg's chances of survival.
However, can anybody really prove that an American civilian who decides to travel the Middle East with no security is @ greater risk in 2004 than they would've been in 1999, 1997, etc?
I'm sure there are numerous terrorist groups who would've captured and killed Berg in 1999. He was American, he was Jewish, he had an Israeli-stamped passport. He might as well have walked around Iraq eating hot-dogs and pork rinds while singing:
Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel
I made it out of clay,
Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel,
Then dreidel I shall play!
Anyway, it isn't as though terrorists necessarily need a good reason to kill anybody. Did they have a good reason for 9/11?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'll admit, I certainly don't think the invasion of Iraq helped Berg's chances of survival.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You simple fux refuse to understand Berg was in Iraq because Berg made the choice to be in Iraq....Freedom of choice...his!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You simple fux refuse to understand Berg was in Iraq because Berg made the choice to be in Iraq....Freedom of choice...his!
"Would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)."
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
It's this pretty basic concept called incremental costs and benefits, that you repeatedly have a problem understanding. Most third graders would, why can't you?
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
It's this pretty basic concept called incremental costs and benefits, that you repeatedly have a problem understanding. Most third graders would, why can't you?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Igetp2s:
Lander: "Would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)."
Igetp2s: Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
It's this pretty basic concept called incremental costs and benefits, that you repeatedly have a problem understanding. Most third graders would, why can't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly the same point I put to him, but he is so consumed with himself and his lame method that he has failed to respond. Probably because he chooses to ignore a basic fact----THE SADDAM GENOCIDAL MACHINE IS OVER LANDER, thanks to U.S.
With the current, conservative estimates being between 250,000 and 500,000 killed in the 20 years of Saddam rule, then they will have a net GAIN of at least 10 to 15 thousand in the coming year. How about the next 5 years? Lets see bottom end of scale....over 50,000 projected lives saved.
Guess what? He'll find something wrong with saving lives.
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
[This message was edited by cussin'it on May 24, 2004 at 03:28 PM.]
[This message was edited by cussin'it on May 24, 2004 at 03:30 PM.]
Lander: "Would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)."
Igetp2s: Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
It's this pretty basic concept called incremental costs and benefits, that you repeatedly have a problem understanding. Most third graders would, why can't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly the same point I put to him, but he is so consumed with himself and his lame method that he has failed to respond. Probably because he chooses to ignore a basic fact----THE SADDAM GENOCIDAL MACHINE IS OVER LANDER, thanks to U.S.
With the current, conservative estimates being between 250,000 and 500,000 killed in the 20 years of Saddam rule, then they will have a net GAIN of at least 10 to 15 thousand in the coming year. How about the next 5 years? Lets see bottom end of scale....over 50,000 projected lives saved.
Guess what? He'll find something wrong with saving lives.
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
[This message was edited by cussin'it on May 24, 2004 at 03:28 PM.]
[This message was edited by cussin'it on May 24, 2004 at 03:30 PM.]
Pussin,
I squashed that fantasy of yours the other day.
You take the cake. You ramble on just like Fraiser.
Again, you seem a bit disassociated from reality. Regardless of how much you might enjoy that particular sitcom it is merely a show, not reality.
You think your intellect is superior to everyone.
No, not everyone. I'd estimate that aobut 5% of the world's population that is intellectually superior to me.
And you think Karl Marx was the 2nd coming.
I'm not a follower of Marxism, nor I do believe Karl Marx to be the son of God. Please, show me one post where I have cited or endorsed Marx and/or Marxism - otherwise, I'll have to assume that you simply fabricate information to suit your unsupported opinions and pass it off as fact. And that, my friend, is the behavior of compulsive liars, not respectable Americans.
Your reality is fiction to the majority.
I don't have a reality - it merely exists by itself.
It is fact, and facts are not subjective - they simply are. If somebody can't disguish the difference between fact and opinion then I suggest they take a few basic philosophy classes as I'm not an instructor, and have no desire to attempt to be one.
In fact your comedy really isn't that entertaining.
There's nothing comical about Donald Dumsfeld ordering and/or endorsing the torture of Iraqis when he asserts that we are "liberating" them. He has knowingly and willingly violated the rules of the Geneva Convention and as such he is a war criminal. He needs to be tried by the international community, preferably in Iraq, and convicted of these crimes against humanity.
Lets see how you respond to a fact jackass
The ad hominem attack is generally regarded as an attack that is made as a last ditch effort to "win" a debate by a debator that feels his position is inferior to his opponents. As such, he hopes that discrediting the opponent with name-calling, instead of addressing the issue at hand, will strenght his position. But, in fact, it does the opposite - it highlights desperation and inferiority but conveying the attacker as incapable of reasoning.
The Husseins have been directly responsible for the torture and extermination of between 240,000 and Half a MILLION of their own people. Never mind the nearly one MILLIONlives lost as a direct result of his war*****ring with neighbor Iran for nearly a decade.
Indeed, Saddam was an evil man - no doubt, but his capacity to create evil was magnified by the US's support. We helped Saddam kill thousands and thousands of Iranians and Iraqis alike. Bush Sr. was head of the CIA when we supplied chemical weapons to Saddam.
Do you REALLY think this war was about liberation?
So given this, why don't we just replace that ugly fukin Eiffel tower with a statue of him and his sons, because you seem to conveniently dismiss this in favor of you American bashing.
I don't live in France, perhaps you should address your concerns to the great Jacque Chirac
Pathetic fool.
See above.
I squashed that fantasy of yours the other day.
You take the cake. You ramble on just like Fraiser.
Again, you seem a bit disassociated from reality. Regardless of how much you might enjoy that particular sitcom it is merely a show, not reality.
You think your intellect is superior to everyone.
No, not everyone. I'd estimate that aobut 5% of the world's population that is intellectually superior to me.
And you think Karl Marx was the 2nd coming.
I'm not a follower of Marxism, nor I do believe Karl Marx to be the son of God. Please, show me one post where I have cited or endorsed Marx and/or Marxism - otherwise, I'll have to assume that you simply fabricate information to suit your unsupported opinions and pass it off as fact. And that, my friend, is the behavior of compulsive liars, not respectable Americans.
Your reality is fiction to the majority.
I don't have a reality - it merely exists by itself.
It is fact, and facts are not subjective - they simply are. If somebody can't disguish the difference between fact and opinion then I suggest they take a few basic philosophy classes as I'm not an instructor, and have no desire to attempt to be one.
In fact your comedy really isn't that entertaining.
There's nothing comical about Donald Dumsfeld ordering and/or endorsing the torture of Iraqis when he asserts that we are "liberating" them. He has knowingly and willingly violated the rules of the Geneva Convention and as such he is a war criminal. He needs to be tried by the international community, preferably in Iraq, and convicted of these crimes against humanity.
Lets see how you respond to a fact jackass
The ad hominem attack is generally regarded as an attack that is made as a last ditch effort to "win" a debate by a debator that feels his position is inferior to his opponents. As such, he hopes that discrediting the opponent with name-calling, instead of addressing the issue at hand, will strenght his position. But, in fact, it does the opposite - it highlights desperation and inferiority but conveying the attacker as incapable of reasoning.
The Husseins have been directly responsible for the torture and extermination of between 240,000 and Half a MILLION of their own people. Never mind the nearly one MILLIONlives lost as a direct result of his war*****ring with neighbor Iran for nearly a decade.
Indeed, Saddam was an evil man - no doubt, but his capacity to create evil was magnified by the US's support. We helped Saddam kill thousands and thousands of Iranians and Iraqis alike. Bush Sr. was head of the CIA when we supplied chemical weapons to Saddam.
Do you REALLY think this war was about liberation?
So given this, why don't we just replace that ugly fukin Eiffel tower with a statue of him and his sons, because you seem to conveniently dismiss this in favor of you American bashing.
I don't live in France, perhaps you should address your concerns to the great Jacque Chirac
Pathetic fool.
See above.
No response. What a shock. This point is so obvious that even Lander can't make up some shit and pass it off as an informed opinion.
------------------------------------------------
"Would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)."
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
It's this pretty basic concept called incremental costs and benefits, that you repeatedly have a problem understanding. Most third graders would, why can't you?
-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
"Would Berg have been decapitated had Bush not waged an illegal war against the Iraqis, carried out an unjust occupation and been the man responsible for a war that has killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians? (yes, that's 3X's 9/11's death total for a country that had no involvement with the attack)."
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
It's this pretty basic concept called incremental costs and benefits, that you repeatedly have a problem understanding. Most third graders would, why can't you?
-----------------------------------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahhhh the genocide was commited against a group of people that he wanted to get rid of from his country in order to "homogenize" the country. Sounds awfull right? What happened to all the Native Americans who lived in our country prior to 1620? Sounds awfull what he did right? Rather than attacking Lander, you need to accept the fact that if you were not living here you would feel the same way. Or, if you had an alternative source for info you would feel the same way. The argument "we saved France from the Nazi's" just does not cut it anymore. We saved them for the benefit of England and ourselves, not because we are good guys and want to see them free. We "liberated" them and then we spy on their corporations and engage in financial warfare, nice. Patriot, American, what you two need to do is put yourselves in other peoples shoes. This entitlement we all feel because we are "American" is not the right approach!
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahhhh the genocide was commited against a group of people that he wanted to get rid of from his country in order to "homogenize" the country. Sounds awfull right? What happened to all the Native Americans who lived in our country prior to 1620? Sounds awfull what he did right? Rather than attacking Lander, you need to accept the fact that if you were not living here you would feel the same way. Or, if you had an alternative source for info you would feel the same way. The argument "we saved France from the Nazi's" just does not cut it anymore. We saved them for the benefit of England and ourselves, not because we are good guys and want to see them free. We "liberated" them and then we spy on their corporations and engage in financial warfare, nice. Patriot, American, what you two need to do is put yourselves in other peoples shoes. This entitlement we all feel because we are "American" is not the right approach!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Borax...let met tell ya somthing old buddy,there was 5000+ killed by insurgents and Americans one factor that you don't ever factor in is INTENT.
Believe me I would love for the US to stay home and get their influence out of Kosovo...(but thats a left wing action so that does not count)
I would like to see my tax dollars not go to any country in foreign aid...but those countries would starve to death...Just like most juvenile delinquints they love daddys money but hate to mow the lawn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any number yet on how many Iraqi civilians have NOT been killed because Saddam is no longer in power? It's funny how I never hear you mentioning that number.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Borax...let met tell ya somthing old buddy,there was 5000+ killed by insurgents and Americans one factor that you don't ever factor in is INTENT.
Believe me I would love for the US to stay home and get their influence out of Kosovo...(but thats a left wing action so that does not count)
I would like to see my tax dollars not go to any country in foreign aid...but those countries would starve to death...Just like most juvenile delinquints they love daddys money but hate to mow the lawn.
OK Borat....anyway these freedom mooching countries will get themselves in the shit again and who will they be looking for..Mexico? Chile?...I don't think so.
I'm sick and tired of having my tax dollars paying for 2nd and 3rd world ass wipes anyway...and some of these countries that think they are so morally high and mighty would be reduced to cannabilism if it wasn't for the USA...If these assholes stepped up and did the right thing with us in Iraq things would be a lot more ahead...Insted THe foreign pigs at the UN are up to their ass inscandal over oil contracts with a crimminal dictator....so far the only one who has blood on their hands for oil is the FXCKIN UN...and that fxckin greasy pig cocksucker Kofi Anus won't allow investigations of audits....those motherfxckers should all be in handcuffs.
I'm sick and tired of having my tax dollars paying for 2nd and 3rd world ass wipes anyway...and some of these countries that think they are so morally high and mighty would be reduced to cannabilism if it wasn't for the USA...If these assholes stepped up and did the right thing with us in Iraq things would be a lot more ahead...Insted THe foreign pigs at the UN are up to their ass inscandal over oil contracts with a crimminal dictator....so far the only one who has blood on their hands for oil is the FXCKIN UN...and that fxckin greasy pig cocksucker Kofi Anus won't allow investigations of audits....those motherfxckers should all be in handcuffs.
