American CONTRACTOR beheaded today.....+3

American CONTRACTOR beheaded today.....

Becuse he was trying to rebuild Iraq. He didn't carry a gun only tools to build with. The media has shown some abuse,not torture or killings, by the American military but nothing on this scale of beheading someone. I saw not one Iraqi being tortured in any of the medias latest showing of abuse so why was this done to an unarmed American man? I now see who is going to pay a great deal for this and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near them. The media has provoked the Iraqis to do this but the reprocussions are going to be devestating. The media uses both sides to make money from this war and everyone is playing right into their hands. The media are very sick people, very sick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No killings? Iraqis have been murdered in Abu Ghraib prison.

That said, Al Qaeda and other Iraqi terrorists had the perfect opportunity to take the high road in relation to world opinion considering the mess the US is in over treatment of Iraqi prisoners. However, they do not concern themselves with world opinion. Their goals are termination of free societies and they are fueled by outright hate.

How did the media provoke this? Should they have not reported the story?

:m: Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm afraid there's no peacefull solution in Iraq, US should pull its troops out and allow the Iraqis to settle their bussiness. The longer US stays there the more troops will be killed for NOTHING.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html

 

Is anyone really shocked? I wasn't shocked when the torture was shown by Americans, nor am I shocked now. Those "terrorists" are not bound by international law, they should but they aren't yet. It was a disgusting act no doubt about that; that a innocent man died. But I am certain that man knew the risks of being in Iraq, this should not have been foreign to him at all. The acts perpetrated by those men is inexcusable, yes the Americans did kill prisoners, and raped them, etc. But if they really want the US to pay for its actions, they should have left the US to wallow. Now that moral high ground that goofy alluded to before is not in jeopardy, but diminished surely. We must understand that more of this will happen in Iraq; the insurgents have the taste of blood and will want more. I wouldn't want to be serving in Iraq right now. As I stated before, armor doesn't protect you from the reality that is war. To win the peace, you need to win hearts and minds not battles, and the US has failed horribly in the former.

 

I'm not following the "media has provoked the Iraquis" theory. In fact, I think that the reporting that I watched tonight on broadcast TV was rather understated, considering the gravity of the situation. Barely two minutes were spent on the beheading; another 3 or 4 on the American abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

I've been surprised at how RESERVED the media has been about this, considering the nature of the prisoner abuse scandal. Now we're looking at a major challenge for the US to maintain any level or credibility - not only in Iraq, but also with the coalition. We're REALLY not hearing anything from the media on this issue. I think it's because they have no clue how to deal with it. It is so completely unprecedented that they have no baseline to draw from. Or at least that's what I prefer to believe.

I originally backed Bush during the early days of the Iraq war, primarily because I believed that the Pentagon and our intelligence community were capable and effective; even though Bush was in many ways helpless. Unfortunately this assumption turned out to be waaaay wrong. I am here to admit publicly that my judgements of a year ago were fatally flawed.

The fact that no WMD were found, even after our best intelligence sources assured up they were there, is astounding. That's absolutely unacceptable, considering that the nation went to war reliant on the accuracy of that information. So it seems that we can no longer rely on our intelligence agencies.

Now, with Abu Ghraib, it has become clear that our military operations in Iraq are also riddled with incompetence. I say this because the scope of the abuses of prisoners is so great. If the chain of command was not aware of these excesses (which seems highly doubtful), then we are screwed because they are clearly incapable of leading an operation in Iraq. If the chain of command WAS aware of these practices, and endorsed them, we are equally screwed, because anyone with a brain would realize that if this EVER went public, we would have zero credibility in the region. Therefore whoever made the decision to take such a risk is also incompetent.

And of course, with no WMD being found, and with the prisoner abuses being exposed, terrorists of all stripes will have a field day exploiting the wonderful opportunities we have presented to them; today's beheading was a completely predictable next step for them.

 

not that it lessens the brutality of the act but did the american look like a civilian to you? For some reason when I saw a picture of him it screamed military. it doesn't really make a difference in the end, I was just wondering if anyone else thought that too or if it's just me.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this guy was not a soldier nor a contractor for the US gov't. he was a private businessman.

why did they have to cut off his head? is it because his last name is Berg? (sounds Jewish)
what's wrong with spraying him with bullets... or just one bullet to the head?

no... it has to be a beheading and mutilation and they have to film it and they have to shout "allahu akbar"

raise the whole fucking resistance

Bush - when will you get this? pussyfooting will get you beheaded soldiers and civilians

 

raise the whole fucking resistance

This would eventually mushroom into a whole out war, which the US will lose and leave in disgrace. Prominent American generals have already stated that Iraq is lost. America is staying there now just to save face, Vietnam all over again. Chicken Hawks don't use logic, or history as a guide, rather they prefer the alternative, willful ignorance. The British did the same bull shit in the 20's and look where they ended up. So if you want the US to lose horribly in Iraq, endorse oth's plans.

 

The real puzzle is to figure out when Iraq is "won", because as far as I can tell, we no longer have a defined mission. That's one of the reasons why Daddy Bush didn't go into Baghdad in 1990; not only did he not have UN sanction, there was no compelling military reason to do so.

Now that we know that it is highly unlikely that WMD are going to be found in Iraq, and now that Sadaam has been deposed and captured, all we have left is a more or less undefinable political objective - completely nebulous from any military point of view.

 

as i said: raise the whole fucking resistance

US soldiers that were interviewed in Falluja last week said that they could've gone in there and finished al-Sadr off. they insurgents were surrounded and low on ammunition. it would've been a piece of cake.

but the diplomatic pussyfooting and ass sucking has prevented the soldiers from doing so.

the American gov't will soon realize that "good press" opportunities are costing too much.

 

well, there's one bright side (it's small but it's there). At least Bush is history, and will likely be remembered as a dismal falure. I doubt we'll see his face looking up from a five dollar bill anytime soon. It kind of puts clinton's controversy into perspective doesn't it.

As long as the democrats don't run around screaming, "told you so!", "told you so!" they could run a chimp or even al gore in the next election and still win.

 

US soldiers that were interviewed in Falluja last week said that they could've gone in there and finished al-Sadr off.

This is how I know you are lying; al-Sadr is in Najaf. The rest was based on this premise and thus irrelevant.

 

so it wasn't al-Sadr. big mistake.... wow
the point is that the soldiers, i.e. those on the ground close to the action, as opposed to people in Washington, knew they could take out the resistance very easily, and the leadership in Washington said "no. it wouldn't look good on arab TV"

so what did Bremer do? apoint some Saddamist general...which was subsequently fired and replaced, but it isn't the point. point is that the US does not dare impose the coalition control in there
you see, Saudi, Yemeni, Kuwaiti and Qatari couch potatos won't appreciate seeing it on their TV's

 

so it wasn't al-Sadr. big mistake.... wow


It is a rather significant mistake.

the point is that the soldiers, i.e. those on the ground close to the action, as opposed to people in Washington, knew they could take out the resistance very easily, and the leadership in Washington said "no. it wouldn't look good on arab TV"


You don't understand the concept that is Iraq today, this is not a war, like that we you are alluding to. I know the US can destroy the insurgency, but that is not realistic in the context Iraq is in now. I dare the US to go in and to destroy the insurgency, the insurgency will only grow. The USSR in Afghanistan used your line of logic, she killed 1 million Afghani's to "secure the peace" did she get it? No, simple oth, look at a history book. It's shocking I know, but it would do you a world a good. A heavy hand in Iraq = failure. Al-Sadr, and Al Q would love it if you were to destroy Fallujah, go ahead. You are only helping their cause, they hate you. The US is now fighting for the peace, but sadly is still fighting a war. The war is (by the looks of it) lost, now we just have to see how the long the US lasts?

 

How did a country that wasn't even considered First World come to be accused of having Weapons of "Mass Destruction".

I am equally confused by the term "Mass Destruction", just how much does "mass" entail?

 

Nick Berg grew up and went to high school ten minutes from where I live. His death brought the war home to me and many others in my community. He is missed very much, and he will never be forgotton. My thoughts and prayers are extended to his family.

The manner in which he was killed was dispicable, truly showing the worst of human nature. How bad is it when people are beheading others in the name of God? Absolute maddness.

 

SouthStar, Sadaam most assuredly had WMD; at least chemical weapons, which as everyone knows, were used on the Kurds. Mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide were used to kill an estimated 5,000. Very unlikely that he had any nuclear capability - they would have found manufacturing facilities by now.

WMD could be chemical, biological or nuclear. Of course a chemical weapon might kill dozens or tens of thousands, so I suppose it is a semantic game to determine whether it is a "WMD".

 

I agree with cosmic that the media is "sick". They are LOVING all this and you can almost see their fu%kn' smirks when reporting. Turn on CNN right NOW and I guarantee you they're showing pictures of US soldiers abusing Iraqis or video of an American about to be beheaded. How many times do you think they show those graphics per day? And how many times have they used the word "beheaded" 10x?, 50x?, 100x? What fu^kn' difference does it make whether they choped of his head or shot him in the gut? There is absolutely no reason to repeat showing those pictures except for sensationalizm. Those images are smashed into America's physche and significantly impact public opinion, politics and justice (...alright law). The MEDIA is in control of America. And they're are serving THEIR best interest only. Before the war, the so called "unbiased" media showed a tendancy to be for war because war is great news. Now that the war got boring, they are feeding abuse scandals (on both sides) and are encouraging conflict within the US by having commentators say over and over again how this scandal IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT IN AMERICA'S HISTORY! OMG! ... Give me a Fu%kn' break. As if any of this is new in American history. I wrote in another thread that this is the normal SHIT of war. If you're going to press the war button, don't be surprized when it happens.

 

no doubt at all, sadaam HAD them. the question thats important (the one continuously being asked) is, did he still have them when the US went in using that as the justification. It's looking increasingly unlikely but Iraq's a big place, I wonder if we'll ever know for sure. Especially since there's a good chance the US will bail out "vietnam style" pretty soon, if not under bush then whomever takes over next election.

know why they play it repeatedly? because we eat that shit up. With drugs who's more screwed up the dealer or the user? the dealer is just giving them what they want.

I don't love the media but they are a product of us, it's not the other way around.