Al-Zarqawi Has Been Killed [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

HBox

06-07-2006, 11:07 PM

As per an alert on MSNBC.com. I'll post a link when i find one.

PapaBear

06-07-2006, 11:19 PM

I haven't found a link either, but they are currently talking about it on MSNBC, and none of the other networks.

danwrightlive

06-07-2006, 11:32 PM

aparently killed by a special ops group. going on 30 minutes, all msnbc. so rare these days to have a big story owned by one channel or website. and the anchor chick is kinda hot, which is nice.

PapaBear

06-07-2006, 11:36 PM

The other networks have it now, but MSNBC is now reporting they have one of his top aids captured alive... with some good intel on their operations network. I hope this all actually makes a difference.Where's the "fingers crossed" smiley?

narc

06-07-2006, 11:58 PM

I hope this motherfucker is burning in hell right now.

Yerdaddy

06-08-2006, 01:52 AM

Fucking finally! Now we have to kill his next three replacements this year in order to make up for how fucking weak this fucker has made us look.

reeshy

06-08-2006, 02:14 AM

RIP, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reephdweller

06-08-2006, 02:15 AM

HBOX you dissapoint me. I was SO hoping to see a thread titled "AL-ZARQAWI DEAD!!!!!"Great news though.<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" />

Reephdweller

06-08-2006, 02:31 AM

Gvac

06-08-2006, 02:42 AM

About freakin' time.Hopefully I'll live to see Bin Laden's head on a stick.

fluffernutter

06-08-2006, 03:41 AM

Hopefully I'll live to see Bin Laden's head on a stick.That and a Bengals Super Bowl Championship my friend.Great news to hear. Hopefully this will help to bring our boys home sooner.

A.J.

06-08-2006, 03:54 AM

Someone has a new boyfriend.<img height="173" src="http://www.norelevance.com/bock/images/south_park_satan.gif" width="200" border="0" />

ShelleBink

06-08-2006, 04:17 AM

Well this is the perfect birthday gift for me!   Just imagining some Marines or Special Ops... going in... all sweaty... oh yeah.... :o) Can anyone arrange for a hot sweaty guy to come capture me?

mendyweiss

06-08-2006, 04:34 AM

Can we go home now?

Dirtybird12

06-08-2006, 05:28 AM

did u see the iraqi police dancing in the streets with guns?so cute

EliSnow

06-08-2006, 05:30 AM

Here's Al-Quaida's response:<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px">"We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.”[/quote]"Joyous news." "Death of our leaders is life."  Talk about spin tactics.   And here I thought Bush was bad at admitting setbacks, defeats and failures.  He's nothing compared to these guys.

Dirtybird12

06-08-2006, 05:42 AM

Here is the cat who will probably be taking his place..<img height="375" src="http://www.newsphoto.nl/files/images/522469.preview.jpg" width="270" border="0" />Fake hand, Coke, half blind ,

Patches

06-08-2006, 06:42 AM

The following is a transcript proving why my friends and I have no business discussing current events, such as this:richie01178: you hear Al-Zarqawi was killed john: yeah.  i hope they actually confirmed it before announcing it richie01178: 500 lb bombs on your house tend to do that john: lol.  but it would also make it hard to know if those little bloody bits are actually zarqawi richie01178: Al-Qaida in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi's death and vowed to continue its "holy war," according to a statement posted on a Web site."We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme."richie01178: haha, joyous news my ass richie01178: I think it was Patton who said something like 'You don't win a war by dying for your country.  You win a war by making the other son of a bitch die for his.' richie01178: I think it would be better to catch these guys alive and anally rape them while wearing an Uncle Sam suit on Al-Jazeera.... I mean whats the worst that can happen?  They hate us more? richie01178: its not like they are holding back.. if they could do more, they would                              john: i was kinda hoping he got shot. john: ideally, they'd arrest him.  but that's too risky richie01178: i don't know... i get a kick out of complete and total overkill, in this case, 2- 500 lb bombs on a glorified hut in the desert...

Dirtybird12

06-08-2006, 07:28 AM

so who gets the 25mil?

EliSnow

06-08-2006, 07:30 AM

CircusFreak wrote: so who gets the 25mil? I'm guessing it wasn't the fighter jock who dropped the bomb.  Probably will be an informer who told them exactly where the mutt was going to be.

FUNKMAN

06-08-2006, 08:17 AM

Al-Zarqawi Has Been Killed rumor has it 'Usammi the Bull' dropped a dinar on him...good news and let's see what the future brings...

PapaBear

06-08-2006, 12:21 PM

EliSnow wrote: Here's Al-Quaida's response:<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px">"We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.”"Joyous news." "Death of our leaders is life."  Talk about spin tactics.   And here I thought Bush was bad at admitting setbacks, defeats and failures.  He's nothing compared to these guys.[/quote]If death is so cool, why doesn't Usama off suck on a gun barrel?

Gvac

06-08-2006, 01:53 PM

fluffernutter wrote:  Hopefully I'll live to see Bin Laden's head on a stick. That and a Bengals Super Bowl Championship my friend.Great news to hear. Hopefully this will help to bring our boys home sooner.  From your mouth to Allah's ears!

sr71blackbird

06-08-2006, 02:50 PM

There is a God!Did you see what the douchebag Nicholas Berg's father said?  Could you imagine your own father saying such things about the guy that killed you?      

This message was edited by sr71blackbird on 6-8-06 @ 7:09 PM

torker

06-08-2006, 03:03 PM

Paging FezPaul... sr71blackbird wrote:  What a way for your father his own son's death.

Reephdweller

06-08-2006, 03:18 PM

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war. <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-041042-9038r.htm">http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-041042-9038r.htm</a>It's this kind of thing that frustrates me. I know that this is not all democrats though it's reported as such, though those that are saying this on this basis just sound petty to me.

Reephdweller

06-08-2006, 03:42 PM

Add another name to MyDeathSpace...<a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=59741532">http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=597 41532</a><a href="http://www.mydeathspace.com/deaths.aspx">http://www.mydeathspace.com/deaths.aspx</a>

HBox

06-08-2006, 03:48 PM

Reefdweller wrote:  Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.  <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-041042-9038r.htm">http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-041042-9038r.htm</a>It's this kind of thing that frustrates me. I know that this is not all democrats though it's reported as such, though those that are saying this on this basis just sound petty to me.   They should retitle that article "One Democrat calls killing a stunt" since, you know, only one Democrat said that. But maybe I'm being a stickler for honest journalism.

FUNKMAN

06-08-2006, 03:50 PM

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stuntconsidering the shape of his house (blown to rubble) and from the pictures i've seen he looks like he just got out of a barbers chairi'm not doubting it but i don't get it?

zildjian361

06-08-2006, 04:20 PM

FUCK HIM.<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/furious.gif" border="0" />

WRESTLINGFAN

06-08-2006, 06:38 PM

Apparently one person not too thrilled about this news<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060608/pl_nm/iraq_zarqawi_berg_dc_5">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060608/pl_nm/iraq_zarqawi_berg_dc_5</a>

dereckfishboy

06-08-2006, 06:55 PM

WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Apparently one person not too thrilled about this news<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060608/pl_nm/iraq_zarqawi_berg_dc_5">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060608/pl_nm/iraq_zarqawi_berg_dc_5</a>   The man has the right to form his own opinion, but I think it's disgusting. To defend the murderer of his child for any reason, much less to make a stab at Bush. To graphically describe his child's murder the way he did and use it to bash the president in the same sentance. This political bullshit sickens me to the very core of my being. No matter how I feel about the president or the state of the country, I'm a father first. Then again, I'm not on yahoo news, so what do I know? Sick fuck. I'd rather die in obscurity than favor murderers to garner attention to my beliefs.

dereckfishboy

06-08-2006, 07:14 PM

dereckfishboy wrote:I'd rather die in obscurity    Notice how I say that like I have alternatives.

HBox

06-08-2006, 07:20 PM

It's nice to see the Ann Coulter "Personally attack the victim" school of thought is catching on. Really reaffirms my faith in humanity.

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 07:39 PM

Let's try this for the THIRD time... After reading that article, Nick Berg's father is 100x times worse than Cindy Sheehan. Where Sheehan is an attention whore, she's not trying to capitalize on her son's death to gain political power. Berg is. Another problem?  Sheehan's son was a soldier.  He was going over there to defend freedom and what he believed was right. Nick Berg, although tragic that he died, was a contractor.  He was over there purely for the financial gain, to see how much money he could make.  Although technically, that's the "american dream", he was basically a telecom mercenary.

HBox

06-08-2006, 07:57 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Let's try this for the THIRD time... After reading that article, Nick Berg's father is 100x times worse than Cindy Sheehan. Where Sheehan is an attention whore, she's not trying to capitalize on her son's death to gain political power. Berg is. Another problem? Sheehan's son was a soldier. He was going over there to defend freedom and what he believed was right. Nick Berg, although tragic that he died, was a contractor. He was over there purely for the financial gain, to see how much money he could make. Although technically, that's the "american dream", he was basically a telecom mercenary.   Well, at least you are criticizing for something more than insufficient blood lust, and you got through it without a personal attack........... almost.

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 07:58 PM

You should have seen me on FARK this afternoon in the Dixie Chicks thread.  I was en fuego!

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Nick Berg, although tragic that he died, was a contractor.  He was over there purely for the financial gain, to see how much money he could make.  Although technically, that's the "american dream", he was basically a telecom mercenary.  That's the worst and most inaccurate description of a government contractor I've ever seen.Remember, folks:  now that his guy is dead, Berg's father should feel great.  How dare he question the circumstances that got his son murdered.  That scumbag!  He just had everything fixed for him!Immense tragedy does weird things to people.  Obviously, we know who actually did the deed of killing his son.  But Berg's father feels he realizes and has spoken out often about how the piss-poor planning of this conflict all but invited in the monsters who killed his son, and provided an environment where they could thrive and do these awful things.  The man is allowed to have an opinion.  Is he right?  Maybe.  But quit acting like he's a bad person for not dancing over Al-Zarqawi's death, and addressing his son's tragic death as something beyond a oversimplified, black and white, clearcut answered issue.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 6-9-06 @ 12:07 AM

dereckfishboy

06-08-2006, 08:19 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: But quit acting like he's a bad person for not dancing over Al-Zarqawi's death, and addressing his son's tragic death as something beyond a oversimplified, black and white, clearcut answered issue. He was questioned as to how he felt about the death of his son's killer, and he brought up President Bush. No matter how you defend him, he inserted his political beliefs unneccessarily when the cameras were on him. He's capitalizing on the high profile death of his son and plastering his face on the anti-war effort. Maybe the attention helps him with the grief, I don't know that I'd react differently if I were in his position. I could have cared less how he reacted about Al-Zarqawi's death had he not brought this obnoxious for-the-war/against-the-war bullshit into it. He dropped his son out of the discussion as anything other than a metephor for Bush's tyranny.Plenty of other family members of victims have chosen different forums to discuss those opinions. The press showed up, he saw an opporunity to get his face in the papers by making incendiary remarks, and he took it. I don't care who comes to his defense, it came off as selfish and disrespectful to his son's memory to me, and we wouldn't even be having a discussion about him had he shown some tact and brought up his personal beliefs about the President at a different time and place. He's had plenty of opportunities up to this point, but the limelight wasn't on him any of those times. 

This message was edited by dereckfishboy on 6-9-06 @ 12:23 AM

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 08:21 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: Nick Berg, although tragic that he died, was a contractor. He was over there purely for the financial gain, to see how much money he could make. Although technically, that's the "american dream", he was basically a telecom mercenary. That's the worst and most inaccurate description of a government contractor I've ever seen.Remember, folks: now that his guy is dead, Berg's father should feel great. How dare he question the circumstances that got his son murdered. That scumbag! He just had everything fixed for him!Immense tragedy does weird things to people. Obviously, we know who actually did the deed of killing his son. But Berg's father feels he realizes and has spoken out often about how the piss-poor planning of this conflict all but invited in the monsters who killed his son, and provided an environment where they could thrive and do these awful things. The man is allowed to have an opinion. Is he right? Maybe. But quit acting like he's a bad person for not dancing over Al-Zarqawi's death, and addressing his son's tragic death as something beyond a oversimplified, black and white, clearcut answered issue.

 Mojo, he's running for congress. He's using his son's death to gain political power. The article made mention of the fact that he's running for office within the first four paragraphs, so it's obviously an important key to this story. Unlike Cindy Sheehan, who may have a right to say that Bush lied to her son to gain his military service, Nick Berg went over on his own free will for the big tax-free paycheck. It's a dangerous job, but notice how the article does not make ANY (edit) DETAILED mention that Nick Berg was a contractor? You'd think he was a soldier like Sheehan's case. The article has more ink on Berg's run for office than it does what Nick Berg was doing over there. BTW, Berg was advised to get the hell out of Iraq, advice which he refused.  

This message was edited by Tenbatsuzen on 6-9-06 @ 12:26 AM

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 08:47 PM

dereckfishboy wrote:  TheMojoPin wrote: But quit acting like he's a bad person for not dancing over Al-Zarqawi's death, and addressing his son's tragic death as something beyond a oversimplified, black and white, clearcut answered issue.He was questioned as to how he felt about the death of his son's killer, and he brought up President Bush.So?No matter how you defend him, he inserted his political beliefs unneccessarily when the cameras were on him.And?  I'm sick of this continuing sentiment like people in this country can only bring up "politics" at certain times, or certain people shouldn't have any thoughts on these types of matters.He's capitalizing on the high profile death of his son and plastering his face on the anti-war effort.He says his son was killed because of the circumstances created and fostered by a war he feels is wrong.  You realize there's NO stretch here at all from point A to point B, right?  It's not like he said, "my son was beheaded in Iraq and I'm gonna tell you why I hate avacados."  Why are we acting like these are distantly related points he's stretching to combine?  Maybe the attention helps him with the grief, I don't know that I'd react differently if I were in his position. I could have cared less how he reacted about Al-Zarqawi's death had he not brought this obnoxious for-the-war/against-the-war bullshit into it. He dropped his son out of the discussion as anything other than a metephor for Bush's tyranny.So he couldn't possibly legitimately think that Bush is responsible for creating the environemtn that allowed his son to be killed?  His son was killed because of the war that's going on, period.  The war IS the issue in his son's death.  Right or wrong, I'm not saying.  But quit acting like the war and the people who started it have nothing to do with his son's death in the context of his statements.Plenty of other family members of victims have chosen different forums to discuss those opinions. The press showed up, he saw an opporunity to get his face in the papers by making incendiary remarks, and he took it.So he couldn't possibly actually mean any of it?I don't care who comes to his defense, it came off as selfish and disrespectful to his son's memory to me,So Nick Berg's dad has to clear it with everyone else how he reacts to his son's death.  Gotcha.and we wouldn't even be having a discussion about him had he shown some tact and brought up his personal beliefs about the President at a different time and place.Please spell out for me the times, dates and places it would have been acceptable for him to do so.  And please explain what specifically Berg should have done and/or said that would have made his response to his son's murder a little more palatable to us all.  Somehow I get the feeling the only sentiment is "he should shut the fuck up, " period.He's had plenty of opportunities up to this point, but the limelight wasn't on him any of those times.What?  He's been an "anti-war" protestor for pretty much his entire adult life, well before his son was killed.  You're acting like this came out of the blue.  It didn't. [/quote]

East Side Dave

06-08-2006, 08:52 PM

i didn't care for him

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 08:53 PM

Mojo, Nick Berg wasn't hired by the US Government.  He was a freelance contractor looking for work, looking for a paycheck.  He tried and failed several times to get work, and he was told to get the hell out of Iraq, especially with the US government knowing that the insurgents were pissed off over the Abu Gharib thing.  The US Government even offered him assistance. Nick Berg said no.  He wound up dead. Unlike a Soldier, who faces jail time if he leaves Iraq, Berg was afforded the opportunity to get out and he did not because he was looking for cash.   While his father may be pissed off at Bush, the other side of the story is that the Government who Papa Berg is out to "get" offered his son safe passage out of Iraq more than a week before he was kidnapped, a fact that's curiously missing from this article.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 08:57 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  TheMojoPin wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: Nick Berg, although tragic that he died, was a contractor. He was over there purely for the financial gain, to see how much money he could make. Although technically, that's the "american dream", he was basically a telecom mercenary.  That's the worst and most inaccurate description of a government contractor I've ever seen.Remember, folks: now that his guy is dead, Berg's father should feel great. How dare he question the circumstances that got his son murdered. That scumbag! He just had everything fixed for him!Immense tragedy does weird things to people. Obviously, we know who actually did the deed of killing his son. But Berg's father feels he realizes and has spoken out often about how the piss-poor planning of this conflict all but invited in the monsters who killed his son, and provided an environment where they could thrive and do these awful things. The man is allowed to have an opinion. Is he right? Maybe. But quit acting like he's a bad person for not dancing over Al-Zarqawi's death, and addressing his son's tragic death as something beyond a oversimplified, black and white, clearcut answered issue.   Mojo, he's running for congress. He's using his son's death to gain political power. The article made mention of the fact that he's running for office within the first four paragraphs, so it's obviously an important key to this story.So he's not possible running for congress to better fight what he feels is a just cause?  He's ONLY doing it to gain "power?"  What the hell?  Nice pull, Kreskin.  He's an anti-war activist most of his life, and his son's death kickstarts him to push to reach a level where he can hopefully help push for what he sees to be real change...but in your mind, there's ZERO chance that that could possibly be true? Unlike Cindy Sheehan, who may have a right to say that Bush lied to her son to gain his military service, Nick Berg went over on his own free will for the big tax-free paycheck.Try and follow me here...despite Bush's best efforts otherwise, we're technically supposed to be rebuilding Iraq after we blew the fuck out of it.  Berg was there with a telecommunications company attempting to establish a communications network for the Iraqi people and to help the occupying forces.  These companies and workers are the people the government ALWAYS goes to for jobs like this.  There's nobody else. It's a dangerous job, but notice how the article does not make ANY (edit) DETAILED mention that Nick Berg was a contractor? You'd think he was a soldier like Sheehan's case.So we've gone from the issue being Berg's father being an ass, to question Nick Berg himself and his motives, to the article itself being a problem?  The article makes it clear he was a civilian taken hostage, not an armed combatant.  The article has more ink on Berg's run for office than it does what Nick Berg was doing over there.And?  The crux of the article is what is Nick Berg's father's reaction to what happened.  It then explains who the subject of the article is and what he is doing.  That's called reporting.  You're now trying to spin this into something it's not, never attempted to be, nor should ever be by the basic standards of competent journalism.BTW, Berg was advised to get the hell out of Iraq, advice which he refused.Nice.  AKA "Well, he was stupid, tough shit.  Bottom line, anyone named Berg deserves our scorn."  Spin on, good sir...it's really quite impressive.  Any other tangents we're gonna veer off onto here so we can find someone else to have

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 09:05 PM

Try and follow me here...despite Bush's best
efforts otherwise, we're technically supposed to be rebuilding Iraq
after we blew the fuck out of it.  Berg was there with a
telecommunications company attempting to establish a communications
network for the Iraqi people and to help the occupying forces.  These
companies and workers are the people the government ALWAYS goes to for
jobs like this.  There's nobody else.  I'm following you.  Only problem is, he was never hired by the government, told to go home by the government, and offered money to go home by the government. So while there may be "nobody else", in the case of Nick Berg, there's some disagreement on the government's behalf, since his services were not needed. "Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld,"
Michael Berg said. "The al-Qaida people are probably just as bad as
they are, but this administration did this." Date of quote?  May 12th.  2004.  4 days after the body was found.The adminstration that Michael Berg likes bashing so much - the adminstration whose sins Nick died for - DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO GET HIM OUT.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:06 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Mojo, Nick Berg wasn't hired by the US Government.  He was a freelance contractor looking for work, looking for a paycheck.  He tried and failed several times to get work, and he was told to get the hell out of Iraq, especially with the US government knowing that the insurgents were pissed off over the Abu Gharib thing.  The US Government even offered him assistance.Read my response below.These are the people who get hired for these sort of reconstruction projects.  This is who the government relies on to pick up after their messes in war zones.  You make it sound like he was just wandering around looking for a job...he had been promised a contract and it fell through.  Several possible job opportunities were still mentioned or offered, but were in flux due to the constantly shifting stability in the country.Nick Berg said no.  He wound up dead.You do realize how absurd this argument is, right?  To attack his dad, you're trying to slam the beheaded guy as much as possible.Unlike a Soldier, who faces jail time if he leaves Iraq, Berg was afforded the opportunity to get out and he did not because he was looking for cash.No, he was hired to help set up a telecommunications system in the country that would help the Iraqi people and the US military there.  Quit trying to make it sound like he was just some schlub trying to work at the local Starbucks.While his father may be pissed off at Bush, the other side of the story is that the Government who Papa Berg is out to "get" offered his son safe passage out of Iraq more than a week before he was kidnapped, a fact that's curiously missing from this article.Jesus Christ...this is insane.  It's downright Hannity-esque in its spin.  He's not saying, nor never has said, that the government killed his son, or that they couldn't save him, or Lord knows whatever else you're trying to voice this as.  He's saying the current administration launched a war that ultimately had no securely planned follow through, and as such fostered an unstable environment that allowed people like Zarqawi to thrive and ultimately murder his son, a contractor that the government relies on to help rebuild post-conflict areas.Spin THAT.[/quote]

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:16 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:    Try and follow me here...despite Bush's best efforts otherwise, we're technically supposed to be rebuilding Iraq after we blew the fuck out of it.  Berg was there with a telecommunications company attempting to establish a communications network for the Iraqi people and to help the occupying forces.  These companies and workers are the people the government ALWAYS goes to for jobs like this.  There's nobody else.    I'm following you.  Only problem is, he was never hired by the government, told to go home by the government, and offered money to go home by the government. So while there may be "nobody else", in the case of Nick Berg, there's some disagreement on the government's behalf, since his services were not needed.  Here it is in its specifics...Nick was there representing his company, which was essentially bidding on the government contracts to repair and expand the telecommunications system in Iraq.  These companies are given an open invitation to attempt to establish contracts in the warzone to rebuild.  Stop trying to make it sound like he snuck in and took the "government" by surprise.  They knew he and plenty of other guys just like him were going to be there...they rely on them.  You're attempting to make it sound like he was there just scrounging for work after having snuck in under the government's nose.  He was mistakenly held and detained by Iraqi security forces.  After that, it was suggested that he leave the country for the time being because of the issues with the security forces.  This would be suggested to anyone in the same situation.  Berg didn't want to go back to his company essentially telling them, "hey, I screwed up, sorry about losing the fat government contracts!"  Do I think he made the right choice?  Hell no.  But stop painting him like some money grubbing schlub that got what was coming to him because he was greedy.   "Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld," Michael Berg said. "The al-Qaida people are probably just as bad as they are, but this administration did this."   Date of quote?  May 12th.  2004.  4 days after the body was found.The adminstration that Michael Berg likes bashing so much - the adminstration whose sins Nick died for - DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO GET HIM OUT.  I have no clue what you just did here.  Am I supposed to be trumped?  What was proved?  Berg's father has been an anti-war activist most of his life and has opposed this administration from the day it took office.  Do I agree with the specific quote?  No.  I think it's a heated statement from a time of shcok and mourning.  The man has spent his life opposing the type of people he feel started and screwed up this war and got his son killed by not having been able to properly secure the country after the invasion, and this is how he vents  I think it's an over the top statement that I don't agree with, but hey, it's a grieving father, it didn't hurt anyone, people say crazy things in times of tragedy.  Bottom line, the man feels the government screwed this war up and let the terrorists that killed his sone take root there by not having a proper post-war plan in place.  He's now trying to affect change by seeking public office.  You don't have to agree with him or his opinions or his policies...I just take issue with how you and others have decided to extending it to attacking him and his son and tearing them down just beca

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 09:17 PM

Jesus Christ...this is insane. It's downright
Hannity-esque in its spin. He's not saying, nor never has said, that
the government killed his son, or that they couldn't save him, or Lord
knows whatever else you're trying to voice this as.  I can rattle off a ton of quotes where Michael Berg is claiming that Bush is responsible for the murder of his son, and holds the administration responsible. "Nick Berg died for the sins of George W. Bush..." nice. We're going back to this - ultimately, the people to blame for Nick Berg's death is Al-Qaeda, and Nick Berg was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

This message was edited by Tenbatsuzen on 6-9-06 @ 1:20 AM

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 09:19 PM

Here it is in its specifics...Nick was there
representing his company, which was essentially bidding on the
government contracts to repair and expand the telecommunications system
in Iraq.   HE WAS TOLD TO GO HOME!!!!!As soon as the hiring company says that you won't be needed, you don't stick around.  YOU LEAVE.

HBox

06-08-2006, 09:27 PM

In light of recent events, I believe two things are needed:1. Guidelines to follow if you want to receive sympathy following your deathand2. A conduct code for widows and loved ones of the recently departed.This way in the future we know which victims are fair game for vicious attacks and intense scrutiny.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:27 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  Jesus Christ...this is insane. It's downright Hannity-esque in its spin. He's not saying, nor never has said, that the government killed his son, or that they couldn't save him, or Lord knows whatever else you're trying to voice this as.   I can rattle off a ton of quotes where Michael Berg is claiming that Bush is responsible for the murder of his son, and holds the administration responsible. "Nick Berg died for the sins of George W. Bush..." nice.  We're going back to this - ultimately, the people to blame for Nick Berg's death is Al-Qaeda, and Nick Berg was in the wrong place at the wrong time.   This message was edited by Tenbatsuzen on 6-9-06 @ 1:20 AM Yes, he holds them responsible for his son being there and getting killed.  No, he's not saying THEY killed him.The 2nd part is right, but it's a strawman.  Al-Qaeda should never been allowed to get the system they set up there in the first place.  They weren't there in the first place, and they established such a strong network because there was no detailed post-war plan.  I know it's a broken record, but that's Berg's main point.  He presents it sensationally, and in my opinion, stupidly, but he's not necessarily wrong.  You and others are trying to say he's flat out wrong and should shut up.

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 09:30 PM

You want to talk Spin? In March 2004, in Iraq, the
American military and the FBI illegally detained Berg's son Nick, a civilian on
a mission of peace, for thirteen days. This detention thrust Nick into an
invigorated war, as the Iraqis were energized by the revelation that Americans had
committed atrocities in Abu Ghraib. On May 7, 2004, Nick was murdered. A video
of his assassination was posted to the murderers' website. The Berg family, in
the midst of tragedy, found itself in the international spotlight. Don't get me started.  Michael Berg is an ultra-left winger, who is using the typical left-wing shock tactics to get his point across, pushing his son's blood in a chance to get a congressional seat.The death of
every human being is a tragedy. The death of Mr. al-Zarqawi means the
continuation of the violence and revenge that took the life of my son.
This will mean an increase in violence and resistance to the occupation
of Iraq by the US military. I sincerely wish the Iraqi people and the
US soldiers who believe they are protecting us good fortune in
weathering the upcoming violence. The man took a fucking knife and CUT YOUR SON'S HEAD OFF.Yet he's blaming Bush. Come on.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:30 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:   Here it is in its specifics...Nick was there representing his company, which was essentially bidding on the government contracts to repair and expand the telecommunications system in Iraq.     HE WAS TOLD TO GO HOME!!!!!As soon as the hiring company says that you won't be needed, you don't stick around.  YOU LEAVE.  It was suggested he return home because he had been mistakenly detained by Iraqi security forces.  He was not told or ordered or anything of the sort.  It was felt that such a run in was ultimately detrimental to his attempts to establish work contracts, so the government offered to fly him back then and there.  Berg didn't want to go home having screwed up what can potentially set a company for life.  That's what these companies thrive on.  His job was to establish these contracts.  It's how the system in these circumstances work.  Did he make the wrong choice?  In hindsight, of course.  But at the time, it was a guy worried about going home having blown a huge opportunity for his company.[/quote]

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 09:33 PM

HBox wrote: In light of recent events, I believe two things are needed:1. Guidelines to follow if you want to receive sympathy following your deathand2. A conduct code for widows and loved ones of the recently departed.This way in the future we know which victims are fair game for vicious attacks and intense scrutiny.    It may seem like I'm attacking Nick Berg, and for that, I'm sorry.  To be honest, if I knew there was a big payday in Iraq for my skills, I'd probably go over there too.  I have a wedding to pay for.  El oh el. The conduct of Michael Berg is what's annoying me, and the message is being lost.  All I'm saying is, if you put yourself out there... Michael Berg is a political candidate and he's making these statements to the press.  Therefore, he is open game for vicious attacks and intense scrutiny.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:35 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: You want to talk Spin?   In March 2004, in Iraq, the American military and the FBI illegally detained Berg's son Nick, a civilian on a mission of peace, for thirteen days. This detention thrust Nick into an invigorated war, as the Iraqis were energized by the revelation that Americans had committed atrocities in Abu Ghraib. On May 7, 2004, Nick was murdered. A video of his assassination was posted to the murderers' website. The Berg family, in the midst of tragedy, found itself in the international spotlight.   Don't get me started.  Michael Berg is an ultra-left winger, who is using the typical left-wing shock tactics to get his point across, pushing his son's blood in a chance to get a congressional seat.  The death of every human being is a tragedy. The death of Mr. al-Zarqawi means the continuation of the violence and revenge that took the life of my son. This will mean an increase in violence and resistance to the occupation of Iraq by the US military. I sincerely wish the Iraqi people and the US soldiers who believe they are protecting us good fortune in weathering the upcoming violence.   The man took a fucking knife and CUT YOUR SON'S HEAD OFF.Yet he's blaming Bush. Come on.  So we're back to square one.  YOU don't like his opinion.  You can't prove he's wrong, but you don't like it or him, so you're going to attack him and eventually his son to feel better about YOUR opinion.What is specifically the "spin" in the first quote?  The "mission of peace" part?  Yeah, those fuckers...trying to rebuild and expand the communications system in Iraq!  ASSHOLES!  Oh, right, they were trying to make money!  Well, they're just evil bastards then...Christ, they're using flowery language about a guy who died horribly who didn't deserve it at all.  So fucking what?  Are they lying or hiding anything?

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:38 PM

The conduct of Michael Berg is what's annoying me, and the message is being lost.  All I'm saying is, if you put yourself out there..And there it is!  It annoys YOU!  That's all it is!  You're then taking that and making all kinds of wild accusations and declarations about Michael Berg's character, and why he's running for office, and how he should feel and think and reply to people and blah-blah-blah...there's a difference between busting someone for doing something wrong, which you seem to think you have done, and just NOT LIKING SOMEONE, which is all this actually is.

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 09:43 PM

Mojo, Michael Berg has his opinions, and I have mine. Just as you can't prove Michael Berg's opinions right or wrong, you can't do the same for me. Forgive me for not having buckets and buckets of sympathy for people like Michael Berg.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:48 PM

I'm not asking or telling you to have sympathy...I'm just sick of people deciding they know how everyone else can feel "politically."  Like there's a rule book as to what you can say and when and who you have to be say it and blaaaaaaaaah-blaaaaaaaaaah-blaaaaaaaaaaah.

narc

06-08-2006, 09:49 PM

Seriously. What kind of psychopath uses his son's murder to grind a political axe? I'm inferring the axe-grinding from the fact that he believes that George Bush is more culpable for his son's murder than the guy who BEHEADED HIS SON. That belief is so patently unreasonable as to lead me to believe that there is an axe to grind.

This message was edited by narc on 6-9-06 @ 1:52 AM

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:54 PM

*Leaps off of the tallest building possible*His son's murder has influenced him to seek public office to try and affect change in the policies he thinks lead to his son and other people like him being killed.  Y'know like how all those moms started MADD when drunk drivers killed a bunch of their kids?  Those axe-grinding BITCHES!  How dare they!  When people die needlessly and tragically and you can possibly help prevent other people from dying in a similar situation, sit down and shut the fuck up, you selfish prick!

HBox

06-08-2006, 09:55 PM

Holocaust survivors love eating bird shit. They don't deserve sympathy because they ENJOYED IT!This is fun. I'm starting to see the other side of this.Simon Wiesenthal was nothing but a meddler. Let sleeping dogs lie is what I say! He just did it for the pussy. Exploiting the holocaust for the poon, FOR SHAME!!!!!

This message was edited by HBox on 6-9-06 @ 1:55 AM

narc

06-08-2006, 09:57 PM

If that were true, then he should seek to come out of the desert like Lawrence of Arabia and wipe out the Wahabis. Don't act like this begins and ends with George Bush. Americans will keep dying until these people stop hating us, and they've been hating us for long before Bush was on the scene.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2006, 09:58 PM

Yeah, Americans were getting killed in Iraq before Bush started this war in Iraq...wait, what th-?!?  Pretty sneaky, sis!

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 6-9-06 @ 1:59 AM

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 10:01 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: *Leaps off of the tallest building possible*His son's murder has influenced him to seek public office to try and affect change in the policies he thinks lead to his son and other people like him being killed. Y'know like how all those moms started MADD when drunk drivers killed a bunch of their kids? Those axe-grinding BITCHES! How dare they! When people die needlessly and tragically and you can possibly help prevent other people from dying in a similar situation, sit down and shut the fuck up, you selfish prick!   Ooof.  Bad example.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is a non-profit organization in the <a title="United States" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States">United States</a> and other countries. In the <a title="1980s" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s">1980s</a>, MADD had success in changing public attitudes and laws regarding <a title="Drunk driving" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving">driving under the influence</a> (DUI). While MADD still regards itself as a <a title="Victims' rights" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims%27_rights">victims' rights</a>
organization, critics contend that it has shifted its original goals
from preventing drunk driving fatalities to preventing any drinking and
driving. Even more controversially, MADD has moved to take positions on
other alcohol-related issues with no clear link to drunk driving. Some,
including the group's founder, <a title="Candy Lightner" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner">Candy Lightner</a>,
refer to the current organization as being far removed from its
original goals of preventing intoxicated driving and instead, is
promoting a <a title="Neo-prohibitionist" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-prohibitionist">neo-prohibitionist</a> agenda.

narc

06-08-2006, 10:02 PM

This is not just about Iraq. You want to get to the real cause of why Nick Berg got killed? You can't limit your discussion to the invasion because there's obviously a much larger context for people like Zarqawi.

HBox

06-08-2006, 10:08 PM

Example: Some random guy has his son die in Iraq. He goes crazy from the grief, and starts raving on a streetcorner. Another guy stops to hear the ravings. Ravings #1:It's all a conspiracy!!!!! The Monsanto corporation is conspiring with the international Jello industry to create uprisings against unfavorable regimes!!!!! This is all being done to expand the international market for Jello. Blood for Jello! MY SON'S BLOOD FOR JELLO!!!!!!Guy's reaction:"Poor guy. Some burden's are too much to bear."He shakes his head and walks away.Ravings #2:[/color][/size]It's all a conspiracy!!!!! George W. Bush is conspiring with
the international Petroleum industry to create uprisings against
unfavorable regimes!!!!! This is all being done to expand the
international market for oil. Blood for Oil! MY SON'S BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!Guy's reaction:"YOU FILTHY SON OF A BITCH!!! HOW DARE YOU EXPLOITS YOUR SON'S DEATH YOU BASTARD!!!!!! YOU SCUM"He storms away and calls his favorite radio talk show, it becomes a national story, the blogosphere researches every shit the guy took and encourages harrassment, and this poor crazy guy becomes a national symbol for contempt.

Tenbatsuzen

06-08-2006, 10:13 PM

MY SON'S BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!! Guess he wasn't worth that much, considering I just paid 60 bucks at the pump to fill up.

HBox

06-08-2006, 10:14 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:   MY SON'S BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!   Guess he wasn't worth that much, considering I just paid 60 bucks at the pump to fill up.   So then this worked out like everything else bush has tried to do?

narc

06-08-2006, 10:18 PM

You're being glib, HBox. 
<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2005/gallery/tcruise/tcruise3.jpg"
 
I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not saying he has no right to be mad at George Bush or whatever else. Frankly, I understand him being mad at George Bush. If I were in his position, I probably would be too. But I'd be a hell of a lot more pissed at Zarqawi and would want him dead with every fiber in my body. All I'm saying is that makes him seem intellectually dishonest.

HBox

06-08-2006, 10:27 PM

narc wrote: You're being glib, HBox. 
<img border="0" src="http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2005/gallery/tcruise/tcruise3.jpg" /> 
I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not saying he has no right to be mad at George Bush or whatever else. Frankly, I understand him being mad at George Bush. If I were in his position, I probably would be too. But I'd be a hell of a lot more pissed at Zarqawi and would want him dead with every fiber in my body. All I'm saying is that makes him seem intellectually dishonest.  You don't understand the history of psychiatry like I do. <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" />So because he didn't react to this the way you would that makes him intellectually dishonest? I don't get that at all. Frankly, you have no idea what he went through, or even how you would react if you went through the same thing. So, IMO, you and just about everybody have no right passing judgement on him. Well, you have the right to, but really shouldn't. It's not as if guys like him or Cindy Sheehan have any kind of palatable effect on anyone. All of the protesting Sheehan has accomplsihed nothing tangible, and Berg is running on the fricking Green Party ticket. For the love of Christ, leave these people be.

narc

06-08-2006, 10:31 PM

I have no problem with him saying whatever. He just has to deal with me thinking he's dishonest, not that he would care. And I don't think he's dishonest because he doesn't think the way I do. I think he's dishonest because he's not acting the way I would expect a reasonable and rational person to react in the same situation when their child dies. That's all. It's not about me.

This message was edited by narc on 6-9-06 @ 2:37 AM

HBox

06-08-2006, 10:33 PM

narc wrote: I have no problem with him saying whatever. He just has to deal with me thinking he's dishonest, not that he would care. And I don't think he's dishonest because he doesn't think the way I do. I think he's dishonest because he's not acting the way I would expect a reasonable and rational person to react in the same situation. That's all. It's not about me.   Who can be expected to be reasonable and rational after their child dies?

narc

06-08-2006, 10:37 PM

edited

okterrificsk

06-09-2006, 12:38 AM

Thoughts and Prayers.

A.J.

06-09-2006, 03:42 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: Nick Berg, although tragic that he died, was a contractor.  He was over there purely for the financial gain, to see how much money he could make.  Although technically, that's the "american dream", he was basically a telecom mercenary.  That's the worst and most inaccurate description of a government contractor I've ever seen.  Amen.  I'm an American hero!

Dirtybird12

06-09-2006, 05:20 AM

Al-Zarqawi was still alive after (2)  5 hundred pound bombs fell on him. He was alive and tried to roll off the stretcher and died shortly after.

blakjeezis

06-09-2006, 06:01 AM

This whole argument is a great example of the decent part of Ann Coulter's thing the other day. Because of the death of his son, Michael Berg's position in the argument is pretty solid, that is as soon as someone disagrees with what he's saying he falls back onto the "My son is dead!" defense. And what are you gonna do, tell him it doesn't matter or how to feel? No, of course you can't, you come off as an asshole. The crux of the problem is that the real scumbags are the ones in power. They really don't give a shit about you or me or Michael Berg or his dead son, they only give a shit about their corrupt policies and maintaining their power. They count on the reactions of us, the people, and have no qualms about using this Berg character to further their own agendas, shielding themselves with the memories of the beheading videos. Look how quickly this degenerated. Now instead of discussing issues and perhaps getting closer to a real, viable answer, Mojo and Tenbats are arguing about whether or not Michael Berg is a douchebag and whether or not his son's presence in Iraq was at the behest of himself, his country, his company, his government ... I have no idea. And before I get tree-huggers on here yelling at me. Just because I agree, at least partially with Ann Coulter, doesn't make me right-wing fanatic. It's sad, kind of, that I have to make sure I give equal time to both sides because otherwise people assume I'm on one side or the other and, depending on their view, weigh the merits of my argument based solely upon that. This problem goes across the board. The whole Iraq war was sold to us in the same way, except instead of a dead son, they used the memory of three-thousand odd poor, dead souls in New York, DC, and a field in Pennsylvania. I think I may have a solution, or at least something different. But I have neither the time nor the energy at the moment to write it all out. It's a long one, but maybe someday when I'm feeling ambitious.

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 06:21 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  TheMojoPin wrote: *Leaps off of the tallest building possible*His son's murder has influenced him to seek public office to try and affect change in the policies he thinks lead to his son and other people like him being killed. Y'know like how all those moms started MADD when drunk drivers killed a bunch of their kids? Those axe-grinding BITCHES! How dare they! When people die needlessly and tragically and you can possibly help prevent other people from dying in a similar situation, sit down and shut the fuck up, you selfish prick!   Ooof.  Bad example.    Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is a non-profit organization in the <a title="United States" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States">United States</a> and other countries. In the <a title="1980s" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s">1980s</a>, MADD had success in changing public attitudes and laws regarding <a title="Drunk driving" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving">driving under the influence</a> (DUI). While MADD still regards itself as a <a title="Victims' rights" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims'_rights">victims' rights</a> organization, critics contend that it has shifted its original goals from preventing drunk driving fatalities to preventing any drinking and driving. Even more controversially, MADD has moved to take positions on other alcohol-related issues with no clear link to drunk driving. Some, including the group's founder, <a title="Candy Lightner" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner">Candy Lightner</a>, refer to the current organization as being far removed from its original goals of preventing intoxicated driving and instead, is promoting a <a title="Neo-prohibitionist" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-prohibitionist">neo-prohibitionist</a> agenda.  Why is it a bad example?  So because a group's focus has shifted since its inception, its existence is negated?  How is it doing anything "wrong?"  The statement above basically is saying, "since MADD doesn't ONLY focus on preventing drunk driving fatalities, they're liars and are doing something terrible."  This is actually a perfect example of what is bothering me so much right now...nothing can just be.  Everything has to be torn down, exposed, proven wrong, etc., etc..  So this asshole terrorist gets killed, great.  Someone asks the opinion of the father of one the people he executed, and he gives what most people would think is an odd response, but in the end does nothing even remotely close to being "wrong."  Yet now it's the ridiculous, over-inflated non-issue, and I have no idea why.  There's this scary sentiment of "I don't agree with this, DESTROY IT!!!" flowing through this country, and it really disturbs me.  Michael Berg responds to his son's death by running for public office with the idea of trying to get his voice heard since he feels the war that created the environment that killed his son is wrong.  Bottom line, that is what is he doing.  If people disagree with him, fine...but that doesn't make him WRONG.  Nor should make it him a target of insults and attacks.  MADD has expanded its outreach to tackle what they think are problems with drinking in this country...if you disagree with that, fine.  But please explain to me how they're doing something wrong or bad that should be stopped or needs to be exposed, etc., etc..We're supposed to have choices in this country, and choices are usually based in countless different opinions, yet everyone is trying make up these fake rules and cram everything into a narrow and vague idea of how it "sho

EliSnow

06-09-2006, 06:26 AM

blakjeezis wrote: This whole argument is a great example of the decent part of Ann Coulter's thing the other day. Because of the death of his son, Michael Berg's position in the argument is pretty solid, that is as soon as someone disagrees with what he's saying he falls back onto the "My son is dead!" defense. And what are you gonna do, tell him it doesn't matter or how to feel? No, of course you can't, you come off as an asshole. No you're not going to tell him that, but why should you have to tell him that in order to contradict his position?  And this is why Ann Coulter's wrong on every level.There is no one who says that you can disagree with someone who has had a personal loss and attack their ideas.   Yes, they lost a child, husband, etc., but that doesn't make their positions accurate or valid.  So challenge their positions and and ideas and say why they are not accurate.  If they say "I lost a child" you can say I'm sorry but that doesn't mean that your viewpoints are accurate.The only way that society or the media gets upset is when you attack the person in this situation, not their ideas.  And that's what Coulter gets upset about.  You can't attack the person or their right to their speech, which is how she and other politicos on both sides of the political spectrum like to challenge their opponents.  Not by taking on their ideas, but rather challenging them personally.  It reminds me of the American President.  The Republican opponents couldn't attack the President personally during the first election because he had lost his wife.  Yet, once the President "got a girlfriend" they were able to attack the President and his character.That's what Coulter's bitching about.  With the 9/11 widows or Sheehan, she gets painted the bad guy when she wants to attack this people's character or right to speech.   No one will stop her or paint her that way if she were just disagreeing with their viewpoints.   But she doesn't want to just attack their viewpoints, she wants to attack their character.  But isn't that what we have been complaining about elections and policitcs for years?  That the politicians are debating character and not debating the best ideas and that as a result it's more mud slinging than anything else?  So I say too bad if you can't attack someone's character.  Be intelligent and create an argument that challenges their ideas and why they are wrong.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 6-9-06 @ 10:48 AM

EliSnow

06-09-2006, 06:47 AM

This is sort of continuing on from my previous post, but I have a couple of thoughts as to why people feel the need to attack someone's character.  In some instances, it's because the attacking person can't make a valid argument attacking the ideas, so when they can't, the easiest thing to do is to attack the person directly. In other instances, it may be that people don't get or always appreciate that someone who is intelligent, sane and otherwise normal have a different opinion of something than them.   We like to think there is always one answer to everything and that the answer we believe has to be the right one.  And so, some times, when someone comes along with a different "answer" or viewpoint than the one we really believe, we have to think that the person is crazy, stupid, etc.  Because if they are not that way, it calls into question our own beliefs, which is hard for anyone, including myself, to do.  I've done this myself so I'm not just pointing fingers at other people.  And often times maybe the person is stupid.  When you argue with "God hates fags" Shirley, because she is a religious zealot, you can attack her ideas, but you're not going to get anything from her that you may be right.  So we call her nutso, crazy, etc. Shit, I do it too (and I will probably do it in the future).   And she probably is all those things.However, in many instances, two equally intelligent sane people may have different answers to life's problems and different ways to deal with life.  Neither may be crazy or maladjusted.  It just means that the people are two different people with two different set of life experiences that have shaped how they view life.  Now Nicholas Berg's father.  I would not have handled this situation the way he did, but that's because I am who I am.  I don't know for certain if he's a self-serving douchebag or someone who is acting out of grief at the loss of his son and trying to achieve some right out of the situation.  I don't know because I don't know him personally.  But I can see how he could be either.  Given his situation, and how his life experiences formed him, this could be the sane way for him to deal with his grief.  I don't know.All I can hope to do (and I may not always do things this way), is to say where I disagree with his viewpoints.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 6-9-06 @ 10:48 AM

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 06:56 AM

He says George Bush personally ok'ed the torture and death of people in Abu Ghraib, he also says Zarqawi didn't kill his son saying things about the lying FBI and he doesn't believe everything he sees on tv. He says Zarqawi had a niche to defend his country from American Invaders. I personally don't see how driving car bombs into cafes and cutting off policeman's heads and putting them into fruit boxes is defending your country from foreign invaders, but hey, that's just one dumby's opinion.

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 07:01 AM

Links, please.

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 07:03 AM

<a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/09/fox_news_interview_2_michael_berg_speaks_his_truth _two_minutes_is_all_fox_hosts_can_take.php">http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/09/fox_news_interview_2_michael_berg_speaks_his_truth _two_minutes_is_all_fox_hosts_can_take.php</a>

EliSnow

06-09-2006, 07:20 AM

Ndugu wrote: He says George Bush personally ok'ed the torture and death of people in Abu Ghraib, he also says Zarqawi didn't kill his son saying things about the lying FBI and he doesn't believe everything he sees on tv. He says Zarqawi had a niche to defend his country from American Invaders. I personally don't see how driving car bombs into cafes and cutting off policeman's heads and putting them into fruit boxes is defending your country from foreign invaders, but hey, that's just one dumby's opinion. I can see how it's one way to defend one's country, if Iraq was Zarqawi's country.  I'm not saying it is a method I would employ or condone, but it is a method.  When you have a "resistance" force that is militarily inferior to the "occupying" force, the one way to fight back is through guerilla warfare.  You plant bombs where you can, you disrupt services etc.  Anything to disrupt the operations of the occupying force and to damage them and make them decide to leave.This type of warfare has been conducted by many types of forces throughout the last bunch of decades, including by allies (the French and other allied peoples against the occupying Nazis) and enemies.  Shit, in the movie Red Dawn, that's what the whole movie is about.  The only question is how far do you go with it.  Do you attack just the occupying force and their military operations?  Do you attack your countrymen supporting the military forces?  Or do you attack everyone outside of your groups even neutrals such as reporters, women and children.  Al-Quaida and Zarqawi did the latter, and that's where I have problem with it.  But I do understand that they believe that they are defending Iraq against us.  Doesn't mean I agree with them or think they are right for doing so.

This message was edited by EliSnow on 6-9-06 @ 11:22 AM

Tenbatsuzen

06-09-2006, 07:38 AM

I had to think a lot this morning to effectively come up with this point, without trying to blame the victim. I don't like Michael Berg because I think he's disingenuous.  He's pointing the finger at all the wrong people in an attempt to make himself feel better.

EliSnow

06-09-2006, 07:49 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: I had to think a lot this morning to effectively come up with this point, without trying to blame the victim. I don't like Michael Berg because I think he's disingenuous.  He's pointing the finger at all the wrong people in an attempt to make himself feel better.He could be, and he may not be.  I don't know.  Edit:  He could be doing the latter without being disengenuous.  People grieving do all types of things to make themselves feel better afte a loss.  However, just because they are doing it because of grief doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. And thinking of my earlier post, I want to state this.  I'm not saying that someone should not be able to state their dislike of someone based upon their opinion.  That's political correctness at its worst. I guess what I'm saying is that with regard to all statements, you have to be honest about what you are doing if someone calls you on it.  If you're attacking or challenging the person or his character, be upfront and recognize it.  And if you're doing that, be ready for people to challenge your character for it as well. Everyone has a right to say what they want, but having that right doesn't strip others of the right to criticize you or your ideas. 

This message was edited by EliSnow on 6-9-06 @ 11:52 AM

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 07:53 AM

Ndugu wrote: <a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/09/fox_news_interview_2_michael_berg_speaks_his_truth _two_minutes_is_all_fox_hosts_can_take.php">http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/09/fox_news_interview_2_michael_berg_speaks_his_truth _two_minutes_is_all_fox_hosts_can_take.php</a> That's...a bizarre link to choose to try and back up your points. He says George Bush personally ok'ed the torture and death of people in Abu Ghraib,  He doesn't say anything even remotely close to that in the link you provided, and even so, it's a blatant strawman attempt.  You're presenting this statement as if it somehow casts Berg in a negative light.  The Abu Ghraib issue is far from resolved, and it's very ambiguous as to how far up the knowledge of what was going on there went before it was exposed.  Personally, I don't think Bush was ordering what went on, but I have little doubt top people in his cabinet and administration knew exactly what was going down, and quite possibly DID order it. he also says Zarqawi didn't kill his son  No, he did not.  He refers to him as "the man accused of killing my son," which is what he is.  Analysis indicates that the man PROBABLY is Zarqawi.  There is no concrete proof.  I think it likely was Zarqawi, but based upon the standards of inevstigation and prosecution we have established in our country since its inception, we do not know for sure. saying things about the lying FBI  He does indeed say things along these lines.  The man does not trust the information provided by the FBI in these matters.  Berg has potentially legit reasons to distrust the FBI, or at least from the standpoint of the horrible thing that happened to his son.  While Nick Berg was detained in Iraq supposedly by Iraqi security forces, it has been claimed he was actually turned over to coalition forces and held without counsel for almost 2 weeks.  During that time, the FBI visted the Berg family to confirm Nick's identity, but even after verifying who he was, he was still not released for another week.  It wasn't until his parents filed suit saying he had been held illegally that he was finally released.  It's a very vague and confusing sequence of events, but it's not difficult to see why Michael Berg would not trust the FBI.  Is he right?  I don't know.  I don't think so, but it's not the kind of paranoid, damaging statement you'd clearly like to see it as.  It's a grieving father angry at what's happened.  Nick was supposed to leave Iraq on March 30th, but ended up stuck there for another week because he was possibly illegally detained by coalition forces.  If this is true, it's not unusual to see why he refused the government's offer to fly him home at that time.  The reasons are murky at best since he was kidnapped 3-4 days after his release.  It seems likely he might have been pissed off at having lost the contract promised to him and the unecessary detaining by the security/coalition forces and didn't feel like them trying to shuttle him out so they could sweep it under the rug.  I have no idea if that's actually true, but it's not a leap in logic by any stretch of the imagination, and it's easy to see why these circumstances would make Michael Berg even more angry and distrustful of his government.  It doesn't prove him right by, but it's not like he's just plucking crazy theories out of the blue.  Weird shit went down just before his son was kidnapped. and he doesn't believe everything he sees on tv.  This is a bad thing? [quote]He says Zarqawi had a niche to defend his country from American Invaders. I personally don't see

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 07:54 AM

why?

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 08:20 AM

Ndugu wrote: why? Because the site you linked to is presenting Berg's appearance as something that puts Bush and co. on blast...it's spinning it positively, which is the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 08:23 AM

my initional post was a reaction to what i read at that link, which is the link that comes up first when you put michael berg in google news

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 08:27 AM

Well, as a tip, it might help to read the entire page in the future.But seriously, why is Michael Berg becoming the big story out of all this?

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 08:28 AM

im sorry i had my attention on the factual transcript of his interview and not the idiotic opinion surrounding it

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 08:38 AM

So much so you completely made up things about it?

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 08:39 AM

please point out what i made up

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 08:44 AM

I did, 8 posts up.  The very first thing you accuse him of saying is nowhere in the transcript you provided.

EliSnow

06-09-2006, 08:44 AM

Ndugu wrote: please point out what i made up See Mojo's post from approx. 11:35 am today.

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 08:56 AM

i did see that post, then he edited it

TheMojoPin

06-09-2006, 09:08 AM

So the running theme is you can't/won't read things?My most recent edit was to correct two spelling errors.  Everything else been there all along.Jesus Christ, this whole thing is ludicrous on too many levels.  Why is this guy a big deal again?

EliSnow

06-09-2006, 09:08 AM

Ndugu wrote: i did see that post, then he edited it True, but he did edit before his other post saying that you made things up.

Ndugu

06-09-2006, 09:17 AM

Patches

06-09-2006, 10:05 AM

Sooooooooo....Mission Accomplished?Again?They're coming home?