May 13, 2004


Robert Fisk, last week:

Just look at the way US army reservist Lynndie England holds the leash of the naked, bearded Iraqi. Take a close look at the leather strap, the pain on the prisoner's face. No sadistic movie could outdo the damage of this image.

Really, Robert? Take a look at the the beheading of Nick Berg, via a currently overloaded link at LGF. Sane readers might also examine this butchery, and afterwards wonder at The Melbourne Age’s headline:

US rocked by 'execution'

Excuse me, but is there some doubt that Berg was executed? Did his head just accidentally fall off, and roll into the hands of the masked bastard who held it up before the camera? Here’s Farifax correspondent Marian Wilkinson’s intro:

The beheading of a US citizen by Islamic terrorists in retaliation for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison has rocked the Bush Administration as it battles increasing violence in Iraq triggered by graphic photographs showing prisoners being abused and a Senate inquiry into the scandal.

Berg was kidnapped on April 9, some twenty days before any Abu Ghraib photographs were revealed. For what retaliatory reason was he taken prisoner in the first place?

Berg’s subsequent execution -- imagine the mindset of a person who’d run that word in quotes -- was plainly opportunistic and intended to capitalise on media-driven Abu Ghraib hysteria. Prior to Berg’s capture, we knew that Larry T. Elliott, Jean Dover Elliott, Karen Denise Watson, and David E. McDonnall were murdered on March 16; that four US contractors were slain on March 31 and their bodies suspended from a Euphrates River bridge; and that Fabrizio Quattrocchi was executed on April 15. These crimes were in retaliation for what?

Wilkinson supplies a slightly different introduction to her piece for the Sydney Morning Herald:

The beheading of an American in Iraq in retaliation for the abuse of prisoners has rocked the Bush Administration as it emerged that the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, had approved harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay.

The SMH’s headline?

Chilling payback over abuse scandal


UPDATE. Consider, in the wake of Berg’s murder, Dan Rather’s words:

"What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy, it may be, for some, the only job they can find."

They could always read autocues. As an antidote to all of the above, view this.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 13, 2004 04:09 AM

and lets not forget Daniel Pearl, what horrific crime of western civilization was his head hacked off for?

Posted by: monkeyboy at May 13, 2004 at 04:17 AM

So much to say, so little time. Just after Saddam was found, the Chicago Trib. published the rantings of some law prof from San Diego who actually used scare quotes while discussing his "capture".
Let's see the 'execution' video played and played on the morning news shows for the next 10 days, just like I've been exposed to photos of naked men for roughly the 10 days or so that the prison story came out. Any problem? After all, if a publication as renowned as the Age uses quotation marks to describe Berg's death, then mainstream media should be assured that it's possible the event never took place. Show it and let the viewers decide.

Posted by: Michael at May 13, 2004 at 04:24 AM

Can we make something absolutely clear to everyone? The Abu Ghraib was merely an excuse for these thugs to provide a context for murder. That's it. As you point out, Tim, it's not as if these guys need to find a reason to kill someone. But it looks really good in print!

I don't feel like having any conversation anyone who unthinkingly repeats that these bastards killed an innocent person "in response to" [fill in the blank atrocity]. I am tired of their inability to get out of the moral equivalence mindframe. I guess that's why I don't read most of the major US newspapers anymore. Or watch the network news. Or CNN. Or...

Posted by: Russ at May 13, 2004 at 04:25 AM

I'm tellin' ya Tim, they aren't just anti-war, they are on the other freaking side.

I heard General Myers stating that he pleaded with Dan Rather not to publish the prison photos because it would incite more violence. He stated that the military was taking full responsibility for the abuse and would be punishing those responsible.

Dan did it anyways......They are on the other side man. I don't know how they sleep at night to tell you the truth....

Posted by: Tman at May 13, 2004 at 04:25 AM

Tim --

The word execution should be in quotation marks, because, as Charles Johnson points out, Nick Berg was not arrested, tried and convicted by any duly elected authority for any crime. He was murdered, pure and simple.

The disgusting part of that headline isn't that the Age is questioning whether Mr. Berg was in fact killed, it's that they're willing to parrot a butcher's characterization of his behaviour.

Posted by: Ken Davidson (not the Australian one) at May 13, 2004 at 04:33 AM

Tman is right. We're fighting a war within, which unfortunately is part of the War on Terror. Without this treason at home, a united resolve could prosecute this war a lot more effectively.

Posted by: jafa at May 13, 2004 at 04:39 AM

The headline in the STAR TRIBUNE in Mpls. says...

Guess what, Star Tribune, it is not is M.O.

Posted by: debbie at May 13, 2004 at 04:42 AM

The only way to punish the media is to NOT WATCH, for instance, 60 Minutes II tonight which will bring us bigger, better anti-Americanism, a video this time of GI abusers!

I could not bear to give one iota of support to those sanctimonious, destructive twits even if they would show the atrocities commited by our enemy.

Posted by: PJ at May 13, 2004 at 04:48 AM

Abu Ghraib must not be allowed to become a moral starting point, eclipsing all that came before it.Both Al Qaeda and the left are positioning themselves to do this.

Posted by: Peter at May 13, 2004 at 04:52 AM

Another flash presentation. This one on WMD.

Posted by: Mike H. at May 13, 2004 at 05:07 AM

Welcome to the world of the Israelis. Random Opportunistic Attack A, B, C (mostly ignored), followed by Random Opportunistic Attack D -- WHICH IS A DIRECT AND INESCAPABLE RESULT OF USA ACTION Z AND IS THEREFORE ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF BOOSH AND HIS AMERICAN DOGS!!! ALLAHU AKBARRRRRR!!!

And in the foreground, some idiot writing in his notepad, "cycle ... of ... violence..."

Get used to it folks!

Posted by: Teenage Diplomat at May 13, 2004 at 05:31 AM

I agree with Ken Davidson on the distinction between execution and murder.

I want the media to stop using murderers' own words to describe what they do. A free press is essential to a free society, but a free press must also be responsible. If they can't do that, then I want them to shut the hell up.

Posted by: Rebecca at May 13, 2004 at 05:42 AM

You people are myopic ingrates. This talk of retribution is childish and sickening. How can you pretend that torturing people is okay because 'they do it to'? I'd laugh, but I have this blinding anger that sort of masks my amusement.

How about you numbskulls read these articles before having a coniption about what quotes are where. If you had read past the headline, you'd notice this sentence - "On learning of the tape's existence, Mr Berg's family went into seclusion, shattered by the news that his horrific murder was being shown on the internet." Maybe they put execution in quotes because, in reality, it was a horrific fucking murder.


Posted by: Alex Lewis at May 13, 2004 at 06:12 AM


So right you are; Rather didn't run those prison photos for the sake of journalistic integrity, they were simply a cudgel to whallop George W. Bush. Consequenses, shmonsequenses.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at May 13, 2004 at 07:11 AM

Alex, your anger is misplaced. I'm sure that some people, somewhere, think torture of prisoners is proper payback for past crimes, but none of them seem to be commenting here. In fact, the only people I see claiming revenge as a justification for random violence are the bastards who kidnapped and beheaded Mr. Berg and then decided that selling it as retribution was a clever bit of PR for their cause.

I can see why a paper might put "execution" in quotes, but to then turn around and report the killers' alleged motive as fact without question or context is unprofessional and unforgivable. It'd be like "Ted Bundy Attacks, Kills Women Who Had It Coming".

Posted by: Bryan C at May 13, 2004 at 07:40 AM

Alex Lewis:

If you would read the posts, you will note that at least one person suggested the same thing about the quote marks. That's not a new revelation by any definition.

Also, anyone here who said that torture was OK has pretty much been told they are wrong. I for one have been doing that.

Finally, "retribution" and "revenge" have not been used in this post. Other posts, yeah, a few. A very few. What has been discussed is survival. That's not myopic, that's longterm. People would be foolish not to consider it.

By the way, you said "myopic ingrates"; just who the hell are we supposed to be grateful to? Dan Rather for his professional journalism? The terrorists for a new selection of photos on TV? Or to you for your self centered, condescending "By God, I am right!" attitude?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 13, 2004 at 07:47 AM

At least the Daily Telegraph in Sydney has the right headline.... "Pure Evil".

Posted by: Geoffm at May 13, 2004 at 07:57 AM

If you read about the actual life of Nick Berg, it was clear he could have any job he wanted. So trying to tie his adventure in Iraq to the economy is a slander on him.

And like Daniel Pearl needed to go to Pakistan because his bank balance was low. . . .

Posted by: Yehudit at May 13, 2004 at 08:04 AM

Why are trolls barging into threads and saying, "I guess you think torture is ok, huh, HUH?"

When did anyone say this? As far as I remember, most posters condemned the idiotic actions of some soldiers.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 13, 2004 at 08:28 AM

Quentin George,

Virtually everyone here (and at LGF for that matter) was outraged by that stupidity. But inconvenient facts like that never got in the trolls' way before; they're conveniently ignored.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at May 13, 2004 at 08:36 AM

Why are trolls barging into threads and saying, "I guess you think torture is ok, huh, HUH?"

Quentin, we are talking about trolls, right? Trolling is defined as:

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the
act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.

I have to post this by my computer as a reminder. But "Trolls is trolls", as my grandpappy might have said, "Who need no explanation for what they do."

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 13, 2004 at 08:59 AM

"Excuse me, but is there some doubt that Berg was executed?"

There sure is doubt. Execution is the carrying out of capital punishment pursuant to a court order. It takes only in a prison. It is a widely misused word. The correct word here is murder.

Posted by: walter plinge at May 13, 2004 at 09:27 AM

Idiots like Alex are really playing the diversionary game here, this beheading is a major blow to their excitement over Abu Ghraib, because it shows the differences in attitudes toward cruelty. The west reacts to the cruelty of Abu Ghraibwith utter condemnation, the middle east reacts to their own cruelty with "allah is great" or at best, with silence.
This couldn't have been any more powerfully highlighted than with the beheading, and the only argument that the likes of Alex has left is to try and change the focus back to how evil we are.

Posted by: J. at May 13, 2004 at 09:45 AM

I agree, J. The real issue are those differences between the west and middle east. This murder of Berg proves that difference. The left doesn't want that seen.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 13, 2004 at 10:03 AM

Interesting. I noticed that Lewis' email address was "". I decided to look it up. Here's his profile:

Yahoo! ID: Melkil
Real Name: Alex Lewis
Location: Folsom, CA
Age: 14
Marital Status: Single
Gender: Male
Occupation: Nil

(Bolds mine.) Under "More about me":
Hobbies: Stuff
Latest News: Stuff

And under "Favorite Quote":
""Stuff stuff stuff""

(The double quotes are in there like that.) Looking his IP ( up brought up the info that it resolves out of Riverside, California.

I leave you to form your own opinion.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 13, 2004 at 10:11 AM

I'm not very comfortable with the use of the word "execution", because it tends to imply that what happened was the lawful infliction of the death penalty under the authority of the State.

What happened to Berg was murder. Pure and simple. Unjustified, unlawful, cold blooded murder.

Posted by: David at May 13, 2004 at 10:26 AM


Posted by: Ken Summers at May 13, 2004 at 12:11 PM

On the topic of bad media: I stopped watching the TV and reading the papers long ago. The Internet is better than all of them anyway, and blogs are a good way to find the most relevant news.

If you really want to protest media coverage, hit them where it hurts -- the hip pocket. Media networks exist to make a profit, and most of this profit comes not from the audience, but the sponsors.

Discourage sponsors and you have the newsmakers by the short-and-curlies.

Posted by: EvilPundit at May 13, 2004 at 12:47 PM

Sickening, absolutely, Wilkinson and, for the galring silenc e4orf the ABC and others.What a pack of lying, scumbag, fruadulent bastards they are.

Posted by: d at May 13, 2004 at 01:42 PM

The word you are searching for is butcher,Nick Berg was butchered like a sacrificial sheep.A mans life had no more value to them than that.

Posted by: Peter UK at May 13, 2004 at 01:43 PM

SS, you are assuming that either (a) the profile is correct, or (b) that whoever signed was in fact "Alex Lewis" (i.e., he "borrowed" the identity).

I say this because, if that was a 14 year old boy, he's writing at the college level. Not impossible, but has to wonder with trolls, now don't we, hmmmmm?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 13, 2004 at 02:20 PM

Once again the actions of Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda linked groups have help put (some) silly Western sensibilities into stark contrast. None of the abused in Abu Ghraib prison were made to dress for a sacrifice and then had their heads hacked from their bodies. THIS you chattering monkeys of the commentariate is what REAL torture looks like! Was Nick Berg, taken hostage on April 9, one more victim of those Japanese fraudsters?

Posted by: Brian. at May 13, 2004 at 02:51 PM

Hey, we now can abuse all Britons, since they all come from the same country as the Yorkshire Ripper.

Hey, we now can abuse all (pick your favourite regime), since they all come from the same country as the (pick an example of a brutal killing).

Posted by: Chui at May 13, 2004 at 03:23 PM

Hey, we now can abuse all Britons, since they all come from the same country as the Yorkshire Ripper.

Who here is arguing something like that? Or is this a strawman you ahve concoted on your own?

Posted by: Quentin George at May 13, 2004 at 05:38 PM

Hey, we now can abuse all Britons, since they all come from the same country as the Yorkshire Ripper.

I thought we abused them because they won't stop whining.

Posted by: ilibcc at May 13, 2004 at 06:16 PM

Poor Silly Slut -- scared I might track your lame fake profile down? Who are you online, I wonder. Well, actually I don't care, but it would be amusing to find out who you pretend to be.

Update: I deleted "Sincerity Slips's" comment; I will continue to do so.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 13, 2004 at 08:22 PM

Daniel Pearl and Nick were ritually slaughtered in the manner advocated in the Koran for Jews.
They must be killed by striking above the neck.
The killings are simply ritualistic murder of Jews.
Not one Australian newspaper even revealed that Nick was jewisH.
When Daniel died only his killer Omar SHEIK said "we killed hime because he was a JEW.
The press largely ignored even that statement.
Not only are the Age and SMH making lobotimised excuses but they are deliberately hiding the fact that nick was Jewish.

Posted by: DAVO at May 13, 2004 at 08:38 PM

great idea -but how do you discourage the sponsors of SBS and the ABC ?

Posted by: DAVO at May 13, 2004 at 08:51 PM

I thought we abused them because they won't stop whining.

I prefer to abuse them because they are pale, weak, ineffectual, have bad food and annoying accents.

But that's just me.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 13, 2004 at 09:03 PM

Only the Australian has retain its decency in the reporting of the MURDER of Nick berg
It reported correctly the date of his kidnap and pointed out that the calim that he was killed as retaliation as being spurious.
It failed however like all the others to mention that he was Jewish. Perhaps tomorrow the Australian public will at last learn that Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg were Jews.
Both Daniel from the NY times and Nick were "liberal" Jews concerned perhaps like daniel Barenboim to stretch an arm of freindship to the muslim world. Perhaps believing that they were misunderstood by the west.
But they lost far more than an outstreched arm.
thier liberism was their demise.
More like Gush Shalom activists than GWB supporters.
Bernard Henri Levi {who killed Daniel Pearl)went on the trail to "discover" how Daniel was lured and murdered.
He too is a liberal in the vein of Daniel.
What he discovered was the horror of muslim extremism in Pakistan and his closeness to the military.

Both these Jews virtually commited suicided because of their left wing indoctrination.
may they rest in peace and may this serve as a lesson to those who would attempt to do the same in the future.

Posted by: DAVO at May 13, 2004 at 09:26 PM

Davo - Incorrect. I can't speak for Pearl, but Berg was a very pro-Bush, pro-Democracy American Jew. His father, clearly a left wing nut, but not the son.

Therefore, your entire comment is built on a falsehood and is wrong.

Posted by: hen at May 13, 2004 at 10:36 PM

its intent, however, hen, may be correct

certainly, the sentiment of 'may they rest in peace', must be respected

Posted by: ilibcc at May 13, 2004 at 10:59 PM

Simple (and genuine) question: do those who regard the beheading of Nick Berg as payback for Abu Ghraib now regard the account as paid in full? Can we move on?

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 14, 2004 at 12:28 AM

Probably not, Brian. What little I understand about the Arab world tells me that the terrorists just wanted an excuse to kill someone, so that they could score a "victory" against the infidels, and increase their prestige within their own ranks.

There's more to come, I am sorry to predict.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 14, 2004 at 12:43 AM

Thank you for the link to the wordpirate's site. Even a supporter of US policy like me needed to see that; non-supporteres need even more to see it.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at May 14, 2004 at 04:47 AM


"The al-Qaeda that killed my son didn't know what they were doing," Berg's father, Michael, told reporters camped outside his house today. "They killed their best friend. Nick was there to build Iraq, not to tear it down. He was there to help people, not to hurt anyone."

Does that sound like the words of a rabid rightwinger and GWB supporter ?
They killed their best friend
How many Jewish liberals from the NY intelligentsia would suffer the same fate if they emulated the humanity of Nick in trying to help the Iraqis .
A friend of mine's mother nursed an arab baby in algeria many years ago has his own mother could not give milk.
The arab boy and the jewish boy grew up as virtual brothers.
When the algerian war started they were 17 years old.
The arab boy went to his house to see him.
He took out a knife and gutted him. Yes his own "brother" .
The sister now lives in Paris and still mourns her long dead brother.
Thats the arm of friendship i/m talking about.

Posted by: DAVO at May 14, 2004 at 08:21 AM

Terrorists, particularly of the Middle Eastern variety, have been finding excuses to murder civilians since the late 60's. Unfortunately, for just as long, they have been finding people in the West who accept these excuses because these folks see their agenda (anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Semitism, whatever) strengthened from these acts. This is the irony of terrorism. The perpetrators won't achieve their goals but, as with the socialists in Spain, they allow opportunists to achieve theirs.

Posted by: Daniel at May 14, 2004 at 09:09 AM

[We were going to leave this comment up as an object lesson in 'tardness but instead we have changed our mind and decided that we do not pay good money to host bad crap. All other blogshit will also be scoured. People (that is, the ones who are not trolls) please refrain from further challenge to the Mentally Disabled while cleanup continues. -- The Management.]

[PS: I have saved MonteKrappo's asstastic post on my hard drive. If you want it, email me at Don't bother if you are a troll, though. I'll just delete your email unreplied, like as not. -- The Management.]

Posted by: MonteKristo at May 14, 2004 at 03:08 PM

'Degenerate Americans", MonteKristo?

If you categorise Americans as 'dengenerate' I would be very interested to hear how you describe people who think its perfectly acceptable to behead a fellow human being with a blunt knife while chanting 'God is great' (but of course, there are no 'fellow human beings' to these 7th century retards - there are only Muslims and non-Muslims). How would you describe people who think its ok to abuse and mistreat women and murder them in 'honour killings' when their behaviour is unacceptable to their male family members? Or people who think its ok to send their sons and daughters out as living bombs to kill the sons and daughters of others (only 'non-believers, of course). Or people who dance and cheer when thousands of innocent civilians are slaughtered by religious Fascists.

Are you white, MonteKristo? Then you are the enemy - all 'white people' are the same, according to the Muslim retard who detonated the Bali bombs.

How stupid and ignorant are you?

Posted by: dee at May 14, 2004 at 04:26 PM

Dear MonteKristo:

You give an excellent demonstration of the tactics of left wing moonbats screeching the same lies over and over again, in the hopes that people will agree with you just to get you to shut up.

I've seen your brethen on street corners, shouting into bullhorns, the depth of their belief demonstrated by the volume of their noise. This is no different, and no less pathetic.

In your case, you are just another stupid troll, looking for an emotional reaction. Nick Berg was murdered by barbarians. All the trolls in the world won't change that fact. You can lie, you can harrass, you can jump up and down screaming "lookit me! lookit me!" You will make no difference.

I pity you. You hate the world around you to the point that you would destroy it to prove that your cause is just.

"Militants jusque la mort!" indeed! Fighting to the death is the battle cry of the Islamofascists and their sympathizers around the world. You show yourself to be on their side.

We don't fight to the death, although we fall in battle. We fight for freedom. It's not a perfect freedom, but it's a lot better than being under a murderous villian who is now in jail thanks to the coalition forces. Say what you will, Hussein was a butcher. That you support him tells me you are a villian.

I believe that Iraq will be free to choose their own destiny, not one dictated by thugs, murderers, and religious fanatics. If you don't like it, too bad.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 14, 2004 at 04:26 PM

Further to the comments of cet epesce de cretin who obviouly like wearing a mask.
The english pics are definately Fakes shot in aldershot uk.
Personally i would like to see the editor of the Daily Mirror deported to a jail in Iraq, preferably the US one not the british.
It will be interseting to see how much air time the ABC and SBS give to these revelations.
Can't wiat to see the colunb inches in the SMH either.

can the damage be undone ?

Posted by: DAVO at May 14, 2004 at 07:23 PM

DAVO writes:
Not one Australian newspaper even revealed that Nick was jewisH.
When Daniel died only his killer Omar SHEIK said "we killed hime because he was a JEW.
The press largely ignored even that statement.
Not only are the Age and SMH making lobotimised excuses but they are deliberately hiding the fact that nick was Jewish.

WTF!? The Age's front page headline for the article about Nick Berg is titled "Slain US man 'held because of Jewish name'"! Btw, do you realise that the Editor-in-Chief of The Age from 1997 until April 2004, Michael Gawenda, was Jewish? Sheesh, the right is just as full of moonbats as the left.

"MonteKristo" - now that looks like a troll to me!

Posted by: Bleh at May 14, 2004 at 07:41 PM

DAVO again:
It will be interseting to see how much air time the ABC and SBS give to these revelations.
Can't wiat to see the colunb inches in the SMH either.

I'm watching SBS news right now and they had a 2 or 3 minute long piece, reasonably extensive I would say, about the faking of the photos (which hasn't been officially proven yet, though personally, I think they're fakes).

I think it's pretty pathetic how focussed the right is on bs about quotes marks, or other extraneous "liberal media" crap. How about discussing the issues rather than the messenger?

Posted by: Bleh at May 14, 2004 at 08:01 PM

who's the troll ?
that was written over twenty four hours ago.
No paper reported that Nick was a Jew yesterday.
The called him an american.
Today they still have not reported that he was killed in ritual Islamic style like daniel pearl.
you said
"which hasn't been officially proven yet, though personally, I think they're fakes)."
No the official british government scientists are not official?
who's the troll here.
Oh you think they're fake i'm sure that will make it official !better call blair right away.

I too saw the SBS feaure on the photos. Most of it was spent tryimg to make piers morgam look like a persecuted editor trying to speak the truth. (may he end up in Jail with his iraqi mates)

Posted by: DAVO at May 14, 2004 at 08:41 PM

and then what do SBS do they show the pictures to AL SADR and ask him for his comments !
No need to reoprt what he said
No interview with the British experts to counter the honorable al sadr's comments either
If thats not SBS idiocy then sure i'm the troll here.

Posted by: DAVO at May 14, 2004 at 08:48 PM

DAVO, I wasn't calling you a troll. Didn't you notice the hyphen and the name "MonteKristo" before it?

that was written over twenty four hours ago.
No paper reported that Nick was a Jew yesterday

I didn't realise how old your post was, but still, what's your point? They had it as a headline today. There is no liberal media conspiracy!

official british government scientists

I heard no mention of scientists. Perhaps you can you enlighten me with a link?

I too saw the SBS feaure on the photos. Most of it was spent tryimg to make piers morgam look like a persecuted editor trying to speak the truth.

Are you serious? You're either way too caught up in this whole "liberal media" theory, or you're just plain old delusional, if the above is what you got from the story.

Posted by: Bleh at May 14, 2004 at 08:54 PM

Sorry about the troll bit

Go to the throne of liberalism itself BBC website and listen to the DEFENCE minister's speech then go to the Boston globe and read their apology fro the faked rape pictures.
Photoshop is truly an amazing program.

I'm still waiting for SBS to mention how the Iraqis have qualified fOR the Olympic soccer competition and how the lives of so many Iraqis have been improved as posted by hundreds of IRAQIS on a host of websites.
I.m still waiting for SBS to show some interest in the real Iraqis who are virulent anti american jihadists and who want democracy for their country.
i'm still waiting for SBS to stop calling Al sadr murderous hired scum, militants and members of the resistance as if they were the french fightimg the Nazis.
I'm still waiting for the SBS to praise the efforts of the extraordinary Australians who put their lives on the line for us without trying to suggest that they too in east timor might be "as bad as the Americans".
There is a racism that permeates liberal coverage.
it is this
we the anglosaxons have higher moral standards so our excesses are far worse than those of the muslim militnts. It is easier to excuse them for behading an innocent than to excuses us from putting female underwear on the head of a militant and abusing him.
that is what comes through!

Posted by: DAVO at May 14, 2004 at 09:44 PM

we the anglosaxons have higher moral standards so our excesses are far worse than those of the muslim militnts. It is easier to excuse them for behading an innocent than to excuses us from putting female underwear on the head of a militant and abusing him.
that is what comes through!

I can't work out whether your taking the piss or not, davo.

Nobody is excusing the beheadders for beheadding, but they are the enemy in case you didn't notice - it's hard to get more angry with them. On the other hand, those guards are supposed to be on our side. Either the guards thought they were doing the right thing, or they are traitorous fucks. Whatever the case, they were fuggin' idiots if only because they got caught. Now I understand I'm supposed to pretend that "we came to liberate" these people we imprisoned , but getting caught abusing them does kinda undermine that fascinatingly circular line of bullshit a little doesn't it? When the price is paid in human lives, I think we've got a good fucking right to be a little pissied at those guards.

Now, when the enemy acts like the enemy, a civilised country doesn't get mad. It stays cool, applies the camo paint, hunts them down, and puts one of these through their temple. All nice and civilised.

But assuming that we don't plan to have these guards killed, then I can't see any reason not to maybe berate them a little. Why don't we put it to a fucking vote?

Posted by: Endgame at May 14, 2004 at 10:16 PM

Why can't people accept that both sides have committed wrongs? Yes, what was done to Berg was far worse, horrifc and wrong but by attempting to be blameless the west merely blocks its ears to the problem

Posted by: a at May 14, 2004 at 11:04 PM

"by attempting to be blameless the west merely blocks its ears to the problem "

a, have you been hiding under a rock for the past week??? ever since the photo's became public, the west has done anything BUT try and remain blameless!! America in particular has entered into a orgy of self flagellation, which has only been bought back into perspective by Nick Berg's beheading.

Posted by: Michael at May 15, 2004 at 12:15 AM

Yes, I know that the terrorists regard killing civilians as SOP. I'm talking about the shrieking moonbats hereabouts.

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 15, 2004 at 12:32 AM

Well I can show that "these" people regard this type of killing as standard operating procedures. In doing so I hope you vomit for trying to make this a JEW thing, instead of a war against all religions except Islam.

Hosted below are two links. The are both very graphic. Both very foul. These were Russian soldiers. "Not Jewish". For further evidence please visit and check into all the terrorism links. See how many are in countries with small Jewish populations.

If images of brutality offend you don't open.

Posted by: IXLNXS at May 15, 2004 at 03:41 AM

Well, IXLSPIXL, Berg wasn't Russian either. I'm not sure I see your point. No one here is denying that Islamofucktards are targeting anyone and everyone. If we weren't there they'd be killing each other -- as a matter of fact, they do that all the time, for all the dreamy spew about "Muslim Brotherhood." This just seems to be another instance of the media sweeping the pesky "Jew" bits of the story under the rug, why I don't know. Probably in an attempt to store up a history of Not Being In the Room when they come for the Jews. You know -- "I'd have stopped the SS from dragging Herr Morgenstern and his family off to the camps but I was in Kronstadt visiting my mother. And the dog ate my train ticket..."

I have noticed, by the way, the more people blab about some sort of "brotherhood" and other enforced family-like groupings of humanity, the more those same people tend to be into things like wholesale slaughter and tyranny. Whereas, most crusty independents who go their own way and laugh at the very idea of "a Brotherhood of Man" are the ones that can be most depended upon in a pinch, and the ones who are the most law-abiding and freedom-loving. Criminals are not, despite the myths, "individuals" alone in a brave fight against the Man; they are on the other hand the most crowd-following and sociable of creatures. Many of them commit stupid crimes just so they can get tossed in jail for three hots, a cot, and regular sex. Many trolls exist for the same reasons of social inadequacy. Thinking one's own thoughts can be frightening, as is having to confront people as if they are real human beings instead of objects (like their own stuffed toys) that they can insult at will.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 15, 2004 at 12:58 PM

yes you are fight it is not only Jews who are ritually nurdered in this "holy" fashion.
General GOrdon was killed in the same way at the fall of Khartoum.
Abu Sayeff has done it in the philippines.
The Kashmiri Islamists have done it to Hindu villager and to the Sikhs.
Also in Chechnya and in Sudan.
But now it is also happening in France and in Houston-Teaxas.
Exposing this is not merely pulling off the facade of political correctness towards Islam but to prevent another suicidal step in the wrong direction.
The media are indeed "sleeping with enemy" when they use terms like "war against terror" when this means the fight against Muslim Jihadists.

Until they recognise what we are up against , the public will continue to be misled and flagellate their own governments and bury their heads in the sand.
Only the fatally blinkered can draw moral equivalence between the beheading and murder of CIVILIANS and the abuses of hardened criminals in ABU GHRAIB.
The strict adherence to the Geneva conventions will not serve to protect the likes of Nick Berg or any other civilan hostages.
It will only serve to assist the killers and murderers inside abu ghraib.
WHilst the new jailers will now be serving "tea and biscuits" to jihadists throughout Iraq and america, they will be unable to unearth intelligence on planned bombings and the very civilians who call Bush a Nazi will get their heads blown off.

Posted by: DAVO at May 15, 2004 at 12:58 PM

And talking of the FATALLY BLINKERED here is a prime example from today's Australian
The deliberate murder of an Innocent is morally equivalent to abuse of inmates !

GREG Sheridan (Opinion, 13/5) states the abuse of prisoners by US forces in Iraq is "a long way down the line of cruelty compared with the (videotaped) murder of Nick Berg".

Well thank you Greg for showing some moral clarity.

While this sort of calculus is utterly grotesque, it shows how prurient interest in sexualised abuse by female soldiers has diverted attention from what are clearly the worst atrocities.

No we cannot have that kind of Calculus can we?
Indeed it must not even be mentioned to divert us from the female underwear and other sexual perversions.

We need to remember that one of the prison photographs shows an Iraqi packed in ice who died under interrogation – that is, tortured to death. Although this prisoner's last moments of life are not on any released videotape, I doubt whether they were "a long way down the line of cruelty" from the awful murder of Berg.

Can't comment have not seen those but even if true, have heard the chilling screams of poor Nick and would prefer packing in ice anytime.

Nor can any confident claim be made that the "collateral damage" deaths of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants under the coalition's "overwhelming force" doctrine were any less cruel or macabre than Berg's.

Yes we should have used underwear force. Sorry i meant underwheliming force.then more COALITION forces could have been killed to satisfy the marxists.

War is barbarous and begets barbarism. That's why we need much better justification for getting into one than the "weapons of mass destruction" tripe we were fed by ideologues with concealed agendas.
Harold Thornton
Upper Brookfield, Qld

War is barbarous really ? Is that why we must serve tea and biscuits ? and behave like cafe latte drinkers to show our MORAL superiority over the enemy.

Posted by: DAVO at May 15, 2004 at 01:20 PM

Criminals are not, despite the myths, "individuals" alone in a brave fight against the Man; they are on the other hand the most crowd-following and sociable of creatures

Famous experiments in America have shown how easily ORDINARY humans can turn to torture, with the minimum of threats to themselves.
Yes the crowd followers were the group most easily turned.
Did they use hardened criminals or soldiers for this study. NO NO NO.
they used ordinary people of both sexes, cafe latted drinkers, postmen, secrataries etc.
They used electrodes planted into actors behind screens. the participants were asked to give ever increasing shocks to the actors who would squirm in pain. Few refused to do so.
THis debunked the arguments that only hardened battletrained soldiers could heve commited the genocide of jews in the einzatsruppen genocides in poland and Byelorussia.
Goldhagen also showed that they were ordinary people who turned to genocide at the drop of a feather.
SUch is Human Nature.
No amount of education can wipe it from the human psyche.
The abuse by the americans should not surprise us. it is extemely mild compared with what is happening in the SUDAN and reported by the Chritian monitor at

Posted by: DAVO at May 15, 2004 at 01:47 PM

Perhaps I should have qualified my post for the English-as-a-second-language people. Criminals are indeed ordinary people for the most part. (I am excluding true psychopaths, which are rather rare, from this evaluation.) They have the same needs of ordinary people: to experience pleasure, to avoid hard work, to gather pretty or fun things, to belong to a group, to impress other humans. And yes, it is easy to turn ordinary people into criminals -- though it seems rather difficult to turn criminals into ordinary people. It would seem that things like obeying the law, living a civilized life, contributing to that civilization (even in the most minimal of ways, such as simply not being an asshead), and so on, are actually very difficult for people. Just think of how difficult it is to convince a three-year-old who has learned the power of "I don't want to" to do something that is good for him but will mean the toddler exercising a modicum of self-control, and you see most ordinary people stripped of their adult habits and efforts.

However, the individualists I was thinking of -- the people who have truly learned the rewards of civilized behavior -- are a rare breed, in America as elsewhere. Most people just follow the herd, which is why there are governments and laws instead of anarchy.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 15, 2004 at 01:55 PM

I think I'm a big tough Mister Man but I'm really a coward who enjoys insulting people from behind a fake name!

[Comment "improved" by the Management. By the way, Mr. Slips' real name appears to be "Gary Player." Anybody know this person? Just out of curiosity. He's apparently in Perth, WA, or near it.]

Posted by: Sincerity Slips at May 15, 2004 at 05:42 PM

I'm not sure if it will go through since I doubt it's a real email address; but the creep that calls himself MonteKristo left a comment here, which has been deleted. It's contents were as worthless as the previous one; I didn't even bother saving it. Anyway, here is the email I sent:

If you post another comment you will be banned from so much as seeing any of the websites under this domain. And the next email will not be to you, but to your ISP. Our website is not your toilet.
The Management,

We'll see if the 'tard gets that he'd simply not wanted.

Update: nope; as I thought, our Bwave, Bwave Wevolutionawy was using a fake email. Well, he can read it here. Or have his maman read it for him.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 16, 2004 at 05:29 AM

Good on you andrea . I think he must be an Islamofascist since he took the name of the man with thw hood.
HE who fights by the word should die by the word.
Oh did leave out an "s" somewhere ?

Posted by: DAVO at May 16, 2004 at 09:10 AM

BTW still no serious column inches in the AUS media this weekend on the art of forging photos for propaganda.
No two page spreads with headlines like
"we track the forgers down who...
have to go

Posted by: DAVO at May 16, 2004 at 09:13 AM


I can agree with your disgust at people questioning whether or not he was beheaded. Like you said, his head didn't just roll off of his body. I've lost my head before, but never like that. I really despise those who would question if this really ever happened, and so negate such a tragic event, an event that the US should avenge.


Posted by: Kiki B. at May 16, 2004 at 04:50 PM

Check out my website [urls removed -- the Management].

Posted by: David Broadus at May 16, 2004 at 09:09 PM

CHeck out Melanie's great article on the BBC.

Over the past few days, the BBC’s virulent bias over Iraq, America and Israel has gone into an utterly astounding overdrive. The scandal over the ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners has clearly destroyed the last vestiges of any attempt at fairness as hysteria has descended on our public disservice broadcaster. Item after item has mounted attack after attack on America, hyping up the distorting defeatism over Iraq and continuing to promulgate the view that Israel, the victim of the most barbaric atrocities, is instead the root of the problem in the Middle East.....

Posted by: DAVO at May 16, 2004 at 09:22 PM

Mr. Broadus: this isn't a forum to advertise your own page. If you want to advertise your site, apply to Tim's advertisement form in the sidebar. By the way, it's not free. If you have nothing substantial to contribute to this comments thread, then you run the risk of being added to the spam blacklist.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 17, 2004 at 05:33 AM

The argument that it's invalid to compare US prisoner abuses to those of Saddam Hussein's atrocities is correct only in the sense that there's no comparison.

But the comparison is valid primarily because the Ba'athists and terrorists themselves are using US abuses at Abu Ghraid as justification and excuse for their own atrocities. So the argument that it's invalid for us to point out the scale and magnitude of the difference is simply tu quoque.

Posted by: Scott at May 17, 2004 at 05:39 AM

Hey MonteKristo...YOU STUPID FUCK!

Thanks to Capitalism we have innovations like the internet and now people almost everywhere have a voice, not just the rich, but poor people too, and even the profoundly ignorant like you!
The company that provides you with internet access didn't provide it for free did they? No you cretin, they didn't; and I'm sure that computer of yours wasn't crafted by a long-haired artisan either. Capitalism made all that possible, and you're quite happy to benefit from it, too stupid to appreciate it, and too much of a hypocrite to admit it. Me thinks me smells a pimply teenager here, who, with probably no more than one year of an Arts Degree under his belt, thinks he knows everything.
If you were half as smart as you thought you were, you'd know that the removal of Saddam Hussein has actually saved more lives than it cost...YOU LITTLE SHIT!
A marxist who adopts the name of a Nobleman..what an ARSEHOLE!

Posted by: Brian. at May 17, 2004 at 11:24 PM

You know, if IXLSNSNXNSXNS's ramblings are the best the trolls can come up with now, I can sleep easy at night.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 18, 2004 at 05:34 PM