May 29, 2004

PRIVATE DICK

You’ve probably come across various Nicholas Berg conspiracy theories online -- arguing, say, that the white plastic chair Berg was seated on is identical to chairs at Abu Ghraib prison (or, to give the place its full name, notorious Abu Ghraib prison) -- which proves, I don’t know, that the whole war was driven by greedy US chair cartels. Owned by Dick Cheney.

So who does the Sydney Morning Herald choose to investigate these theories? None other than Richard Neville, who, we’ve learned, isn’t exactly your go-to guy for online detective work. Neville’s history of getting things wrong is apparently a qualification at the Herald. His revelatory probe begins:

Iraq in flames, Washington an object of disgust. What to do? At this pivotal moment, CNN and Fox News are tipped off to a clip of an American citizen being beheaded. The victim is a 26-year-old idealist from Pennsylvania, Nick Berg. Despite the perpetrators being masked, the vile deed is deemed the work of al-Qaeda.

The clip was first "discovered" on an Islamic website in Malaysia. Its Arabic title reads "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American". al-Zarqawi is a 38-year-old Jordanian militant who fled to Iraq in 2001 after reportedly losing a leg in a US missile strike. al-Zarqawi's face is widely known and he credits himself with the deed, so why a mask?

The timing of the video was brilliant for the West. Media pundits judged the crime a deeper evil than the systemic torture of innocent Iraqis. But some people sensed a rat. But if it was not al-Qaeda, who? Surely not Uncle Sam. That's too dark, even for the CIA.

”The timing of the video was brilliant for the West.” Yes, Richard -- all of us were delighted. Neville then runs through the facts, as he almost understands them, of Berg’s time in Iraq (readers will no doubt locate many errors) before ending with this expert opinion on Berg’s murder:

According to a blogger (internet diarist), Nick Possum, "this footage was subsequently modified frame by frame to make Berg's body move very occasionally". Apparently, this can be achieved with "commonly available software".

Possum believes "the available evidence surrounding the case suggests that it was a 'black operation' by US psychological warfare specialists ... to provide the media with a moral relativity argument to counter the adverse publicity over torture at Abu Ghraib". The use of FBI footage in the opening sequence, if confirmed, suggests the involvement of high-level US Government operatives.

I do not know who killed Nick Berg, or how he died. But there's something fishy about this video.

In the end, the question is: who killed Nick Berg, and why?

Well, it surely can’t be those nice al Qaeda boys. They’d never do anything so unpleasant.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 29, 2004 11:36 AM
Comments

Neville's column is easily amongst the most laughably loony things I've ever read.

Next week: Richard Neville demonstrates that Bush and Cheney travelled back in time to create ancient Egyptian culture so as to downplay the fact that the pyramids were built by earth-friendly aliens.

Posted by: Marty at May 29, 2004 at 11:50 AM

It disgusts me that these idiots would dishonour the memory of this guy just to sprout their crackpot schemes.

Posted by: Yasonas at May 29, 2004 at 11:53 AM

You know the pathetic thing about creeps like Neville is they would be the first ones to shit their pants if they were captured by Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Roger L. Simon at May 29, 2004 at 11:57 AM

What. A. Fucking. Loser.

The fact that this guy would write such baseless, ugly it's-not-Al-Qeada-cuz-only-Americans-are-evil-enough bullshit should be sufficient cause to shun him from society for the rest of his useless life.

Posted by: Russell at May 29, 2004 at 11:57 AM

No link available, but prior to the war last year peacenik Neville offered the view on Sydney radio that Iraq -- meaning, of course, Saddam Hussein -- had an historic claim to Kuwait, and that we just might have been a little hasty in opposing that invasion.

He's a mainstream media personality here, by the way, despite his extreme views. And despite the ugliest, most pox-ridden wreck of a website you've seen since HT met ML.

Posted by: tim at May 29, 2004 at 12:07 PM

Can you prove the CIA didn't do it, Tim?

OK, then. That's what I thought. QED. In fact, the more you argue against it, the more it is obvious that you are working for Them.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at May 29, 2004 at 12:23 PM

www.vigilant.tv and http://www.intelwire.com/2004_05_20_exclusives.html do a pretty good job debunking most of the claims (chair, prison jumpsuit, video editing, missing blood, killed by the CIA).

Richard Neville = Male Margo. All blather, all the time. Somebody tell Tex, he's bound to go apeshit (in a good way).

Posted by: Chrismas Ape at May 29, 2004 at 12:31 PM

Can you prove the CIA didn't do it, Tim?

Putting aside the fallacy of logic (proving the negative), can you prove that al-Qaeda, Jaques Chirac or Richard Simmons, diet guru didn't do it as well?


cheshirecat

Posted by: cheshirecat at May 29, 2004 at 12:55 PM

Richard Neville may be on to something. If Berg died in US custody, staging such a beheading would serve to cover up the death and to divert attention from prisoner abuse by US MP's. It would also explain some of the strange character of the video.

What's one life for people who believe the survival of the nation is at stake? Nothing. Less than nothing.

Posted by: Ron - NJ at May 29, 2004 at 12:57 PM

OK, then. That's what I thought. QED. In fact, the more you argue against it, the more it is obvious that you are working for Them.

Improper use of quod est demonstratum...you didn't demonstrate anything other than your ignorance of basic logical skills.

Play again?

cheshirecat

Posted by: cheshirecat at May 29, 2004 at 12:59 PM

cheshirecat,

Please check to make sure your sarcasm detector is plugged in and functioning properly. If the problem still persists, please contact our award-winning customer service hotline.

Thank you for your patronage,
SiH

Posted by: Steve in Houston at May 29, 2004 at 01:12 PM

Guys. Steve is obviously joking. Send in your trollometers for adjustment immediately.

Speaking of "notorious abu ghraib prison," I wonder just *when* it became notorious? When Saddam Hussein was using it to joint his enemies, or sometime after Lynndie English decided to champ down on a Lucky Strike and start pointing at penii?

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 29, 2004 at 01:13 PM

I didn't know Halliburton made chairs...

Posted by: Oktober at May 29, 2004 at 01:15 PM

Hah! Don't you know, plastic is a by-product of petroleum. The CIA had Berg offed because he was about to expose the link between the Chair Cartels and the Oiiilllll companies!!!

It's true. The Voices wouldn't lie to me.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 29, 2004 at 01:16 PM

"If Berg died in US custody, staging such a beheading would serve to cover up the death and to divert attention from prisoner abuse by US MP's."

Funny, isn't it, diverting attention from abuse which was brought to light by one of those same MP's, which were admitted six months ago by the very same force which is investigating, leveling charges against soldiers thought to be responsible, and providing evidence of same for public examination.

I'll stack the UCMJ and the Judge Advocate Corps, up against the Koran and the mullahs, any time you want, you boring little man.

Posted by: Mike James at May 29, 2004 at 01:20 PM

OH SHIT! I just looked under my chair and sure enough, a big Halliburton sticker. Its the Halliburton 3000 zx series office chair. Its a pretty nice chair. hang on, theres more here..."made in Abu Ghraib by starving naked Iraqi children muhuhahahaha" hmmmm... my bottom feels weird now that i know that oppressed children from the third world made this. i kind of feel...guilty. misled. LIED TO! THEY LIED TO US! BASTARDS!

Posted by: Oktober at May 29, 2004 at 01:27 PM

The most disgusting aspect of all this is not the paranoid, pitiful rantings of an aging hippie whose brain cells and relevance have been steadily diminishing since the 1960s.

The most disgusting aspect is surely that SMH is publishing this shit. It was once the thinking person's Sydney metro paper. It's the only metro non-tabloid. Poor Sydney-siders. SMH's bref was never to be a leftist rag. It was meant to be something for people who aren't into page 3 girls.

Think about it - Sydney's our biggest city and nary a decent metro daily.

For Melbornians, The Age does have an unappealing leftist patina, but it's still a legit publication, news-wise. After what's been going on at the SMH recently and with this latest Neville outrage, you can no longer say anything of the sort about SMH

Posted by: farmer blue at May 29, 2004 at 01:31 PM

The White Plastic Chair Conspiracy crops up again!
http://www.memefirst.com/000205.html

Note the picture of the WHITE PLASTIC CHAIR at the site of Saddam's capture! This PROVES that Saddam's capture was all a fake!

See also
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/8617720.htm?1c

Which PROVES that Iraq doesn't really exist and that it was all a CIA put-up!


Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at May 29, 2004 at 01:44 PM

farmer blue is quite correct here...there will always be crackpot loonies around like Neville whats harder to explain is why the SMH publishes his work. I guess the reality is the more sane newspaper readers of Sydney have long fled to the AFR and Australian leaving the SMH with a lefty readership

Posted by: mike.a at May 29, 2004 at 01:44 PM

I have a conspiracy theory that this was a bad publicity stunt by the band TISM to draw attention to their forthcoming national tour. How come the SMH won't interview me? Pissed off.

Posted by: Caz at May 29, 2004 at 01:47 PM

"deeper evil than the systemic torture of innocent Iraqis"

1. not sytemic
2. not innocent

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at May 29, 2004 at 01:57 PM

I've been rereading the Scoop by Evelyn Waugh. It is strangly comforting to see that nothing has changed in the art of journalism in last 65 years.

"Something fishy about this video?" up to the point, Lord Copper, up to the point.

Posted by: Katherine at May 29, 2004 at 02:00 PM

Hmm. He refers to "systemic torture". Systemic means (by the Oxford English Dictionary):

"Belonging to, supplying, or affecting the system or body as a whole; orig. and esp. in reference to the general circulation as distinguished from that supplying the respiratory organs."

I believe the word he was looking for was "systematic", which means:

"Arranged or conducted according to a system, plan, or organized method; involving or observing a system; (of a person) acting according to system, regular and methodical."

I'd go into more detail, but his errors of thought, as opposed to expression, are glaring enough that I assume any competent reader will catch them.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at May 29, 2004 at 02:21 PM

This guy ought to write for the National Enquirer, or some other flaky tabloid. No, more like Wunder Komixs 4 Kidz, that's about his level.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 02:50 PM

cheshirecat:

That's "quod erat demonstrandum". If you pull the "I'll use a little Latin and look smart" routine, try to get the Latin right.

Posted by: chuck at May 29, 2004 at 03:17 PM

Steve in Houston— Tim Blair does not work for Us. You didn't hear this from Us and We were never here.

Posted by: Them at May 29, 2004 at 03:33 PM

"Duuuuude, I bet Rumsfeld--no--Ashcroft himself cut off that guy's head!"

"Totally, man. Are you gonna, like, bogart that or what?"

Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2004 at 03:43 PM

At this pivotal moment, CNN and Fox News are tipped off to a clip of an American citizen being beheaded

Tipped off? It was on the public internet you idiot

Posted by: Giles at May 29, 2004 at 04:06 PM

This is vile journalism, made by people with little interest in truth or respect of the dead.

If the CIA had gone to the trouble of making the video, they ought to have made sure it'd be screened by the media.

The mention of Free Republic was a surprise.

Hah! Don't you know, plastic is a by-product of petroleum.

Is that also why Halliburton supplies plastic turkeys?

Posted by: Andjam at May 29, 2004 at 04:13 PM

Steve:

Didn't realise you were trying to be sarcastic. Though, in hindsight, I should have known when you referred to "Them". :)

Chuck:

I took Latin 15 years ago...be happy I got it nearly correct. :)

Besides, I don't *look* smart...I *am* smart
/sarcasm.

Kisses,
cheshirecat

Posted by: cheshirecat at May 29, 2004 at 04:15 PM

WHy would Michael Moore spend 20 minutes interviewing Nick berg , seemingly for F9/11 ?
Surely Moore would not lie about something like that.

Posted by: davo at May 29, 2004 at 05:11 PM

It's obvious the video & the abuse at the notorious (for US only, not Saddam) Abu Ghraib prison were staged by the UN. Think about it.
The 'Oil-For-All-But-Food' scandal was picking up some steam. Both these stories diverted attention from the UN for a while.

I also recall seeing the white plastic chair in some footage of the UN. The UN had the most to gain by diverting attention during that time period.

/poor attempt at conspiracy theorizing off

It's pathetic when the 'real press' starts believing moonbat conspiracy theories. Shall we expect stories as to where Elvis is next? What about the 'fake moon landings'? All are equally credible.

I've seen the web sites where the Berg video has been dissected and found to be 'suspiciously staged'. Frame by frame 'analysis'. If I had a stronger stomach, I'd look at the video myself to see what the heck they're all talking about.

*IF* there is anything about the video that seems staged, why doesn't anyone suggest that possibly the terrorists re-enacted the beheading for the film? Perhaps they were too eager to chop Berg's head off and didn't wait to be captured on video?
So, they just re-enacted what they did so they could proudly display their technique?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at May 29, 2004 at 05:14 PM

And people wonder why Fairfax is going downhill.

Posted by: Mike Hunt at May 29, 2004 at 05:42 PM

Per Katherine's comment above in re Waugh's Scoop:

Read his "Waugh in Abyssinia" the non-fiction version of Scoop and really see how nothing has changed in 70 years.

The press are still the lying scum they were then.

In 1936 they were reporting their lies from the hotel bars in Addis Ababa, now they're "reporting" them from the hotel bars in the Green Zone of Baghdad.

Posted by: JimL at May 29, 2004 at 05:59 PM
Neville's column is easily amongst the most laughably loony things I've ever read.

You haven't read his other gems. Visit Tex to catch up on the whole weeping dick story. He somehow finds the stomach to peruse this nutcase's lunatic ravings in Green Left Weekly. Tex doesn't have a site search unfortunately, so you'll have to go looking for his nice demolition work.

Is Murdoch giving these idiots a map and taxi fare to find their way to Fairfax?

Posted by: Craig Mc at May 29, 2004 at 07:32 PM

Remember the old lessons for doctors?

"If it looks like a horse, it probably is".

So how come none of these loonies explore
the possiblity that Islamic terrorists
did it?

Remember the brave Italian?

Who shot him, no-one seems to give a fuck.

Who tore apart four people and left them in bits
hung from a bridge?

Starting to lose friends over this.

It normally starts with "Fucking Yanks,it's
all about oil y'know".

Funny thing is, none of these miserable cunts
rides a bike to work.

Posted by: fred at May 29, 2004 at 07:48 PM

al-Zarqawi's face is widely known and he credits himself with the deed, so why a mask?

Surely this is not a serious question?
Surely Richard you aren't so stupid that it didn't dawn on you that maybe, just maybe, al-Zarqawi, as one of the worlds most sought after terrorists - someone that millions of people around the world (especially Iraqi's) would put a bullet through his temple on first sight, might actually have changed his appearance since he was last seen publicly, so as to able to move about, and therefore would NOT want to show his face on a video that he probably thought was going to be seen by most people on the planet? (guess he misjudged the media there didn't he?)

Actually I don't think you really believe any of your own crap Richard, I think you are just working on the same principle as the likes of Michael Moore, Algore, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky etc etc work on, i.e. that even if it only tricks one person, your lying is worth the risk that our enemies will take encouragement from your words so long as that one person believes that Bush is evil and votes against him.

At best, your a discrace, at worst, Richard, your a fucking traitor.
imho.

Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2004 at 08:11 PM

The bad news:

There are moonbats out there who believe this tripe, some of which get published in a mainstream Australian newspaper - *shudder*.

The good news:

The fact that they believe it means their intelligence is so shot that as long as you dont establish eye contact all will be well.

I mean what will the SMH publish next? That we went to war with Iraq solely to get our hands on anti-gravity technology! hahahah!

Oh wait - that was exactly the tripe that Margo was writing about before the war. I dont know if Dick has reset the bar on this but it must be at least on a par?

On that subject - WHERE ARE OUR HOVER BIKES YOU IMPERIALISTIC YANKS!!! PAY UP!!

Posted by: Rob at May 29, 2004 at 08:19 PM


It seems to me that we have two competing standards of the conduct of war - (1) The conduct of those dispicable Yanks at Abu Ghraib (e.g. taking photographs of Muslim men with women's panties over their faces) and (2) the conduct of the Islamofascists who kill people in a not-so-nice fashion.

Perhaps we should only have one set of standards, and this will proportionally reduce the number of arguments pertaining to conduct in the war-zone.

My suggestion is that we apply the standards of whomever started the hostilities. This will, of course, lead to all sorts of debate as to who started it, and ergo what standard should be applied.

However, once the world media is comfortable with the concept of "who started it?", we can move on to the stringent observance of those standards, without having to apply a duopoly of guidelines as to what is obviously a complex geo-political equation.

Posted by: Kaboom at May 29, 2004 at 08:28 PM

The Whakster was all over Neville's conspiratoid ramblings re the Bali Bombing back in 2002, in his inimitable fashion.

Whacking day.com.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 29, 2004 at 08:41 PM

"Dude, the timing of the video was, like, brilliant for the West." [toke]

"Yeah, man, but some people sensed a rat. Know what I mean, holmes?" [toke, cough]

"But, and dig this, if it was not al-Qaeda, like, who? Surely not Uncle Sam, know what I'm sayin'? That's too dark, even for the C-I-fuckin'-A, man."

"Totally. [toke] It's just like in that Chomsky book I read in poli-sci last semester. And, bro, the bowl is cashed."

"Maybe it's just the 'shrooms talking, but is Al Gore's face, like, melting?"

Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2004 at 09:55 PM

WESTERN PRESS HORROR
Neville and Pilger
father Islamofascist
hatechild?

Posted by: harry tuttle at May 29, 2004 at 09:57 PM

[Off-topic post deleted. -- The Management]

Posted by: David Duke is a malignant narcissist. at May 29, 2004 at 11:05 PM

Nick Berg was killed "because he was a Jew, plain and simple". Why are the media and commentators so loathe to admit that the motivation and methodology were exactly the same as for Daniel Pearl´s decapitation in January 2002 ?

You can read my take here.

Posted by: Tony Allwright at May 29, 2004 at 11:05 PM

Apparently our intrepid reporter has never heard of Occam's Razor. Let's see. Islamofacists beheaded Richard Pearl a couple of years ago, all on video. This video shows up on an Islamic website. The video is "strange" because, um, to Western sensibilities a slow methodical beheading is, er, "strange". And once and I went to a friend's home who I hadn't seen in years and they *gasp* had the same patio set I had!

Posted by: Brent at May 30, 2004 at 12:09 AM

What's the score with Nick Berg being investigated after September 11th when it was discovered one of the hijackers had been using his e-mail account?

This has apparently been confirmed by the FBI and reported on CNN.

What are the chances of someone bumping into an Al Qaida terrorist on a bus in America AND being murdered a few years later in Iraq? I don't know what it is - but surely there's something fishy going on here?

Posted by: Martin at May 30, 2004 at 01:28 AM

Martin, it appears that Berg's e-mail information was stolen by a roommate and passed onto the AQ terrorist. Berg probably met the terrorist, but apparently wasn't involved beyond that. He was victimized by AQ twice.

It's only disturbing because our brains look for patterns, but it appears to have been only a creepy coincidence. Conclusion: if anyone steals your password or credit card information, you should probably waste 'em just to be on the safe side.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at May 30, 2004 at 03:03 AM

Martin,
And your point is????? There are a lot of jumping off points with that statement. Among them, 1.)They thought and/or he actually was an agent and was killed for that. 2.) He ran in odd circles and was too naive to realize the danger. 3.) It was all a horrible coincidence that only serves to fuel speculation.

It's a pretty big jump to say "I don't understand everything, so the CIA must have done it."

Posted by: John Bigenwald at May 30, 2004 at 03:06 AM

pls tell me the SMH is not a 'real' paper...please?

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 03:09 AM

"Islamofacists beheaded Richard Pearl a couple of years ago, all on video."

That would be Daniel Pearl. Richard Perle is alive and well.

Posted by: blacker64 at May 30, 2004 at 03:09 AM

Davo — Why would Michael Moore lie? Remember the famous Hollywood quote:

"Hello," he lied.

Rob — Oh, build your own, you whiny slacker...

Honestly, kids today, what *would* Nicola Tesla say...?

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at May 30, 2004 at 03:21 AM

I want Rob in NJ and Martin to prove they had nothing to do with the beheading of Nick Berg.

Posted by: ushie at May 30, 2004 at 04:11 AM

actually, i have some questions for ron in nj about jimmy hoffa

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 04:33 AM

When Lee Harvey Oswald moved to Dallas, Texas from New Orleans in 1963, he and his wife got assistance from a group of Russian emigres who were helping newly immigrant Russians into America. Sorta' Russian welcome wagon, if you will.

One of the wealthiest members of the group was a gentleman named George de Mohrenschildt who provided money to the group. Mohrenschildt and Oswald reportedly engaged in several animated conversations about Marxism - since Oswald was a Marxist and Mohrenschildt was a fervent anti-Marxist.

George de Mohrenschildt was the godfather of Jacqueline Bouvier. Jackie Kennedy. Mrs. Kennedy. The First Lady.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at May 30, 2004 at 04:47 AM

Sounds like you could swap the opinion pages of our Toronto Star with your Morning Herald and no one would notice a thing.

Posted by: chip at May 30, 2004 at 04:49 AM

Sean, you channeling this, man, no?

Posted by: Katherine at May 30, 2004 at 05:50 AM

Katherine,
Yeah. I am. It's like I was there, maaaaaan.

Posted by: Sean M. at May 30, 2004 at 07:09 AM

For sheer cynicism, check out this letter to the editor in yesterday's Weekend Australian (29-30 May):

"Australia was better off when Saddam Hussein ruled. He bought our wheat. With a US-installed governing council in place, I wonder where Iraq will purchase its wheat." -- Russell Metcalfe (Glebe, NSW)

That could almost pass as a parody slogan from
ProtestWarrior's website ("Saddam Only Murders Iraqis! It's None of Our Business!"), except that --

(1) it's also the logic Michael Moore used in his Oscar's speech (remember how he ranted that "It's 1938 now, Hitler's been in power a WHOLE FIVE YEARS, yet still NO Nazi German soldier has tried to kill Americans!!"? -- oh, wait, wrong disk)

(2) if Mr Metcalfe is a wheat farmer, he's continuing the proud tradition of Australian conservatives sucking up to socialist dictatorships for business reasons (eg, Bjelke-Petersen with Mao's China, Lang Hancock with Ceausescu's Romania).

Sad.

Posted by: Uncle Milk at May 30, 2004 at 08:46 AM

What's the score with Nick Berg being investigated after September 11th when it was discovered one of the hijackers had been using his e-mail account?

Why am I surprised there is no hyperlink?

Posted by: Andjam at May 30, 2004 at 09:59 AM

Andjam, I think I saw something about that on Instapundit, about Berg lending his laptop to a guy on a bus who used it to send a few e-mails.

I can't imagine the mindset for a person who would take an incident like that and attach it to "Terrorists behead Nick Berg" and proclaim something "fishy" is going on. The only way to rationalize a connection there is if you want to see a conspiracy.

Posted by: Sortelli at May 30, 2004 at 11:31 AM

Sortelli, I saw the same comment on FoxNews, as I recall. The FBI interviewed Berg and cleared him.

The problem is that many people want a conspiracy. Either the world is too dull for them, they need a bit of attention, the real answer is simpy unacceptable, or they have some sort of mental illness. Or some combination of these.

For example, whilst in college, I studied the case of one guy who was convinced that aliens were trying to kill off the human race by spreading some horribly uncurable disease through the telephone system. The guy was utterly convinced of this, and could not be swerved from his campaign to tell the world. He had a very clever thesis on the matter, professionally laid out, and utterly meaningless.

This was in 1977, well before even the word "modem" meant anything to much of the world, and "graphics" took trained skills, not a software package. In that regard, computer technology has advanced the cause of any conspiracy you care to name. And often sadly so, especially in this case.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 30, 2004 at 11:49 AM

His statement " the timing was brilliant for the West" tells you a lot about him. He lives in the West and is a Westerner yet apparently does not feel part of that himself. I take our prosperity makes him feel guilty or something.

It is my take on this that much of the loony left feel the same way. It's a pure psychological problem I reckon. If it wasn't Iraq, they'd be back onto global warming or something. Double the prescription of Prozac I say, then we might have an intelligent discussion again.

Posted by: Andy at May 30, 2004 at 01:58 PM

tony Allwright
Nick Berg was killed "because he was a Jew, plain and simple".
you are absolutely right.
Even the editor Dan goldberg of the Australia Jewish News refused to print agree to say it when i suggested he owed it to Nick or any other Jew who would follow ib his footsteps.
I've cancelled my SUb to AJN in protest after receiving an email saying
there is no evidence that Nick was killed because he was a Jew .- You write to him too !
If Daniel had not revealed before his murder that he was a Jew , the mdia would have done the same with the reporting of his slaughter.
I think you know about the other ISlamic ritual slaughter of Jews that have happened ib france and in the US.

Posted by: davo at May 30, 2004 at 02:07 PM

Richard MC Enroe
Moore is a liar, i know that too.
But he is to smart to lie about a 20 minute interview with Nick Berg prior to his departure for Iraq.
That can easily be checked.
How would he have got to nick? presumably thru his father, with whom he would have had much in common.

Posted by: davo at May 30, 2004 at 02:13 PM

Come to think of it
Michael Moore states he has an interview with Nick Berg.
He does not say HE CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW himself.
This would have been revealed by such an egomaniac for sure.
The interview is therefore with someone else.
Perhaps nick's own father, a marxist stalinist.
This needs to be subpoaened by the US law inforcemant since it is evidence in murder.

Posted by: davo at May 30, 2004 at 02:42 PM


With all due respect Chrismas Ape, neither of those sites discusses the missing blood. At the time of writing, one of them threatens to do so.

vigilant.tv also admits that there are definitely some significant gaps missing from the decapitation sequence.

I agree. And this makes it very suss for me, along with all the other editing.

Zaraqawi, one of the supposed killers, has one leg. Which one of the four "murderers" showed signs of having an artificial leg?

Richard Neville's article was crap. The "same plastic chair" evidence is just laughable. But it's not the only article out there asking very sensible questions.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at May 30, 2004 at 06:36 PM

Jeez guys - calm down.

Just thought the fact that Nick Berg was connected to an AQ terrorist after 9/11 and the fact that he then ended up being killed in suspicious circumstances in Iraq a few years later was a little bit strange.

I did not make any "jump" to conclude the CIA killed him. (OK John Bigenwald?)

Ushie - If you discover my e-mail is being used by a suspected AQ terrorist then I'll be happy to give myself up for questioning in relation to Nick Berg's death.

Sortelli - the only way to dismiss the fact that this is at best a very strange coincidence is if you are determined NOT to see a conspiracy.

A lot of you guys need to take a few Prozac and not get so excited when somebody innocently raises a fact that he thought raised a few questions about Nick Berg's death.

But then considering most of you probably believed there were WMDs in Iraq, believed there was a link between Saddam and Osama, believed that the US was going to bring democracy to Iraq, and dismissed Red Cross and Amnesty reports of abuse and torture by the US as a loony left lie - I can understand that you're all a bit sensitive at the moment.

Lots of Love
Martin


Posted by: Martin at May 30, 2004 at 08:27 PM

But then considering most of you probably believed there were WMDs in Iraq...

Er, try Googling the phrase "sarin gas confirmed." I know, I know, that's not a "stockpile" of WMDs, but it had to come from somewhere.

Posted by: Sean M. at May 30, 2004 at 09:52 PM

In other news, Mark Steyn rulz.

Posted by: CCD at May 30, 2004 at 10:21 PM

Well, it surely can’t be those nice al Qaeda boys. They’d never do anything so unpleasant.

Oh yeah, you really caught the thrust of Neville's article there.

Now answer the question - are there circumstances surrounding the Nick Berg video which deserve a little more than, oh, heads in the sand?

Putting aside games of pin-the-tail-on-the-leftie, mightn't we discuss some of the alleged anomalies in a non-tinfoil hat way?

Posted by: Flashman at May 30, 2004 at 11:24 PM

Flashman, we could "...discuss some of the alleged anomalies in a non-tinfoil hat way" if said anomalies are presented in a non-tinfoil hat way by someone not known for their moonbat ways. With evidence above the personal opinion level.

This Neville reads likes the UFO conspiracy buffs, the characters who are convinced that there is a hangar in Area 51 where a crashed spaceship and dead aliens are being studied. With the same level of evidence.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 31, 2004 at 01:07 AM

But then considering most of you probably believed there were WMDs in Iraq, believed there was a link between Saddam and Osama, believed that the US was going to bring democracy to Iraq, and dismissed Red Cross and Amnesty reports of abuse and torture by the US as a loony left lie - I can understand that you're all a bit sensitive at the moment.

Lots of Love
Martin


Oh, lord, I do not have the energy to tell this idiot to google for links re: Saddam and Osama and terrorism. Sigh.

Um, yeah, Martin, there were--and are--wmds in Iraq. Sorry they didn't have big neon signs pointing to them.

Handover is still June 30. What Iraqis do afgter that is up to them. Which sounds kinda liberated and democratic-y to me.

Yep. 7 soldiers play sado games with some Iraqi criminals and the whole war is evil. Thank you very much for that.

Marin, you are just too damned stupid to be part of a conspiracy. You are free to go.

Posted by: ushie at May 31, 2004 at 02:45 AM

Whoa there, Ushie. Where Marin goes, so goeth the conspiracy. If the conspiracy is stupid enough to be caught out BY MARIN, it must be a pretty damned stupid conspiracy! We're all idiots here!

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 31, 2004 at 07:23 AM

Brian Jones: Brilliant analysis! LOL!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 31, 2004 at 09:20 AM

Sortelli - the only way to dismiss the fact that this is at best a very strange coincidence is if you are determined NOT to see a conspiracy.

Wrong. With absolutely no evidence to suggest any connection between the two events, there is no logically valid way to tie them together as part of a larger scheme. Period. You are assuming there is a link solely because you want to. When called on it, you are resorting to the kind of ad hoc "you can't prove it's not true" bullshit that lets people believe in UFOs and phone psychics.

In short, you're a moron.

Posted by: Sortelli at May 31, 2004 at 02:31 PM

....which proves, I don’t know, that the whole war was driven by greedy US chair cartels. Owned by Dick Cheney...

Oh, no...it's the conspiracy of the UNCOMFY CHAIR!!!!

Posted by: Reginleif the Valkyrie at June 2, 2004 at 07:26 AM

I do not know who killed Nick Berg, or how he died.

There may be a clue in the fact that his head is not attached to his body. I understand that tends to be a fatal condition.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 2, 2004 at 12:03 PM