Berg Beheading a fake?

Tuars

Sand, it's a dishonest debating tactic to compare Abu Ghraib to the beheading of Nick Berg (the old bait-and-switch). They are two seperate and only loosely connected events. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

Incidents at Abu Ghraib were proved to be true with documentary evidence. Equally, allegations of abuse by British soldiers were found to be false. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The Nick Berg case is being analysed on its own merits and based on the the available evidence - not according on what happened at Abu Ghraib - and for me it's too early to say what exactly occurred. If more evidence comes out I could be swayed one way or another.

And, by the way, where do you get off equating the US government with terrorists? More distraction?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Memnoch
when did I say it was faked?

I didn't say anything was faked... or not...

i merely pointed out that I was skeptical in general, since it seems to me that this incident came at an EXTREMELY convenient time for the current administration...

as far as i'm concerned, the current administration consists primarily of people who are utterly selfish and care only for themselves. I don't think they value human or american lives, only their own greed and power, as evidenced constantly by their actions and policies in the world and america, so keeping that premise in mind... and again thinking about WHO gained the most tangibly from the incident...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a CIA black ops, so the video could be authentic but the killers may not necessarily be who we are told they are... off course this is merely a theory and i have no proof, and i'm not even sure if its the right theory, or what the truth is.

maybe it was faked, maybe it wasn't

the sad fact is that the CIA have played some really really dirty games in the past.

the same goes for 9/11. While i'm not sure who really made it happen, i'm of the opinion that the bush administration could have prevented it, and choose to allow it to happen.

motive is always important i believe. Its easy to say that "terrorists" need no motives and they are just crazy fundamentalists who do these things. But the truth is that terrorists aren't just "crazy fundamentalists" they are calculating and do things with specific agenda's.

So is it possible that it was a buncha terrorists who did this.. i'd say yes, definately, but i'd say its also equally possible that this was some kind of US black ops to take the edge of Abu Garib. The timing is too perfect. I find it hard to believe that this was just pure coincidence... just as the timing of 9/11 came at a great time for Bush.

I agree with you Memnoch. It's blatently obvious that the US administration has no respect for human life. People are really programmed how to think these days.

Nick

Sand

Sand, it's a dishonest debating tactic to compare Abu Ghraib to the beheading of Nick Berg (the old bait-and-switch). They are two seperate and only loosely connected events. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

Dont they? Mems theories rest on his asking who benefits? Now he was mistaken about who benefitted from the Berg murder, but his mistaken view was enough for him to start talking about CIA black ops and the corruption and evilness of the bush regime, how its plausible they could do something evil like that, cos theyre evil.

Im just applying Mems logic to abu Gharib - who benefitted? The terrorists clearly. Anything Mem said about the Bush administration applies far more easily to the terrorists so theyre evil enough to do something like that. So Mem must thus be deeply skeptical that that Abu gharib is as clearcut as it seems. Surely the terrorists must be involved - they have benefitted massively from it.

Now youre choking there, thinking how ludicrous it is to suggest that Abu Gharib involved the terrorists - but Im only applying mems logic, which would imply that that mems logic for being skeptical was also ludicrous. And i agree, it is. That was the point of applying it to Abu Gharib.

If more evidence comes out I could be swayed one way or another.

Thats the thing though - there is no evidence to doubt that Berg was beheaded alive. The problem of the spurting blood has been addressed. As such its not a case of more evidence - there is no evidence contrary to the determined event. As such youre not waiting for more evidence, youre waiting for *any* evidence.

But the point of conspiracy theories like this is not to provide evidence - it is to muddy the waters and cast doubt. Did you hear that the WTC was actually hit with a missile? Did you hear that theres mysterious discrepancies on the passenger lists?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
He was cut from the back of then neck with a small bladed knife, they dug the knife in to the back of his neck and worked it around slowly with berg screaming for about 10 seconds

....

The blood spurting argument would make sense if was beheaded in a one swift blow.

Not true.

The blood spurting argument would make sense if his heart was still beating when his carotid was cut. This would most likely happen in a single-cut situation, because - as pointed out by others - shock and trauma would often kill the person before these were cut

However, because Berg screamed for some time while they were "working it around slowly" at the back, it is clear that the severage of the spinal chord (if it occurred at that point) didn't render hm unconscious, so it seems reasonable to say that it didn't stop his heart beating either.

So now, we have a situation where the shock-kill is - by the evidence you are using to back yoru own case - did not kill him almost immediately, which then raises the question of when he did die. If it was before the carotid (or the jugular) was cut, you still wouldn't have massive spray. If he was alive when these were cut, there would be.

But your recounting of what happened, Sand, doesn't debunk the theory at all. You offer nothing to show he died suddenly of shock before the major blood-vessels were severed, and - in fact - offer evidence to show that he remained not only alive, but conscious for quite an amount of the proceedings.

jc

Sand

But your recounting of what happened, Sand, doesn't debunk the theory at all. You offer nothing to show he died suddenly of shock before the major blood-vessels were severed, and - in fact - offer evidence to show that he remained not only alive, but conscious for quite an amount of the proceedings.

The theory was that he was he wasnt beheaded alive because there wasnt any spurt of blood. The video shows him screaming as hes cut from the back of the neck. This is evidence that hes alive. Hes quiet by the time they reach the throat. Given the pain, the lack of screaming is a good indicator that hes dead by this point - hence the spurt of blood or lack of it isnt a sustainable piece of evidence. You would have to show that Berg was alive, but somehow incapable of screaming or of feeling pain, yet his heart was still beating. Then the lack of blood spurt would be evidence of something not being quite right.

But like I said, conspiracy theories arent about evidence - theyre about casting doubt.

Tuars

The video shows him screaming as hes cut from the back of the neck. This is evidence that hes alive. (Sand)

There are suggestions that the soundtrack has been overdubbed so it may not be reliable.

And as regards muddying the waters it's you who's bringing in Abu Ghraib, Italian funerals,and 9/11 missiles and passenger lists. None of which are relevant to the topic.