If the whole thing is genuine, including the taped “statement”, yes.
In fact: it seems that he was ordered to bring that US flag down because of the bad impression it made about the US intentions in Iraq. (The same for those who couldn’t wait to plant US flags where ever the heros had “conquered” a space of Iraqi soil)
I don’t play such silly games. In addition:
only by very rare exception you can expect something to be as clear and simple as it seems to be at first sight.
one source is as good as none when it comes to find out what happened in reality. It can only give you what that one source tells you about an event.
Sorry, but we are not talking about the locations/events you mention or about the groups you mention.
On the other hand: I didn’t say it was impossible to figure out reasons why people would cover their faces when comitting such a crime in Iraq.
I only said that when it is indeed staged by the US, this gives that detail its reasons in that context.
I have no reason to doubt anything as I - as I said I think - did not went all over the internet to find that video and have no intention to do so. Or to look at it when it by occasion would drop into my mailbox.
If I would feel interest to research the matter that would be different. Yet for the moment I’m not in the very least interested.
Yes, that is something to think about. But we all know what is possible these days for manipulating material. So I wouldn’t rule out a bit of cutting and pasting or whatever. Seen the fact that everyone who saw the thing claims it is of such a poor quality, such could easily be done on purpose to cover-up picture manipulation. I don’t know. I’m not a hero in knowledge or use of technical equipment related to such issues.
I think SimonX has answered that. Similar came to my mind, yet I didn’t know there was actually encouragment done for people to undertake such adventures. So it seems this criminal administration has no trouble at all with sending the wrong message to the population and bring them in life danger by doing so. All is good to get Bush re-elected.
I can’t say since I didn’t see it. Yet at this stage of what is known about it I think it is indeed possible that there is some manipulation done or intended.
And seen the poor reputation of the US administration and its shameless lies to and manipulation of the world at large, its own citizens and not in the least the UN, I’m afraid that nobody would be that much surprized if it was a US re-staging of the death of this unfortunate young man.
Bippy, (may I call you “Bippy”?), if you think this is a hijack I respect that and I’ll stop this line of inquiry.
But first,
Occam’s Razor is not a game. It’s a way to help people think critically. You use it all the time, I’m sure, though you don’t call it that. Is it more likely that Elvis Presley faked his death and is really the Pope, using John Paul II as a front, or more likely that Elvis really died in 1977 and the Pope really is the Pope? I mean, do you really know? “They”'ve lied to us before, right?
Sorry, we’re talking exactly about the group I mention (radical Islamists) and in an area that is bordered on all sides by the locations I talk about (Afghanistan to the north, Pakistan to the east, West Bank to the west-- and yes, I know they don’t all touch Iraq). The analogy is exact.
What would it take to convince you? You don’t believe that a group which has killed Americans in this same way before, putting out a similar tape to prove it, has put out a video via the usual channels (shady websites/Arabic TV). You appeal to unknown technology which may not be possible and “inconsistencies” of which you have no first-hand knowledge. At least three governments of Arab countries and several Muslim clerics have denounced this as unIslamic (unislamic? How would the capitalization work here?) and bringing shame to their religion. They seem to have no doubts about what happened.
AQ’s not a closely regulated brand name you know. Zarqawi’s connections to AQ are somewhat tenuous. Zarqawi’s connection to this event’s pretty tenuous too.
What reason do you have to believe that the same people’re involved with Berg as with Pearl?
Well since they wore hoods - no one, but the hooded ones, actually know who was under there. Other than the fact that Zarqawi’s name appeared in the title (Zarqawi slaughters an American) there isn’t direct evidence that Zarqawi was under one of those hoods – maybe they can do a voiceprint of the repulsive fellow who did all the talking. IF they have a known print of Zarqawi’s voice they might be able to compare the two. If so, we’ll hear soon enough –
To asirivkin
I’m sorry, but I can think and raeson criticla without the need to rely on thoeries only useful to people who by all means want to have “a truth” on a plate.
(Your “example” is as silly as one can get. If I am not mistaken we are here not at a children’s playground. So maybe you could stop trying to insult my intellect. Thank you.)
Next: If you think you can place all people wo commit crimes as such we talk about (who then claim to be Muslim, let’s not discuss that) under One Big Umbrella, you have some reasearch to do.
It seem that you are the one who is not informed about it that there is enough technology available to do some pretty reshaping of whatever filmed or pictured material you can think of. (Maybe you could go and vist Hollywood some day)
I said I have no first-hand knowledge. You don’t either. Nobody does unless those who were present at the scene and swa what happened. (Or didn’t happen yet was staged to look as if it did).
Of course they came reactions to declare such and act to be “unislamic”. That is not something new. Every Muslim knows that, so what did you expect?
That does not at all imply that there is no doubt about the material being genuine.
Do you want everyone to wait until there is 100% certainty before coming forward to denounce such an act?
In that case one can wait for a very long time before something is said about it… If ever.
For now there is not more then what seems to be published on a website.
Every doubt one can raise about that material is much more justified then blindly accepting it for telling the truth.
But this is the historian in me speaking. I don’t expect you to reason the same.
Fair enough-- but I suppose I was thinking of “radical Islamists” rather than “Al Qaeda” when I said “group”. And certainly it does seem to be a favored way of killing for them, like in Algeria too, IIRC.
Well, yes, but it’s not just any random web site, is it? The site in question (Muntada al-Ansar) apparently has served as a more or less reliable outlet for statements by Zarqawi. [url"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4829643/"]As recently as April 26th, the site has freqpubblished information that is generally accepted as having come directly from Zarqawi’s organization. If someone wants to claim that the site is an outlet for disinformation sourced from the US military, fine, all one needs to do is provide a bit of evidence.
Personally, I have no problem with the ideas that a) the fact that much of the Middle Eastern press is government-owned and heavily censored tends to promote a bent towards conspiracy theory amongst its readership b) many Muslims are shocked by the apparent savagery of the act to the point that they would prefer to believe that no sensible person of the faith would really carry out such an act , and that it must have staged or manipulated bby someone other than who claimed to have done it. This is perfectly understandable; hardly anyone owuld consider David Koresh, for example to have been representative of the Christian faith.
Well, yes, but it’s not just any random web site, is it? The site in question (Muntada al-Ansar) apparently is considered a more or less reliable outlet for statements by Zarqawi. The site has frequently published information that is generally accepted as having come directly from Zarqawi’s organizationAs recently as April 26th. If someone wants to claim that the site is an outlet for disinformation sourced from the US military or some other party, fine; all one needs to do is provide a bit of evidence.
I’ll suggest an alternative as to why al-Jazeera might speculate on the reality, or otherwise, of the Berg tape. Personally, I have no problem with the ideas that a) the fact that much of the Middle Eastern press is government-owned and heavily censored tends to promote a bent towards conspiracy theory amongst its readership b) many Muslims are shocked by the apparent savagery of the act to the point that they would prefer to believe that no sensible person of the faith would really carry out such an act, and that it must have staged or manipulated by someone other than whoever claimed to have done it. This is perfectly understandable; hardly anyone would consider David Koresh, for example, to have been representative of the Christian faith, although he himself may have thought so.
Well, from what I heard here and there it seems that the website said to be publishing the video could not be reached. This while the whole story was already running in US media. I wouldn’t know. I don’t tend to go looking for such websites.
(On the other hand: anybody can set up a website and post whatever that comes into his hands.)
That can count for many press and not only in the ME.
AJ happens to be under regular attack from governments in the ME because not following their directions and covering what they don’t like. Same critiques and accusations and tries to undermine the credibility of its news coverage come towards the same AJ from the US government. Coincidentally.
(I didn’t see AJ speculating or writing conspiracy theories. Maybe you read an other page)
Of course they are shocked. Yet it is not the first time that Muslims around the globe are shocked by such acts committed by people claiming they are Muslims (which is, by the way, not in the least as bad as their audacity to claim they act according Al Qur’an).
This time however the doubt towards the intentions of the US government and the pondering about a possibility that there is manipulation at hand, seems at the very least to be reasonable. It is provoked by the obvious lack of any form of even a shred of morality and decency of this US president and his Maffia.
I’m not familiar with that person or his story.
Salaam. A
And here we see Muslims living up to their reputation for shamelessly spinning outlandish conspiracy theories to deflect criticism from their murderous brethren.
Really?
(looking around… Oh sorry, I’m writing on a message board… you are also writing on a message board…)
?
mmmm…
Where do you see what you claim to see? Is it visible in cyberspace or do you talk about aliens who only reach you with mysterious messages, invisible for normal human beings ?.
Salaam. A
I can’t help it if you see insults where none were offered. And whether or not my example was silly, the logic is the same-- there’s a straightforward explanation and any number of non-straightforward ones. Why pick any of the non-straightforward ones * in the absence of any evidence in their favor*?
Well, research is what I do for a living. And I think I can see patterns showing that radical Islamists (as commonly called) have killed a number of people of many religions by slitting their throats. This has occasionally in the past been accompanied by video footage. In that video footage, the murderers tend to be dressed in specific ways. The way they’re dressed is similar in style to the ways that Hamas/Islamic Jihad/whatever militants are dressed, in order to conceal their identity. A new video has been distributed via a website used in the past for distributing the videotapes mentioned above, which contains people dressed as described slitting the throat of somebody who claims to be and looks like someone who had been previously reported missing in Iraq.
Absent any compelling reason to suggest otherwise, the obvious conclusion is that this person was murdered by radical Islamists.
Had he been known to be thousands of dollars in debt, be despondent with a history of depression, and found dead with an empty bottle of sleeping pills and an empty bottle of tequila, with a suicide note in front of him, the obvious conclusion absent any compelling reason to suggest otherwise would be that he committed suicide. This isn’t about anything other than what makes the most sense.
(shrug) You said you didn’t know. Now you say you do?
Tony Blair denounced the alleged British abuse of prisoners, but it was clear from the beginning that they didn’t think the published pictures were real. There’s no inkling from these Arab sources that this killing wasn’t real. If this were faked, it would be an outrageous insult toward Islam, right?
I’m a scientist. It is my job to be skeptical. I don’t see any reason to doubt the story as presented. Could I be wrong? Sure, I guess. I can come up with some things that would make me doubt. Again, what would it take for you to believe this is true?
Well, if you can spare a bit of time, try a Google search under “david koresh”. As a historian interested religious matters, I’m sure you’d find something of interest.
Well I briefly did … Seems to me to have been one of the uncountable so called Christian sectleaders that can trive and flourish in the USA.
What actually intrigues me is not to read about one of those sects, but how it is possible that they seem to find so easily folllowers who apparently almost all the time get brainwashed in giving everything they have to “the Prophet”.
That and the fact that there are so amazingly many of them, all while they keep the potential to still pop up like mushrooms, in new variations. In my opinion that is something unique “Made in USA”
The same for the amazing so called Nation Of Islam - For Black People Only. That is as racist (= unislamic at the very core) as can be and manages to lump lines of Al Qur’an and the Bible together while writing a brandnew exegeses on all of them.
If I am ever bankrupt I certainly be tempted to create my own version of religion and inject that into the fertile US soil.
Salaam. A
Then I guess you’re really in no position to speculate whether it’s real or not, eh?
Since you feel that Occam’s razor is a silly game, why stop at suggesting that the tape was made after the killing? Why not go whole hog and claim that David Berg was killed by the US governm-no!! wait!!!..killed by Rumsfeld!!! Of course!!! That would explain the hoods, wouldn’t it? So we couldn’t identify Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Cheney. That would explain the funny accents, too!!!
Depending on how you do it, the heart can actually stop pumping blood pretty quickly after what they did to him, so there wouldn’t be tons of blood gushing everywhere as people seem to expect. There would be a lot at first, of course, but we can’t really see the relevant area very well in the video.
It’s not clear what the audio really is: could be him screaming, but you don’t actually see alot of struggling or non-jiggle/gravity induced facial movement from Berg.
Being beaten to death is usually a longer and much more painful death anyway, so even if that is what happened, it only makes it worse.
I just got up the nerve to watch the video. I saw blood but not a lot. I saw Berg’s face change as they were cutting his throat, I heard gasping, gagging sounds under the voices of those screaming to God. If God has a hell – I pray that the souls of those bastards will go there.
Absolutely horrific - it took me three trys to get through the minute of video.
You should not be tempted to exclude any source from your research because you think it is not relevant.
In the absense of any sort of source from witch you reasonably can assume it comes close to leading you to the truth behind what you are researching, you must not have the pretence to write a conclusion. Any conclusion what so ever.
Wrong. The obvious conclusion must be:
You have only this one source
The people you see on that are dressed as you describe some people tend to have done during similar actions in the past
this does not mean that they are the same people or in connection with them.
a) You have no evidence of that whatsoever
b) You have no evidence you look at people imitating an example (as you described).
Jumping to premature conclusions based on emotional reactions and subjective observations is the most unprofessional thing a researcher can ever do.
The above makes equally no sense at all. You prematurely exclude murder solely because of your first impression of the scene.
Sorry? Try to read again what I said.
What the critiques on those pictures did was exactly what I say you should do. It is still not certain if they were yes or no genuine. Soldiers who were in Iraq said they are. About these or similar abuses taking place: reorts of the Red cross and others say they are.
Read again what I answered you on this. How come you fail to read what I write?
Sorry? Why would this be "an insult to ** Islam ** ?
If it is real it is an insult to Islam and to all Muslims on this globe.
Sorry, but from what I read here you are not coming close to be sceptical enough to conduct research.
What should make you doubt is the fact alone that you have only that one single source to look at. Yet you blindly accept it as being genuine because of what you see as logical reasoning. Which is in fact only emotional coloured uncritical subjective reading of the source at hand.
On this issue -as on many others- I shall not be convinced about anything, for the simple reason that it can’t be tested on its veracity.
