# The neocons are already using the Berg incident.. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899 "2004-05-13T03:09:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/41 "2004-05-13T16:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > And the Red Cross is reporting that 70 to 90% of the Iraqi prisoners are innocent and being held illegally. Geneva Convention, anyone? And apparently the US military agrees: > [@](#): > > (Maj. Gen. Geoffrey) Miller said he plans to reduce the prisoner population at Abu Ghraib from the 3,800 who are there now to as few as 1,500 by June 15. In January, there were about 7,000 prisoners there. Link: [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040513/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/rumsfeld\_iraq\_17](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld_iraq_17) I’m completely baffled by the attitude of the people who keep stating that the torture and abuse of people at Abu Ghraib was nothing special, and besides was only being carried out on hardened terrorists who more than deserve any bad treatment they may receive. So far, apparently, not a single prisoner there has been formally charged with a specific crime (feel free to correct me if this is not so), and both the ICRC and the captors themselves are in full agreement that well more than half the persons imprisoned there were in fact no danger to anyone. If this is not so, why are so many to be released? I fully expect that at some point it will become apparent that similar abuses have occurred at the Gauntanamo Bay detention facility, as well as other, less-well known prison camps. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/42 "2004-05-13T17:40:57Z")
Assuming we still have a strategy, that is. But up until the beginning of April, our overall strategy in the WoT had seemed clear, whether or not one regarded Iraq as part of the WoT, and whether or not one regarded the war in Iraq as a good idea. The idea was to isolate the terrorists within the Islamic world, sufficiently winning hearts and minds in that world so that the vast majority of Muslims would regard al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations as their enemies rather than their allies. Such isolation would enable US and Western intelligence services to find allies in the Islamic world that would help them track down and capture/destroy al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. Anyone think I’m way off on this, or is that pretty much how everyone here understood the plan? Now, before I continue, I’d like to say that I opposed our invasion of Iraq, and regard it as neither part of, nor completely separate from, the War on Terror. Rather, I see it as an enterprise that had interfered with and to a great extent undermined the War on Terror, even if we don’t consider the events of the past six or seven weeks and the revelations of the past 2+ weeks. But you can at least make an argument that **if** the real world and the neocon fantasy world were somewhat similar, the War in Iraq could have dovetailed with the War on Terror - in that we could have won over Iraqi and Islamic hearts and minds by getting rid of one of the nastiest dictators in their world, freeing his people, and bringing self-determination to their nation. This would have provided clear and tangible evidence of our good will towards the Islamic world, thereby contributing towards the ‘winning hearts and minds’ part of the WoT. But this would have required that our intent infuse our actions: that our responses to assaults on peace and order be narrowly focused on those who fomented violence, even if we paid a price in lives lost; and that our reconstruction and democratization efforts put Iraqi well-being and progress towards self-determination and self-sufficiency first, and that we set aside things like our desire to determine for Iraqis things like what sort of tax and tariff structures they should have. So now we come to al-Zarqawi’s savage murder of Nick Berg. The thing about genuine Bad Guys is that - get this - they’re bad. They’re going to be bad and do bad things, unless good people prevent them from doing so. I can write a letter to the editor complaining about the evils of bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, or whomever, but what’s it going to change? They’re not going to change their actions in response to American public opinion. Meanwhile, the appropriate branches of the U.S. government are presumably already doing all they can to track these guys down, and capture or kill them. If they didn’t seem so inclined, then I’d put pressure on my government, the U.S. government, to do so. And that gets me to one key point. From my point of view as an American citizen, _the actor I have the opportunity to influence is my government._ Not al-Qaeda, not al-Zarqawi, but the U.S.A. So, in the case of Nick Berg, how should I try to influence my government? First, by trying to change it: the current Administration apparently passed up three [opportunities to kill or capture al-Zarqawi between June 2002 and January 2003](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/), and: > [@](#): > > Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying [Zarqawi’s] terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. Second, I’m going to insist we keep our tactics in line with our strategery: that of winning (or at least not alienating) hearts and minds. IOW, if we can track down Zarqawi and kill him, then **let’s do it**. But the _New York Post_’s editorial (with extra carriage returns removed) says: > [@](#): > > America has to come out swinging. > And not stop until every last one of the savage thugs is dead. > If that means a resumption of major combat in Iraq, so be it. > Would it mean another division or so of combat troops to get the job done? > Turn to our garrisons in Europe, or Korea, to get them. > In sufficient numbers to get the job done. > To hell with political sensitivities in the region. > To hell with negotiating with radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah. > To hell with handing Saddam Hussein over to Iraqis, as some want to do, and risking some reverse - perverse - kangaroo trial that results in his survival. > Evil, cutthroat terrorists need to be eradicated. > Let’s face it: This is a job that’s going to take overwhelming - yes, brutal - force. There is simply no “nice” or painless way to accomplish this. > As yesterday’s slaughter showed (yet again), the enemy is bound by no moral compunctions. > America won’t go that far. > But it had better steel it’s backbone and get ready to fight like it means it. > It’s the only way to win this war. And this isn’t talking about a surgical strike at this particular murderer and his henchmen. This is talking about bringing in enough troops to overpower the insurgents in Fallujah, and the al-Sadr brigade as well, and then crushing them. Yeah, that’ll teach Zarqawi a lesson, alright. He’ll be laughing his fucking head off, when our sowing the wind causes us to reap yet another whirlwind in Iraq, with the whole frickin’ _country_ rising up at that point to bodily throw us out. I’ll be damned if I know what this has to do with Berg’s murder. All it _really_ has to do with is the continued conflation of Iraqi resistance to our continued occupation of their country with the terrorist actions and plans of al-Qaeda. And it totally loses sight of what ‘winning’ is. ‘Winning’ is exiting Iraq in a way that doesn’t give bin Laden’s recruiting pitches any more new material than we absolutely have to, and retains what remaining good will we still have in the Islamic world. So that there will come another day when that world thinks better of us than they do of terrorists such as al-Qaeda, and we have a chance to fight a war against such terrorist organizations that doesn’t create new terrorists faster than we capture and kill the old ones. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/43 "2004-05-13T17:47:17Z")
> [@kniz](#): > > How many dead around the world if we pullout; confirming OBL’s belief that we don’t have the heart or will to keep fighting? 😕 Every coalition force in Iraq should be in AFGHANISTAN. Remember those guys? Remember the Taliban? Remember the international headquarters of Al Quaid? :smack: We don’t have the will to keep up the fight there because we don’t have the man power. They can send in guys to fuck with us in Iraq because we didn’t finish Afghanistan first. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/44 "2004-05-13T17:59:03Z")
> [@kniz](#): > > How many dead around the world if we pullout; confirming OBL’s belief that we don’t have the heart or will to keep fighting? 😕 I suspect we’ll find out in about 4-6months, after we turn the country over to whoever at the end of June and then slowly begin pulling our troops out. Along about October our Fearless Leader will once again be able to confidently stride before the Ah-mur-kin public and say “Mission Accomplished.” And if we find that Americans don’t have the hearts and minds to continue the fight, it will probably be becasue we’ve come to the realization that we had no business there in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/45 "2004-05-13T18:07:38Z")
I find this very amusing. If any sort of backwards ME newspaper or whatever would have published such an “article” regarding the US, and even one single US media would discover it, it would be in no time all over the US media under titles such as **JIHAD!!!** and described as : "See how they preach killing everyone in the USA!! Yet when a US media publishes such crap, you find US’ers who applaud it and support it and advocate whatever torture possible to do as those “thugs” (seen the average stage of non-education about the region in the US, as being meant to be “All Arab Thugs”) And then you people wonder why the world looks with unbelief and contempt at the mass of the US citizen that is incapable to detect its own hypocrisy and double standard reasoning. Which is the TM of the US governments since decades in a row. I find this once again a very amusing example. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/46 "2004-05-13T18:15:32Z")
Just wanted to point out that those who _are_ in a position to say something that might actually affect al-Zarqawi’s actions [are doing so](http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108442400579177434): > [@](#): > > Muslim authorities at al-Azhar Seminary, the preeminent center of learning for Sunni Islam, vehemently condemned the brutal murder of Nick Berg by terrorists in Iraq, according to Sobhy Mujahid. > > ’ “Islam respects the human being, dead or alive, and cutting off the American’s head was an act of mutilation forbidden by Islam,” [said] Ibrahim Al-Fayoumi, a member of Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy . . . ’ > > Sobhi adds, ’ Mahmoud Emara, another member of the Academy [said] "The mutilation even of enemies is rejected by Islam. A mistake could not justify another . . . " The scholar cited the respect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had paid to bodies in the battle of Badr when he ordered the burial of the dead irrespective of their religion. The Prophet urged his Companions on the day of Badr to be kind to their captives and treat them with clemency. ’ > > These scholars are major voices of the Muslim mainstream. They should be listened to on such matters. > > Even the much more radical Lebanese Shiite Hizbullah (Hezbollah), according to the Sydney Morning Herald, ’ harshly criticised the beheading and questioned the timing of a “horrible” act which drove the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US-led forces from the headlines. “Hezbollah denounces this horrible act which does an immense wrong to Islam and Muslims by a group which falsely pretends to follow the precepts of the religion of pardon and essential human values,” the party said in a statement. ’ (Hizbullah, as Shiites, has nothing but contempt for the Sunni radical Zarqawi). > > It adds, 'Ezzedine Salim, this month’s chief of the Iraq Governing Council, insisted that “decapitations and mutilations are unacceptable and have nothing to do with Islam”. ’ > > Even the conservative and fundamentalist religious leaders in Iraq expressed the same sentiments. > > Samir Haddad quotes Muthanna al-Dhari, secretary general of the Board of Muslim Clergy (a hardline Sunni organization that in the past has had members who stockpiled arms in mosques; it was a major mediating force at Fallujah). Al-Dhari ’ strongly denounced the killing, saying it runs counter to the teachings of Islam and “does disservice to our religion and our cause.” The Sunni scholar stressed this is a condemned operation whether carried out by Iraqis or non-Iraqis and whether the slain was a civilian or a military personnel. “Even if he was a military personnel he should be treated as a prisoner who, according to Shari’ah, must not be killed,” he told [IslamOnline.net](http://IslamOnline.net). Deputy Head of the Islamic Party Iyaad Samarrai said the abhorrent treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers should never give an excuse for treating U.S. prisoners the same way. “This is absolutely wrong,” he told IOL, asserting that “Islam does prohibit the killing or the maltreatment of prisoners.” Samarrai said such acts harm the interest of the Iraqi people and their cause to end the U.S.-led occupation. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/47 "2004-05-13T18:20:39Z")
You’re assuming moral equilavancy between the US and the terrorists there is none. The author is calling for a renewed attack against those who try to kill Americans, not against all Arabs. The terrorists are trying to kill all Americans, not just the Bushies (they’d prefer innocent civillians because they’re easier to get than the military folks). If innocent Iraqis die as a result of the author’s proposal, it would not be because people _tried_ to kill them - on the contrary, efforts are always made to minimize casualties. A silly proposal, maybe. The same as the terrorists, definitely not. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/48 "2004-05-13T18:27:32Z")
Err…my last post was to **aldebaran** not to the post after his. Ahem. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/49 "2004-05-13T18:32:21Z")
So, who exactly wrote the editorial? I didn’t see a name on it. It would be really amusing to blame this on the neo-cons (whatever they are), only to find out that it was actually a Democrat feeling vengeful. It always amuses me to see you jump to conclusions, **Reeder**. It doesn’t make me mad anymore, but it does make me smile. ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/50 "2004-05-13T18:44:07Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > _Us_ is Americans. Can we really let comments by overly emmotional Americans represent all of us? If we do then we might be stupid enough to let the actions of a group of masked Arabs represent everyone in Iraq. > [@World Eater](#): > > Who is this _ **they** _ group? _They_ are the people who are fighting each other ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/51 "2004-05-13T19:03:04Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem with your stirring, controversial no-holds-barred speech that dares to take a brave lone stand against … um, the world’s most hated individual on the planet is that the Post was talking about an all-out war with Iraq. By “the world’s most hated individual” I assume you are talking about Ossama Bin Laden. If so, I doubt he qualifies. At this point in time, George Bush probably leads the race for that title. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/52 "2004-05-13T19:54:12Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > “We will teach them not to fight back by stepping up the pressure to fight back.” **Olentzero** forgive me if I’m being dense, but I’m understanding the form of your post above as inplying that it is a statement that actually appeared in the editorial linked to by **Reeder**. I am unable to find it. If that is because it isn’t there, but is merely what you view as a logical extrapolation of what is there, please advise. Otherwise, please point ot the paragraph I should be looking in. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/53 "2004-05-13T19:57:34Z")
Sorry to confuse, **kaylasdad**. That wasn’t an actual statement taken from the editorial, but my own summation thereof. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/54 "2004-05-13T20:00:22Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > So, who exactly wrote the editorial? I didn’t see a name on it. > > It would be really amusing to blame this on the neo-cons (whatever they are), only to find out that it was actually a Democrat feeling vengeful. Newspaper editorials are not bylined if the management wants them to represent a pronouncement of the full moral authority of the paper, not just some individual staffer’s say-so. That said, the \*NY Post \* is owned by Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation, of whom you must have heard. He is most certainly not a Democrat. Draw your own inferences about his vengefulness or his neocon credentials. **BubbaDog** , your points are almost all dead on, except for the one about Iraq trying to assassinate GHW Bush. That story turns out to have been a fabrication by Kuwaiti intelligence. **Zebra** , is Al Quaid the less-successful brother of Randy and Dennis Quaid? ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/55 "2004-05-13T21:09:38Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I resemble that remark! Couldn’t it be possible that perhaps the things I said were things I thought up all by myself? I’m glad to hear that, but I’m afraid you need to calm down, dear. Where did I seem to indicate that you (or anyone) didn’t know terrorists were bad. Well, I’d probably calm down a lot more, dear, once you kindly take your condescending metaphorical arm from off my shoulder and shove it up your ass. (Sigh! There’s nothing a quote from _The Four Seasons_ can’t fix.) > [@](#): > > Again, you really need to calm down. LOL, no, I really don’t. I think it’s much more untoward to have a problem with emotions being high while talking about death, violence, and the possible destruction of our future. If this shit doesn’t make you angry, that says a lot more about you than it does about me. I’m upset because you and others are spouting the same tired old canards that have been refuted months ago. But you’re too lazy reading the talking points from BushCo and Limbaugh to think for yourself and learn some real facts. And reading this sort of crap gets fucking tiring, yo. > [@](#): > > You’ve lost perspective. The Post editorial was talking about terrorists, not Iraq, nor Iraqis in general. The Post editorial was talking about going after a dozen guys who commited an atrocity against one man by resuming full invasion mode in Iraq, a mode that killed thousands and thousands of _innocent civilians_. Right. _I’m_ the one who’s lost perspective. > [@](#): > > I realize that you are using somewhat of a scattergun approach here, but where did I ever indicate that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11? I guess that’d be the place where you brought up bin Laden and al Qaeda in a discussion about Iraq. > [@](#): > > I will say however, that I don’t see it as much of a stretch that there was certainly a synergy between Iraq and al-Qaeda. You need to get glasses, then, because it is indeed a stretch. People who are geopolitically aware (or who at least read books other than _The Way Things Ought To Be_) can see the inescapable, irreconcilable incompatibility between religious wackos and secular wackos. Bin Laden (the religious wacko) _hates_ Sadaam (the secular wacko). HATES him. Osama’s goal is to form a Caliphate, an empire entirely ruled by his particularly foul flavor of fundamentalist religion. Sadaam doesn’t meet his criteria. To arch-religious fruitcakes like Osama, having a common enemy is not enough to make Sadaam “good people.” Y’know, even if one can’t be bothered to inform oneself of these fundamental differences in ideologies and goals, at least use your logic. Was it just a coincidence that al Qaeda couldn’t take root in Iraq while Sadaam was still there? If Sadaam and Osama were really best friends 4eva, why weren’t Osama’s homies hanging out in Baghdad, instead of waiting until we thoughtfully cleared the way for them? > [@](#): > > Iraq was believed by the U.N., Europe, all of its neighbor nations and the U.S. to harbor, or at least to be trying to develop WMD … Oops! You forgot to add “falsely” in there. You remember that part? The part that this was a FALSE BELIEF? Brought on by lies and/or obfuscations, or (I’ll be generous here) an honest mistake brought on by really craptastic intelligence? Jesus fucking christ, don’t you keep up with the news AT ALL? And you wonder why I’m not “calm.” Because people like you keep perpetuating these utterly inaccurate fantasies long after they’ve been shown up to be myths. And then the cycle of ignorance continues. > [@](#): > > , and given its willingness to use WMDs against its own people (nods) … while we turned our backs, right, I’m with you so far … > [@](#): > > and against Iran, and the fact that it was trying to buy technology from France, Russia, China, et al., BZZZT! Sorry, I gotta throw a flag on that play. Okay buddy, be honest with me. You’ve been in a bubble, right? One of those hermetically sealed dealies that, for some reason, you have no access to books, newspapers, TV or the Web? 'Cause that’s the only explanation for someone to be so completely unaware that this “Iraq was trying to buy WMD technology!” meme has been debunked. I know, it’s not nice to argue with a bubble boy. (Although for the record, it’s “moops,” not “moors.”) So I’ll simply smile sweetly and ask: _Cite_? And please, NOT a cite from freerepublic or [HannityLimbaughSavageDrudge.com](http://HannityLimbaughSavageDrudge.com), or the National American Spectator Enterprise Institute Review? In the meantime, here’s a fun quiz to keep you occupied. Wanna know which country we know for an irrefutable fact has _actually_ supplied WMD-related materials to Iraq, and not just through undercover backdoor operations but through its own government’s federally licensed private companies? Wanna know which government was so, so very concerned about Iraq having WMDs that it took a company that sold WMD materials to Iraq for use in gassing his own people and … um … gave it some nice juicy contracts to help rebuild Iraq? Hint: The answer’s already been posted. > [@](#): > > certainly suggested that it wouldn’t be long until they would have the capability to manufacture their own WMD, and given that Hussien and his shithead sons were interested primarily in money and power, A country’s leaders were interested primarily in money and power?! Heavens to Murgatroyd!!! Won’t someone think of the children? Oh wait … this is different from George H.W. Bush and his sons … um, how, exactly? > [@](#): > > and that Hussien hated the U.S. for kicking his ass out of Kuwait, Iraq wouldn’t have hesitated a moment to sell such weapons (although probably not the technology itself, as loose-cannon al-Qaeda could just as easily turn on Iraq) to al-Qaeda. Ahhh, I see. It all falls into place. You’re right, it made perfect sense to invade their country, kill thousands of citizens and set light to a powderkeg – not just before they sold the weapons to al Qaeda, but before they even showed the slightest inclination to be aligned with al Qaeda, and before they made the weapons so they could sell 'em, and before they even acquired the materials to make the weapons … Sigh. Can someone please remind me when Bush hired Sylvia Browne to be his Middle East Policy Advisor? Again, Iraq and its people – the ones who would suffer worst in the invasion advocated by _The New York Compost_ – have fuck-all to do with al Qaeda and the bastards who murdered Berg. But you don’t care, the _Post_ doesn’t care, Rush Limbaugh et al don’t care. You want blood and you want it NOW, no matter how much worse it makes things, no matter how many more innocents die. Faster, pussycat! Kill! Kill! > [@](#): > > Excuse me, but I believe I’m an individual shitwit. Please don’t lump me with everyone else. You’re right, you are an individual shitwit. Such an individual shitwit that you didn’t notice that I was talking to someone _else_. :wally Turning to others: Thanks **Zoe** and a big air kiss to **American Maid**. My first sig quote! Now I’ve really made it. I knew my hatred would make me famous one day. > [@](#): > > So, who exactly wrote the editorial? I didn’t see a name on it. 'Cause it’s an editorial, not an op-ed piece. > [@](#): > > It would be really amusing to blame this on the neo-cons (whatever they are), only to find out that it was actually a Democrat feeling vengeful. OMG, that it would be, except that the Murdoch-owned _New York Post_ isn’t exactly jam-packed with Democrats writing its editorials. (I suppose Ed Koch might be a guest editor now and then, but he’s a DINO – Democrat in Name Only.) But hey, why let that stop us from imagining the potential comedy gold? Think of the hijinks that’d ensue if it turned out to have been written by Jimmy Carter himself. Or Nelson Mandela! Or – or Hillary! Or even Jesus!!! What a shame it’s not going to happen. Fun thinking 'bout it, tho. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/56 "2004-05-14T00:00:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Newspaper editorials are not bylined if the management wants them to represent a pronouncement of the full moral authority of the paper, not just some individual staffer’s say-so. That said, the \*NY Post \* is owned by Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation, of whom you must have heard. He is most certainly not a Democrat. Draw your own inferences about his vengefulness or his neocon credentials. Well, that explains things. I did not know that. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/57 "2004-05-14T03:14:21Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > actually, yes they are. Until they recieve trial, they are innocent. So the US justice system applies to all people everywhere? Cool. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/58 "2004-05-14T03:38:28Z")
> [@furt](#): > > > [@TwistofFate](#): > > > > actually, yes they are. Until they recieve trial, they are innocent. > > So the US justice system applies to all people everywhere? Cool. How about just the places the US is supposedly trying to bring justice and the moralistically superior American Way. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/59 "2004-05-14T05:08:46Z")
…via electrodes and attack dogs… ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899/60 "2004-05-14T12:15:15Z")
> [@BubbaDog](#): > > Can we really let comments by overly emmotional Americans represent all of us? It looks to be happening. > [@](#): > > If we do then we might be stupid enough to let the actions of a group of masked Arabs represent everyone in Iraq. Ummm, this is pretty much happening. Look at all the calls for blood after the Berg thing. > [@](#): > > _They_ are the people who are fighting each other I was referring to the they in… > [@](#): > > So it looks like **they** either have to give up on fighting or adjust the fighting technique to be more effective A lot of people of people need to change their fighting techniques, can you be a little more specific? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-neocons-are-already-using-the-berg-incident/244899.md?page=4)