I’m not trying to say Bush had Nick Berg whacked, it was a giant conspiracy for the oil barons who report to the Greys what control us with chemtrails, or say “They did it and I dare you to prove otherwise!” I’m not. Hoping for a debunking, actually.
Nick Berg was the contractor guy who went to Iraq, got detained at Mosul, was supposedly put in US custody/never put in US custody/released from US custody/never in US custody was in Iraqi custody/never in Iraqi custody, then found decapitated on a Baghdad street one morning. Post-Daniel Pearl, it was that famous terrorist decapitation video that wormed its way through the internets. Like a certain meme we’ll call “gotshe” you didn’t have to look for it to see it.
I stumbled upon this webpage purporting the Nick Berg assassination was PSYOP/propaganda effort by the CIA to distract from various scandals (I think Abu Ghraib was just before this). He does this by painting Berg as an easy fall guy (farther is/was on Bush’s enemies list), putting doubt in the government’s version of events, then pointing out bits of the video that point toward their conclusion. Among them: if you squint your eyes just right you can see a US military cap at the edge of the screen at certain parts, he wears the same orange jumpsuit as detainees in Abu Ghraib, the statement read doesn’t use very good Arabic, the Zarqawi in the video walks like a veritable able-bodied two-legger for someone who’s supposed to have a prosthetic leg, and the “Arabs” in the video are a batch of Whitey McGees.
It seems pretty reasonable. But, I remember being young and foolish enough to have been taken in by the FOX moon landing hoax documentary hook, line, and sinker so I’m a little more skeptical now. For one thing, the page starts off by saying the CIA was Osama bin Laden’s “handlers” and helped him escape in Afghanistan. But “the guy’s a whacko!” isn’t evidence that proves or disproves an assertion.
I’d like to believe this is in the same vein as believing the Twin Towers were built with explosives already inside them ready to be ignited 25 years later, bur I’m not really qualified to debunk any of this. I’m sure there’s a reasonable set of rebuttals or explanations for a lot of that.
This site seems the best for a summary of the various claims:
Some personal observations:
A lot of supposition about a chair that’s sold at stores everywhere.
The London upload of the video actually goes against the ConTher, not for it.
After reading way too much about this:
Yeah, video seems a fake. Maybe by London kids? Who knows?
No autopsy so you aren’t going to get an definitive answer.
I haven’t heard of this conspiracy theory before, but a few things immediately jump out at me:
The enemies list isn’t Bush’s enemies list, it is a petition signed by supposedly 2,000 people/organizations in protest of the first anniversary of the Iraq war. The person who portrayed this list of signatories as a group of “enemies” isn’t Bush or someone in his Administration, it is some guy on the Free Republic message board. I think we can all agree that some guy on a right wing website speaks for the Bush Administration about as well as your average Doper is a spokesman for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Here’s the Freeper post. And frankly, unless there’s more to the story, the idea that merely signing an anti-war petition is motive for the government to murder your child is the definition of lunacy.
Those links don’t actually provide any evidence that the CIA was involved in the murder. Just because people have doubts about the authenticity of a videotape isn’t evidence that the CIA did it. If asking a million questions is sufficient proof to establish a government conspiracy, then the CIA must also be behind the Kennedy assassination, the death ray from space that “actually” brought down the WTC buildings, and the Enron scandal.
The burden isn’t on people to disprove a conspiracy theory, the burden is on its proponents to produce evidence for it. There isn’t a single falsifiable allegation in those websites that purport to be evidence that the US Government was behind the murder, with the possible exception of the orange jumpsuit (which is circumstantial in nature – what, you don’t think Al Qaeda is capable of pulling off orange jumpsuit technology as a morbid satire and propaganda effort against the incredibly unpopular prison at Guantanamo?!?), that establishes any kind of link between the government and the murder that occurred weeks after Berg’s release.
There’s an insinuation that Nick Berg’s father “blames George Bush” for the murder, as if Bush or the US Government actually carried it out. Reading a little of what Mr. Berg has said on the subject, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Michael Berg seems to be saying that he blames Bush for the chaos and violence that arose because of an unjustified and terrible war, which resulted in the murder of his son. See for example, “Yeah, like George Bush didn’t okay the torture and death and rape of people in the Abu Ghraib prison for which my son was killed in retaliation.” Link. So if Michael Berg, who probably knows more about the death of his son than any other person on the planet, doesn’t seem to think the CIA is behind it, I think random people on the internet should start by convincing Mr. Berg of their unusual theory.
How do we know President Bush had nothing to do with his murder? He’s dead, isn’t he? It would be awfully ironic if President Bush’s only success while in office was the murder of an American citizen.
How do we know that Bill Door had nothing to do with his murder. I think when you are making a claim as outrageous as accusing the President of the US of murder, then the burden of proof should be on you.
How can you prove a negative? These conspiracy theories are all ridiculous…
OK, let me restate it. The reason we know he had nothing to do with the murder is because Nick Berg is dead. Had Bush had anything to do with it, Berg would still be alive. George Bush couldn’t arrange a fart at a bean eating contest.
Props to Ravenman for taking the time to point out why this is BS, but really the proper response to such nonsense isn’t debunking, it’s eye-rolling and walking away.
There still isn’t a conspiracy theory more offensive than holocaust denial, but this comes damn close.
