Nick Berg

[The Terrible Sweal]

Have your say?

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm a big believer in the theory that the media never give us a totally unbiased, complete story.

[maplesyrup]

Who is nick berg?

[Black Dog]

Who is nick berg?

Nick Berg

Nicholas Berg was an American businessman seeking telecommunications work in Iraq during the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. He was captured and beheaded in May 2004, apparently by Islamist militants possibly connected to Al-Qaida.

The decapitation received worldwide attention because it was filmed, and the footage was subsequently released on the Internet, reportedly from a Malaysian homepage by the Islamic organisation al-Ansars.

[maplesyrup]

BD....thanks.

Well if he has lost his head think of the money he will save not having to buy any more shampoo or hair gel.

Probably CIA!

[kimmy]

BD....thanks.

Well if he has lost his head think of the money he will save not having to buy any more shampoo or hair gel.

Probably CIA!

Delusional. "Oh yeah, the Islamists aren't such bad people; so it was probably a CIA plan to discredit them!" This is shifting from apologism to sheer denial of reality.

I can only shake my head at the mentality of somebody who'd make light of a beheading. Truly classy, syrup.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Kimmy.....lighten up you little .......

So according to you, an American death is of more consequence than an Arab's person death. Is that correct? BS to that! :angry:

[Guest eureka]

I have seen suggestions in a number of places that there was more to Berg than business including the improbability of the business he was there on at this time.

There have been rumblings of a CIA connection. I don't think a plot to. I doubt the plot to discredit Islam and I can't imagine what else.

[kimmy]

So according to you, an American death is of more consequence than an Arab's person death. Is that correct?

I can't imagine how anybody with even modest reading comprehension skills could have gotten that out of my message, Syrup, but I've given up trying to figure out how your mind works.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Here's some more FODDER for the debate.

[barbarosa]

So according to you, an American death is of more consequence than an Arab's person death. Is that correct?

I

thaks for the pleasent images terrible sweal!

I have to agree with kimmy on that

I to have seen suggestions that ther was more to it than buisiness

as for the cia, well lets just say that anythings possible

[kimmy]

Here's some more FODDER for the debate.

A couple of questions, Terrible...

--having looked at the photographic evidence the author provides, do you believe it supports the claims he makes?

--having looked at some of the other content of the website you linked to, how would you assess the author's objectivity? How would you assess the author's overall capacity for rational thought?

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear maplesyrup,

So according to you, an American death is of more consequence than an Arab's person death. Is that correct? BS to that

Sadly, it is how the US views others. As I have posted elsewhere, an assessment by the US Army suggested a 'value ratio' between the lives of Rwandans vs. American soldiers, and it was, in a 'valuable asset' sense, eighty thousand to one.

Source of ratio: Shake Hands With The Devil by Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear maplesyrup,

So according to you, an American death is of more consequence than an Arab's person death. Is that correct? BS to that

Sadly, it is how the US views others. As I have posted elsewhere, an assessment by the US Army suggested a 'value ratio' between the lives of Rwandans vs. American soldiers, and it was, in a 'valuable asset' sense, eighty thousand to one. It has been estimated that 800,000 Rwandans died in approximately 100 days. The US would not risk any soldiers to save them, because if they lost 10 it would have been considered a bad investment.

Source of ratio: "Shake Hands With The Devil" by Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

[kimmy]

I'm not sure the two are comparable, Fleabag.

Syrup was clearly trying to imply that I think American lives are more valuable than Arab lives, because after all I'm in a thread talking about a dead American but I haven't made any threads talking about dead Iraqis.

This 80,000:1 ratio you're talking about is clearly something else. Trying to determine when it's appropriate to send troops into dangerous situations is obviously not something that can be undertaken lightly under any circumstances.

Do you think Canadians have a substantially different "value ratio"? There is a humanitarian crisis of huge proportions in the Sudan... certainly more than 80,000 people have died there... yet we have not risked any Canadian soldiers to try to help. If we believed that saving Sudanese lives was worth the lives of Canadian troops, wouldn't we already be there?

I don't know the exact meaning of this "value ratio" you're referring to, but if it's some kind of rule of thumb in deciding when becoming involved in somebody else's conflict is worth the lives of people entrusted to your care, I don't disagree with the premise: if I were ever in a situation where I was responsible for deciding whether to risk peoples' lives, I would have to be convinced that the sacrifice would do a huge amount of good before I could do it. Thank god I'm not in such a position, and never will be; I don't think I could do it.

-kimmy

[BigDookie6]

Kimmy.....lighten up you little .......

So according to you, an American death is of more consequence than an Arab's person death. Is that correct? BS to that! :angry:

For a country who claims to be the #1 leader of Human Rights, you sure would not be able to tell from some of the replies. Does it matter whether it is an Arab or American death? Or would your reply be, "terrorists are justified because of an illegal invasion!"? Did you even watch the beheading MS? Could you even stomach the footage?