Beheading in Iraq
 

Something occurred to me shortly after the beheading story came out, and maybe it says something about the state of my own cynicism, but...if I were in a position of authority within the military or the C.I.A. in Iraq, and I wanted to distract the attention of the world (and especially, of the American public) from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal and refocus it on the cruelty of "the enemy"...do you see where I'm going with this?

Before you accuse me of reading too many spy novels or watching too many episodes of 'The X-Files', consider that there are undoubtedly individuals - not to mention 'cells' - within various agencies of our government to whom the sacrifice of a single civilian for "the greater good" would not be an unreasonable scenario.

I've been advised by somebody in a position to know that the voice of the supposed Joradanian Al Quaida leader on the tape is speaking Arabic with a distinctly Iraqi accent. What do you suppose it would cost these days to hire five Iraqi men to put on masks and cut off someone's head?

Anything is possible. And yes, some members of the CIA are capable of such a thing. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it is possible.

You don't hear about it, but I'm certain (without any proof) that there are tons of CIA agents in Iraq right now, posing as civilian contractors and various other jobs. It's what they do.

That you've thought of the possiblity shows a much wider understanding of the issue than most could comprehend. It does seem a bit convenient... I wonder which is the lasting image of the past few days: faceless foreigners in allegedly set-up and 'exception to the rule' photos or a graphic documentation of the murder of an innocent American with a pronounceable name, a family and a social conscience?

Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

To what end? All that risk and effort for something that, quite frankly, will be completely forgotten in a few months. At least from the perspective of those you think may want to 'distract' - this is already over except for some dirty little court-martials. Why would they then do something so risky?

The 'powers that be' have all but decided this will be trivialized. Watergate, in the exact same time frame to the elections, was even more trivialized. The 'powers that be' looked at Watergate in this same time frame as all but completely forgotten - a non event. Look at how most newspapers reported Watergate. On the back pages where things such as exploding Pinto trials and failing Firestone tires (1970 tires; not 1990 tires) appeared.

Watergate was the rare exception. It was nothing - completely ignored - until McChord suddenly realized he was being totally sacrificed. Only just after the inagueration of Nixon for a second term did Watergate even get any press after the initial hype.

That is what we have now. Unless some specific connections are made to higher levels, then the Iraq torture issue is gone. No reason to murder someone - and therefore risk a power broker's entire carrer - over something so trivial as this Iraq prison abuse scandel. Short of some connection directly to top management or a complete exposure of same in Guantanamo ordered by the president, then this event will only thrill the hype seekers (us) for a while longer. It is already over as far as the power brokers are concerned. That is unless something happens - and some less power brokers may just play a trump card. Absolutely nothing to be gained by taking such great risks - to have someone murdered. The prison abuse hearings, according to the 'powers that be' have already been trivialized as to be irrelevant.

I dunno.

This seems to me to be a bad move on the part of the Iraqis.
Even though this small group of crazies doesn't represent the whole of Iraq, it does more to underline the abuses at Abu-Graib prison and show that although you may get humiliated by the Americans, the former operators would have done much worse to you.

Me, I'd rather be tortured by the Americans. I can wear panties on my head and get over it. But having a drill used on me, or other major damage that I may or may not survive, that's a little harder.

And we don't behead anyone. Especially in public for the evening news. We don't get into "revenge" killings either. Even though military retaliation sure looks like it sometimes.

What is it with Arabs in general and their need for revenge?

Brian

Not to disagree but the worst pictures it seems haven't yet leaked and the report includes sodomy, beatings etc, I think people keep grasping to this 'panties on head' thing because it makes them feel better. Of course americans would never engage in real torture.

Damn difficult to tell the difference, sometimes.

If they don't have a whole army to do it with, then an individual level is the only way to go.

Look at some of the arguments on this thread. It's not just Arabs.

Salon has an interesting article today about digital images and the net as weapons...that the iconic images of this war may not come from pro journalists digging, but for the first time, amateurs with digi cameras, internet access and cell phones. We've talked earlier about the use of cell phone images and crime. This is a further twist. Maybe our general visual horror threashold will just rise.

Re: Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

Far from being over, as you suggest, I think this story - the prisoner abuse scandal - has barely begun to be told. This is not a case of the media simply flogging a dead horse for the sake of sensationalism (not to suggest that they wouldn't, if necessary), but rather a situation where the full extent of the blame, not to mention the vast majority of the evidence, has yet to be scrutinized and evaluated.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, those who dismiss the whole thing by talking about women's underwear, and other relatively non-serious (or at least non-lethal) incidents, are really doing so with an agenda to trivialize. Early reports suggest that as many as a dozen Iraqi prisoners may have been beaten to death, and that U.S. forces within the prison were complicit in the rape of boys by Iraqi prison guards.

Before the beheading tape was released, the prisoner abuse situation was the lead story on every news broadcast, the main topic on every talk radio program, and - I'm sure - the biggest blip on every radar screen in Washington...and it certainly was not going to be going away any time soon.

Forget it. Bush and Rumsfeld should send a letter of thanks to Al Queda, because the Berg beheading has pushed prisoner abuse right off the radar screen. Despite, or even because of, AQ's claim that the beheading was due to that abuse.

I'm somewhat heartened by the negative reaction to Sen. Inhofe's remarks yesterday. I am disturbed, however, that a senator would say it in the first place.

Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

Dayummm, I didn't even think of that! Shiii...I wouldn't put anything past the US Gubmit...;)

The cover of this morning's Philadelphia Daily News

To be fair, we really know nothing about their parents' marital status at the time of their births. Especially with the masks.

um, truly sorry for the family's loss... but bad shit happens in war. this is a war and people will die in brutal ways. we can either sit around worry about who is torturing who or we can pull out all the stops and start a war of elmination. until we have destroyed those who oppose us we can not build a democracy. we must truly rid the region of the old regime and those who, for whatever reason, oppose change. and, unfortunately that means large scale combat operations resulting in many dead. and if the Iraqi "civilian" population allows the terrorists or insurgents, depending on your views to live in their midst then the "civilians" will also pay a very high price in casualties. i'm pretty sure that in WWII there were many civilian casualties in germany and japan, but we won. the war ended and we went in and rebuilt their nations to better than pre-war conditions.

Too bad the bad guys don't wear black hats. It would be a lot easier.

Re: Re: Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

I never said it was over. Its over as far as the 'powers that be' are concerned. They may just be right. Major difference between what I posted and what a few here instead read.

Far more serious pictures are pending. Many other reports involving other aspects have yet to be provided. Taguba's report was only limited to the MP brigade - which the 'powers that be' already have spun to say blame is limited only to some in the brigade. They have effectively deflected blame and, more important, avoided any investigation of Guantanamo Bay. It is critical that we not have a clue that Guantanamo is equally as bad if not worse. Without 'pictures of hype', then we just will not understand.

Notice that anyone who might even mention how bad Guantanamo Bay is (ie Chaplain Yee) was instead all but court-martialed on invented charges.

What I am saying is the 'we' are already trivializing it. Remember the example provided. If you were not 16 or older in 1972, then you probably have little idea of what I had posted about a Watergate parallel. The youngsters among us think (due to their 'history as told by Hollywood' perspective), that Watergate was a big story every day. In fact maybe half the nation's newspapers rarely reported Watergate. The 'loyal patriots' would even verbally attack those that kept questioning Watergate. Remember that anyone shot at Kent State was openly declared an enemy of America who deserved what they got. Believe me, the 'patriots' in America where that agressive and forward. How dare we say anything bad about the president! It was that way in 1972 America. Watergate went on month after month with most people not even knowing what Watergate was. Many who did simply kept blaming the communist newspaper called Washington Post.

I used to be amazed at stories in the Post and most said it was wrong - because other papers were not reporting it and because the President would never be involve in such things.

Welcome to the Iraqi prisoner scandel. This is a major disaster. Seymor Hersh noted how serious this scandel will have for citizen safety, new business, international relations, domestic science, etc for Americans and America virtually everywhere in the world. Most Americans have such myopic news sources (ie Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the local gossip) as to not even understand what Hersh says.

What makes it even worse are the Americans who note that Iraqi terrorists do same - therefore justify the abuse. Their 'I never got educated' opinions get carries throughout the world because such opinions are so pathetic as to become news. These extremists don't understand how much they undermine, damage, and pervert America in they eyes even among our friends. They play right into the propaganda of anti-humanity extremists such as bin Laden. They act as classic enemies of America by doing anything but be outraged by this event. They equate American patriotism with an idea that Americans 'hate' all foreigners. And they have only assisted in trivializing this event. Yes, the torture and sexual abuse is being trivialized to the point that the scandel is already over from the perspective of those 'powers that be'. Even the above post from lookout123 demonstrates the real problem. He helps to tivialize the entire problem.

The scandel is already dissipating. You saw it when Taguba did not testify alone. Suddenly the UnderSecretary for Intelligence and others were seated with him to put a correct spin on his report. They did so as necessary to limit blame only to enlisted men and a female general. Already blame has been cast that will protect the real source of this scandel.

Again, I cited Watergate as a classic example of same. An event that completely disappeared within a week. It also was spun as work of a misguided seven. An event that almost never even made history - due to what was being reported month after month ... nothing.

Watergate for months - even through the election - had nothing to do with anyone in government. That's right. Months after Watergate was exposed, 49 out of 50 states voted to reelect Nixon. Why? Watergate was trivialized just like this Iraqi prison scandel is being trivialized.

I was careful to note the similarity to Watergate - expecting that many here would fail to understand what I said because many never really learn history of 30 years ago. IOW we are dooomed to repeat history just as Iraq is so similar to VietNam. And so the only question is when will a John Dean, McChord, or Judge Sirrica step forward to expose this scandel. It does not look good. The spin is being cast that well and that wide. I suspect only when we start seeing same pictures from Guantanamo will this scandel get any serious attention. IOW already it is being trivialized.

Look at what I cited. Notice what the 'powers that be' fear you might understand. Major Gen Miller arrived in August from Guantanamo to do in Iraq what is done in Cuba. By October, the sexual abuse and torture - including death of prisoners - was ongoing. Notice that this was that obvious with my first posts on this topic. Now the 'powers that be' even deny that Military Intelligence (MI) ran Abu Ghraid - causing friction between an MI Colonel and the MP General. 'Powers that be' must have you not see the relationship between Iraq and Guantanamo. Prisoner deaths were not even mentioned during Senate questioning of Taguba.

My god. It takes leaking of an ICRC report to expose something we really have suspected - that 90% of those in Iraqi prisons are not even guilty. How do we know? Just by the numbers of people given the $10 and released after 3 months.

'Powers that be' have done their job well. Until you understand that part of this story, then you really have no idea of the real story. Those pictures get attention of the emotional. Those who are more logical - seek the irrefutible fact - see those pictures as only minor corroborating details of something far more serious and maybe sinister.

Since most of us don't think so factually; since so many of us only see the problem in terms of the emotion of those pictures, then this Iraqi Prison abuse scandel will be made trivial with time. Only the little people will be prosecuted just as Watergate was only McChord, Liddy, Magruder, etc. And that will only be reported on inside pages of the newspapers.

Apparently I made a mistake. I posted only a summary. Therefore too many assumed something I was not saying. Got to remember to make my posts longer.

What an odd way to go about installing democracy.

Why the inverted commas? Do you doubt that the population of iraq is made up of civilians? Do you think the only people not supporting the coalition's occupation are militia?


Many civilian casualties? That's something of an understatement given Hiroshima and Dresden. ........and....are you suggesting that America installed democracy into Germany too? Are you really that arrogant as to simplify WW2 in such a manner? And which "we" are you referring to? I have a suspicion you are taking your history lessons from the Hollywood University.

yes it is an understatement - but thanks for pointing out the obvious. and, by the way, if bringing up Hiroshima was supposed to tweak me.. i think it was the right decision. what type of gov't did germany have before WWII? after? and no - my history lessons don't come from hollywood - but definitely not revisionist history either. my BA is in history my MA is in Foreign policy, sorry to disappoint.
atrocities happen in every war. that is the nature of the beast. i don't like it but i don't feel we should shrink from it either. if you want to build a new way of life, government, commerce in an area where there is opposition, the fastest, least painful (to us) method is to destroy all that stand in opposition and then begin a building process. trying to build something new while shielding our backs from attacks is a sure fire way to lose.
personally i don't believe the arab nations are capable of supporting a democracy in the way most westerners view it, but if that is what we are there to do, then DO IT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY THAT CAUSES US THE LEAST CASUALTIES.

the quotes were to point out that we aren't fighting an actual army. these are individuals that take their cheap shots and slink back into society at large. if the non-combatants, for lack of a better word, refuse to call out the terrorists in their midst, then unfortunately many of the innocent will die. in WWII when the allied armies advanced upon a town that was to be a spot for battle those who didn't wish to be listed as collateral damage and in many cases came forward to give info(number of troops, location, weapons) to the allies. for those who hide our enemy(worst example) or just ignore the fact that they are in their presence (mildest form) they are aiding and abetting those who wish us harm and i am not overly concerned about their demise.

Newspaper says it ...

except I'd like to add... "These bastards need to die...now and painfully"


Berg was not a civilian casualty; he was not in near a bombing or caught in street fight. He was kidnapped and murdered by these bastards in their snuff-film attempt at progaganda... (so they could scare us?..what stupidity)


Kill every one of them... kill them all...

How can someone have a BA in history yet display such seeming ignorance of WW2's historical context? The government in Germany prior to the war was the direct result of the Versailles treaty, it was an aberration which came to an end because of the Allies ranged against it, not because America won.

You think Hiroshima was worth it? You dont think that might be described as a sledgehammer to crack a walnut?

Oh...and we, your British allies werent there to install democracy we were there because of an imminent threat to our national safety. Regime change was considered not to be a valid rationale for going to war. With no imminent danger of attack it was illegal to invade.

"the quotes were to point out that we aren't fighting an actual army. these are individuals that take their cheap shots and slink back into society at large. if the non-combatants, for lack of a better word, refuse to call out the terrorists in their midst, then unfortunately many of the innocent will die."

For want of a better word? We have a perfectly good word. Civilians. It doesnt need any inverted commas the word stands.

"personally i don't believe the arab nations are capable of supporting a democracy in the way most westerners view it, but if that is what we are there to do, then DO IT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY THAT CAUSES US THE LEAST CASUALTIES."

If we are there in the aid of Arab democracy surely we should be doing that in the most efficient way that causes THEM the least casualties, as long as we value the blood of those we seek to democratise at a lower rate than we value our professional soldiery we are just an enemy occupation force installing a puppet regime. If you are not overly concerned with the demise of those you are democratising I seriously doubt they'll be over concerned with accepting that democracy. In much the same way as Rumsfeld was not overly concerned about the geneva convention. You do remember the Geneva convention? Of course you do you have an MA in history.

how typically arrogant. i didn't say that the US single handedly installed democracy in germany. and yes i do know what forces were in place to allow the Nazi's rise to power. exorbitant reparations after WWI were an extremely bad idea that directly led to WWII. so get off your damn high horse.

as far as the "sledgehammer to walnut" idea - damn straight. how many allied troops would have died island hopping all the way to tokyo. the general idea in a war is to win with the least amount of casualties on both sides but primary focus MUST be on your own. your fear of casualties in the civilian community, although admireable, actually leads to policies that tie the hands of the troops on the ground causing increased casualties to OUR people. that is priority 1.
now we could get into a discussion over British vs American tactics/stategy in WWII but you'll still be sitting there looking down your nose at this schmoe from the colonies...

Re: Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

To what end? How about a wonderful 30 second TV campaign commercial. :(

oh - i forgot. F the geneva convention. our forces are the only ones who have followed the rules since the damn thing was created.

You’re absolutely right, DanaC. At Versailles, the British and primarily the french, were running the show, They extracted their pound of flesh, in the finest European tradition, which led directly to the rise of the Nazis and the rematch. At the end of WWII, however, the United States of America was clearly calling the shots, which led to a democracy in Germany and Japan.

What walnut are you referring to? Hiroshima? Was an a-bomb necessary to destroy Hiroshima? Hardly. The only reason Hiroshima was chosen is because we were running out of targets. Most of the cities had been destroyed and war production had been moved to hundreds of tiny hamlets throughout the countryside. Tiny machine shops in bamboo shacks turning out war materials in a steady stream, much like the Viet Cong did 30 years later.
Was dropping the a-bombs necessary? Abso-fucking-lutely! The point was not to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point was to let the Emperor know that we could destroy Japan without invading. The Emperor was shielded from reality by the generals that refused to ever surrender. The only way Japan would give up, was if the Emperor told the Japanese people to quit. As long as the generals were telling the Emperor they could hold off a mainland invasion, by arming every man woman and child with the production from those tiny machine shops, we would have had to invade, at an estimated cost of over a million lives. Several hundred thousand of those lives being US soldiers and the rest Japanese. Remember the mass suicides on the Pacific islands we captured?
But of course your such an expert on the history of WWII, you knew all that.:rolleyes:

It seems to me like we threw it out after 9/11 anyway.

Hmmmm... Been out in the garden all day, so coming in on this rather belatedly. Would the powers that be sacrifice an individual for political gain? Well, yeah, no kidding, welcome to reality, folks. Sure, its a valid theory.

Is the US interested in democracy in the Arab world? I doubt it. The US is interested in its own best interests. We need not look all the way back to WWII for examples of this. Take Chile, for instance. Chile WAS the oldest democracy in Latin America until the Chilean people made the mistake of electing President Salvadore Allende, a communist. The CIA then took charge of Chilean political affairs and assasinated Allende. So much for democracy in Chile.

I don't see how anyone can be so innocent as to think that all we care about is Arab "democracy." What we want is to secure our supply of petroleum, bottom line. Hiroshima was a pragmatic sacrifice of Japanese civilians over a protacted battle from island to island; jungle to street. Either way, we would have won. We chose the most efficient manner of victory.

We will never win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world. If we were smart, what we would do in Iraq is to start driving the people out into central Asia. The Chinese would take little pleasure at the sudden influx of Muslim refugees into their sphere of influence. They would send out their army to dispatch the problem. We could wring our hands over Chinese atrocities and laugh all the way to the oil fields.

Well given that the Japanese had already decided to surrender and in fact had made attempts to surrender and those attempts had not been recieved, I would suggest not very many

Real History

From that page-:

"For Tokyo the writing was on the wall. On June 18, Truman's chief of staff Admiral William D Leahy voiced the opinion that a surrender could be arranged "with terms that can be accepted by Japan."

By that time Japan had begun running discreet surrender flags up the flagmasts of several of her diplomatic missions around the world, particularly in messages radioed to ambassadors in Moscow and Stockholm. They were using, intriguingly, a code -- PURPLE -- which they knew both the Americans and British were capable of reading."

and-:

"Washington too decided to squelch every sign that Japan was trying to quit. When the International News Service wired on July 7, 1945 that three influential newspaper publishers captured in Okinawa had confirmed that Japan would surrender immediately provided that the United States put in only a token occupation force, the State Department forbade publication of the news.

On July 8, the Department learned that the Japanese military attaché at Stockholm had told Prince Bernadotte over dinner that the Emperor Hirohito would ask Sweden's King Gustav to contact the Allies when the right time came, and that he had stated only one Japanese condition of surrendering: namely, that the Emperor himself remain in office. (This term was subsequently adopted by the Allies).

So even on this date it was plain that all American talk of a million soldiers losing their lives in an invasion of Japan was at best ill-informed, and at worst a deliberate deception of the British and American publics. It was obvious that there was not going to be any opposed invasion."

So.....sledgehammer to crack a walnut for no good reason. America the good, America the great.

Look down on you guys from our colonies? Are you really serious? Shall we discuss the genocide committed on your soil? Do you really think you guys can cause such utter devastation to another country and then look like the good guys? Britain has done some shady things in her past . I wold hold up my hand and say yes we have caused grief and devastation from one sea to another and we have left a raw and weeping legacy in parts of the world. But......you are the Empire now. You forged your empire in blood and suffering. You arenot the brave young rebel colony now. You are the ones with the power and you seem as judicious with it as the British Empire ever was.

While I agree with you analysis that the A-Bomb was unnecessary for Japanese surrender, I think it a bad choice to link to a David Irving article, the guys credibility couldn't be lower. I'm busy now but I'll see if I can't dig up later better links.

From how I understand it, the Japanese concern was with their Emperor. Prior American statements had made the Japanese think that the Emperor would have to go, when the Japanese learnt that they would be able to keep the Emperor in place they were willing to surrender. The A-bombing had little to do with the decision making process, Japan already knew they were defeated, if the Americans had spent more time learning about the culture of their enemies (a lesson unlearnt I fear) they could have got the surrender without the bomb.

I think this link describes the surrender decision

I think the bombs were dropped as a show of strength to Russia who had just entered the Pacific war

*Chuckles* yeah . Not the best link for me to choose. I went looking for something relating to the surrender issues and that was the first one I found. That isnt where I learned of the Japanese surrendr. I learned about that watching some very interesting documentaries on BBC1.

Interestingly I have a link here which shows how this subject is taught in UK schools

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/sosteac...wer75598.shtml

First off, tw - it's true that I completely misconstrued your post. I thought that you were saying that the prisoner abuse scandal was losing its grip on public interest because it was trivial and deserved to be forgotten quickly. I now understand that you were saying quite the opposite.

All of the discussion about Watergate (I was over 16 in '72, btw, and in the Navy) and Hiroshima, etc., is interesting and instructive, and I believe that most of the controversy surrounding any and all of these events centers on the willingness or unwillingness of individuals to accept that their government (or the one with which they identify or sympathize) is capable of some ruthless act - whether covering up a third-rate burglary aimed at recovering photos of a White House staffer's girlfriend, or incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings needlessly.

Unfortunately, one man's (or woman's) rational and mature cynicism is another's delusional thinking...or even treason.

With regard to a possible CIA or military intel connection to the Nick Berg killing, all I know is that I've been roundly attacked on a couple of other boards for even suggesting the possibility; it's amazing to me how defensive and angry some people can become when simply faced with an idea that makes them uncomfortable or challenges their assumptions.

I'm more than willing to concede the possibility that Nick Berg was killed by Islamic Fundamentalists, and I have no personal or ideological stake in either believing otherwise or trying to get anyone else to do so.

I'm simply stating that - given the ruthlessly pragmatic character that the U.S. government has shown in the recent past - I, personally, would not be surprised by anything.

You'll forgive me if I find that funny..... America is the only nation whose forces have followed the Geneva Conventions since 1864/5 or since WW1? You dont think America violated those conventions during it's engagements around the world at any time? You believe every other country who signed up to it has broken those conventions whilst America stands proud and free of guilt?

Actually, I believe it has been proven in independent scientific tests that there is no measurable limit to the extent of happy jingoistic horsecrap that will be enthusiastically swallowed (pardon the imagery) by the average self-styled "patriotic American".

I heard somebody on the radio the other day explaining how it was the Liberal Jews who were actually responsible for the death of Jesus - it's similar to that mentality.

*Nods sagely* yes, I see that. *passes Godwulf a Camberwell Carrot*:joint:
.....I am sure I didnt smoke this many joints before I wandered down into the cellar

Sheeple, in general, are rather dim, and it's only going to get worse.

It's my greatest worry about democracy.

Sheeple

......That I like.

me too, and yes, I like that.

Sheeple

yeah, some times I have felt the need to head down to the studios of "Big Brother" or "Fame Academy" and lob a grenade in, perhaps then people might pay attention to what is happening in the world*..


..eh but I'm a peaceful type guy who is glad he is not allowed come into easy contact with lethal weapons


* and I might be able to wrestle the remote control back from my "significant other"

oh come on marmot/godwulf - the only one i actually saw attacking you on the other board is probably certifiable himself. i merely stated that i don't think you really believe the theory yourself. LOL

ok - with a little less irritability on my side i'd like to clear up a few things.

Dana - i was not referring to Britain's former empire status at all. i was referring to your obvious condescension to your american brothers and sisters. when i worked at the the British embassy in Riyadh, KSA - we were REGULARLY referred to as "the colonies" in a condescending manner. i unfairly assumed your condescending slams against my educational background were coming from the same misguided, arrogant world view.

and to Dana and godwulf: when i said "we" i meant America/UK/various allies. Godwulf, in your 21 years in the navy i think you saw that the American/allied forces typically do follow the accepted rules of war. that is not to say that there have not been times where the rules were tossed to accomplish the goals. and no i wasn't saying that ALL other militaries in the world are out looking for the worst atrocities to commit just to start their day. but a brief overview of the 20th century would show that the US/allies did adhere more closely to the geneva convention.
unfortunately this is not a black/white hat world. like in vietnam we are now fighting an enemy that will strike at ANY target, then slink back into their society at large. i believe this type of warfare calls for a new look at the convention and generally accepted rules of engagement.

dana - as far as your hiroshima - the end goal may not have been just to end the war - possibly the bomb was used (very effectively) as a demonstration of what happens when you screw around with the wrong people/nations. now if you want to get into psych/soc issues of why we nuked japan and not germany - i'll be the first to tell you: it was a racially motivated decision. the germans looked and in peacetime lived like americans, the japanese, on the other hand, looked, sounded, lived differently so it was as difficult to justify.
looking back - i still believe it was the right decision, the japanese may have been sending up quiet signals that they are ready to talk, but at the time the leadership understood that you don't negotiate with the opponent while they still believe they are in a position of strength.
america has never been and will never be "loved" by the world. a healthy dose of fear of the consequences of messing with the US will have to do.

You are rightly justified - and basically must consider the possiblity - of why Nick Berg was beheaded. This because all possibilities must be considered.

Take another example from Richard Clarke. Terry Nichols can not make a decent bomb. He goes to Phillippines. Comes back and suddenly his bombs work. Did he get help from Islamic fundamentalist who were also there? Very unlikely. But it too is a conspiracy story we cannot ignore; and yet just cannot advocate.

Would CIA have Berg beheaded to shift attention from their Geneva Convention violations? If true, then we have some very rogue and dangerous elements in the 'sneaky' community. However one need only realize that Gordon Liddys do exist. Just that no facts exist to support the Berg murder had domestic reasons.

Wow, the "US is the root of all evil" crowd has really taken over this thread...

I'll refute one part of it, anyway:

VE-Day: May 8, 1945
Trinity explosion: July 16, 1945

Fair enough *smiles* I unfairly made those assumptions about your educational background because the tone of your post was not indicative of one so well educated. I daresay I havent shown myself to the best of my abilities at times either. In terms of attitudes towards Americans . I suppose there is likely an element of "superiority complex" about us Brits....But that's just cause we're better :P

Actually, lookout/smithdj, I was thinking more about the reception the idea received in some quarters of the shout.uk board. Yeah, I agree 'DaveAllen' is a piece of work - being that unintelligible is something that can't be learned...it's a genuine talent.

I'm probably wrong but hadn't Germany surrendered or was about to be overrun by the time the first a-bomb dropped?

Germany surrendered in May 1945, the A-bomb was dropped in August.

you are correct, but the discussion had been going on for some time and the idea to use this weapon on german soil, if and when ready, was rejected on all sides. when it was available the same charitable views were not extended toward the japanese.

Many discussions were ongoing. Would the bomb cause the atmosphere to burn. Whether it would be better to drop the bomb over the ocean in clear view of Japanese cities. Whether to just drop plutonium - to contaminate the city rather than kill so many.

But to understand a decision to drop the bomb, one must always go back to the strategic objective. Something that clearly existed for Afghanistan, Kuwait, and WWII. Something that did not exist for Iraq. Churchill and FDR spent much time together in 1942 defining many critical objectives that would become the guiding principles of WWII. The most fundamental was the number one objective - "unconditional surrender". This caused great fear within German High Command who understood early on where the war would be going after German declared war on the US. Germany accepted demands for "unconditional surrender". War over. The bomb that was developed much later would not be necessary.

But Japan just did not get it. Negotiations (if they existed) would have been for a settlement. That would violate the Allied Strategic Objective - "unconditional surrender". 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - a Japanese government that could not even consider unconditional surrender. Even three days after the Hiroshima bomb, still, the Japanese government remained in denial that a bomb existed and that "unconditional surrender" was even an option. With the second bomb, finally, the mindset at highest levels changed.

Rather unfortunately that so much energy must be wasted to change the 'attitude and knowledge' of but a few minds. But welcome to a fundamental principle throughout history - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Now the American perspective. We were at war with only one acceptable alternative. Total Japanese surrender. They would not. That leaves two tactical options: invasion or the bomb. Invasion was an ongoing plan with estimates of up to 0.5 million Allied casulties and even far more Japanese. One can present all kinds of reasons for the dropping of two bombs. But fundamental remains one major reason: the American objective of "unconditonal surrender". All options were only for that objective.

Take this back to the Iraq invasion. What is the strategic objective? Colin Powell was so obstinate for a strategic objective, clearly defined, in the 1990 Kuwait war that some (ie Scowcroft) feared they had the wrong generals. Scowcroft et al did not understand how absolutely critical a strategic objective, clearly defined by a smoking gun, is to the successfull achievement of military victory. Powell did understand which is why Anglo-American forces were so dominate in that war. Even worse, when objectives are defined by lies, we have disaster, torture, massacres, and scandel. It is inevitable. No clear and honest strategic objective (the reason why that smoking gun is so important) has repeatedly meant no victory for US military forces. We civilians must first and foremost honor and respect the military by first demanding that strategic objective. We must first demand a smoking gun. Sending in the military on anything less is to only disrepect the military. No true patriot sends in the military without a clearly defined stategic objective. Without same, there can be no exit strategy.

Plus in order to invade the Japanese mainland, some of the troops in Europe would have to be sent to the Pacific instead of home. That's one announcement nobody wanted to make.:(

Re: Beheading in Iraq
 

I sort of considered something similar, but I doubt that the US would be dumb enough to do something so high profile. Very few conspiracies, from Watergate through Iran-Contra and the blue dress, have stood the test of time, and the active murder of a US citizen would have no statute of limitations.

However, the holding by Iraqi police is slightly suspicious. Could the arrest have been a setup? If so, which side were they setting him up for?

IMO, there is a %90 chance that the Berg killing was carried out by hostile terrorists, militia, etc. Occams razor rules and thanks to our fucked up policies there are enough hostile factions and cells there to want to do us in.

However, there are a few groups which would want to inflame American public opinion and keep us in Iraq. Right now, there are a number of Iraqis who have hitched their star to the US occupation, and if we bail out, they not only stand to lose whatever power and kickbacks they are getting, they might very well lose their lives.

Starting with the Iraqi Governing Council , and going down through middlemen dealing with Haliburton, local politicians and ex-generals, a lot of people are prospering because we have to subcontract everything outside of the green zone to locals.

So I will say that there is a %10 chance that Berg was killed by 'friendlies' in an attempt to re-inflame American passions.

Has anyone seen the ENTIRE Berg tape? If you watch the timestamp, it has a jump of 11 hours in the time it takes these bastards to grab Bergs hair and throw him to the ground. 11 hours in 2 seconds? The editor of that tape must have been watching "Contact" while working on it.
Also, there are reports that the FBI told Berg three days prior that it would be in his best interests to get out of there. Berg refused. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. My condolences to his family, but he may have been under the employ of a government agency that cannot reveal any connection, now or ever.

11 hours? really? I didnt spot that. I watched the whole tape, I didnt really take in the time stamp....

this thing is starting to reek badly.

As if it wasn't reeking badly to begin with? :)

Now it's like a 2 week old cod left in the sun.

The US government has very clearly stated that they never had Berg in custody before he was beheaded. They said the Iraqi police had him in custody and that US officials checked on him once or twice to make sure he was OK. This is in direct contrast to what the family has said.

Well now, the family is producing e-mails that were sent to them at the time, by US officials stating that Berg was in US custody.

It's getting so you need to just assume that when the US governemnt speaks, it is lying. It's too bad. I'd like to be able believe my government.

Wouldn't we all? I stopped believing in my government when Kent State happened. That really drove the point home that the government will kill anyone who gets in its way. I became a radical after that.

trouble ahead, trouble behind...
 

There is more to this than a simple story of a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's an odd "coincidence" that Nick Berg would somehow get kidnapped and murdered by one of the most notorious terrorists in the world just two years after his laptop somehow got in the hands of another notorious terror suspect.

odd yes but what does it mean?

The story CNN has is that the e-mails are from Berg. The government explanation is that some Iraqi facilities have US M.P.s working there.