>>Many of you might remember that I started a thread on the day the video was released noting how "convenient" it was that the tape had come out, just as the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal was in full swing.
They state specificly that the murder was because
of the prisioner abuses. It'd be really strange for the murder to have taken place before the scandal wouldn't it? Would it have been better for them to wait 6 months before performing thier act of vengence?
>>do these terrorists, who are clearly capable of brainwashing people to the point where they are willing to kill and be killed for their beliefs, really have no concept of political tact?
Their political tact != our political tact. To them, murdering an American is a great political move. Did you not see the celebrations in the streets after the 9/11 attacks? To many people over there, brutally killing coalition members makes them a hero. The more people they kill, the higher up the extremist ladder they climb.
>>In other words, these masters of brainwashing and spin and deception release a video of a despicable act just as the US, their sworn enemy, is being globally grilled. Does this make sense to you?
Because "getting grilled" means nothing to those people. They wouldn't be placated if we dragged George Bush and his entire cabinet onto the White House lawn and publicly executed them during prime time. They know that the little scandal isn't going to do a damn thing for them as it's not going to get the US out of the Middle East. But it makes for a good opportunity to say to the potential extremists out there "This is what we are doing about the injustices being done to us. What are you going to do?"
>>2) Second, I wonder what the standard issue chair is at Abu Ghraib prison?
Oh wow, a chair you can pick up for $4 at any discount store. Shocking proof of a conspiracy.
You'll find those same type of chair all over the place in every country in the world, especially in poorer countries. Watch some tape from hotels and such in Iraq, those chairs are everywhere.
>>3) Is it not interesting that the wall colour at Abu Ghraib prison is identical to that of the video?
Oh no! The wall color is Beige!! And.. oh fuck! The walls here at work are the same color! OMG!! I'm in an Iraqi prison!! OMFG!! I knew Arkansas sucked, but I had no idea it was a wormhole directly into Iraq!!
>>4) Is it not also interesting that Berg is wearing the same orange jumpsuit worn by prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison? Sure, you say, perhaps he was kidnapped directly from the prison (as stupid as this sounds, anyway) - but then can you please explain (7)?
Whoopie. Orange jumpsuit. Which can be seen all over the damn place in Iraq. If you were taking prisioners, you'd probably have a few stashed away and make them wear them too as it lessens the chances of a sucessful escape. Especially when a prisioner had just recently escaped another set of kidnappers..
>>5) Is it also not interesting that the timecodes in the video jump back and forth?
Yes. Al-Queda learning how to use video editing software is quite amazing. And?
They put the video up on their website. It's just polite and economical to edit out periods of inaction to save bandwidth. I do it on videos all the time.
Or do I?
>>6) Is it also not interesting that Berg did not exhibit any of the convulsions that typically accompany decapitation?
Well, by all acounts he was flopping around a bit even though he was being held down and jostled by having his head sawn off. Plus, he was in a loose jumper so the more subtle convulutions would not be visible. Not to mention, not every decapitation is the same. He could have had atophied muscles, been malnourished, adrenaline could have interfered, or any of 100 perfectly legitimate reasons could have stopped such bodily reactions or made them unable to be seen on the video.
>>7) Is it not curious that the US denies contact with Berg, and yet his friends and family insist that he told them he was being held by the US? Huh? Why?
Who knows? Who cares? Maybe they were. Maybe not. Maybe people acting under US sanction, but not officially of the US were holding him. Maybe any of a thousand reasons. Maybe he was told to say that. Maybe he was a stealth terrorist who put himself up to be martyred for the cause. There's no telling.
>>8) Another tape oddity - the men SPEAK RUSSIAN for several seconds. Not only that, but they speak Arabic with Russian accents.
This may sound strange, but in many countries people speak more than one language. People over there also travel in many different areas and can pick up accents all over the place. If they said "We'll be sendin up s'more bodies y'all! So yeh bes' git!" then I'd be slightly :wft:
But "Hmmm. Sound like they have a Russian accent" to a normal person would illicit, "I wonder if they spent a lot of time in Russia or had a Russian parent?" questions. To a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, it's evidence. Since when are you any more likely to find someone speaking arabic with a russian accent in the coalition than you were to find one among terrorists?
>>Islam completely and utterly forbids men to wear gold rings.
A. Already debunked.
B. No one is able to identify a ring on the man's hand. More likely the "flash" is from some ornate piece of the knife he was using or from some other source. There's no properly identifying what the actual color of the flash is either as the camera was obviously of very low quality and the feed was heavily compressed which very likely caused color shifting or even have been the source of the "flash".
>>As many has suspected, but have not had the time to build a solid case for, the execution of Nick Berg was performed by coalition interests (most likely independent Russian mercenaries) in order to dwarf the abuse pictures and sway public opinion back against the Iraqis
Big problem with that is... It hasn't and won't. People identify this murder with terrorists attacking Americans. The Iraqi prisioner abuses is viewed as Americans abusing Iraqis. There's a very large distinction there. Anyone with any of your "political tact" would know that having terrorists kill an American wouldn't lessen the effect of soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees.
>>The poor production quality (all the "curiosities" I have pointed out) of this video can be attributed to the haste in which it was made after the order was given to distract the public from the abuse scandal, and is in line with my conclusion.
The poor production quality can be attributed to the fact that it was made by terrorists hidden away somewhere who probably had to upload a several minute long video through less than ideal internet service. The quality proves nothing about the haste of it being made. Only the equipment and distribution methods used. If it was broadcast in HDTV at full resolution with Tom Brokaw giving live play by play, that would prove something. Low quality, low tech methods are what a constantly mobile terrorist who might need to flee and would travel lightly would be able to use and it's what anyone who would want to fake being a terrorist would use. It proves nothing.
>>Again, before you attack my conclusion, attack my evidence.
Your "evidence" is crap. You took a few normal anomolies and blew them way the fuck out of proportion in order to "prove" some stupid conspiracy. But how about coming up with some logical answers to some questions raised by your theory.
A. It's been widely known and acknowledged that there is more photos of abuse from Iraqi prisions in existance and that they will eventually come out. So why stage something like this now when it's known and acknowledged that even more disturbing pictures are out there waiting to be leaked to reignite and fan the flames and erase this little sham?
B. Why take risk like this? There's very little to gain and the gain would be short term at best before buried under more abuse evidence. And should the scandal be exposed, the political fallout would easily dwarf any prisioner scandals that can be far more easily blown off by court marshalling a few grunts to appear to be taking a hard line against the abusers.
C. Why kill the guy before "killing" him? It just adds risk and one more thing that could go wrong and expose the conspiracy. If you're gonna kill a guy, why do it more than once?