A rational discussion thread re Berg murder video

Like everyone else on these boards, I was horrified by the Nick Berg murder. Like some, I am deeply disturbed by obvious inconsistencies and "weirdness" in the murder video, which I viewed several times.

To those who are upset because some of us question the authenticity of the video, please understand that it is not because I think that American is always wrong or that the horrific murder is somehow excusable; it is that the video is so utterly bizarre and inconsistent that it raises serious questions about how Berg was killed and by whom.

If you love your country and you want justice for Nick Berg, please try to overcome your disgust at our questioning the video and try to understand our concerns.

Also, as horrific as it is, I urge everyone to view the video. If the video is not authentic, then its producers want you to only know of it second hand.

I hope to start in this thread a rational analysis of the Nick Berg murder video. Please do not post here about how horrible it is that anyone question the murder video; please do not post flames about how anyone who cannot see the inconsistencies is stupid or naive.

I tried to summarize all that is wrong with the video and ended up writing about 5 pages, so I hope in this thread we can rationally raise all the inconsistencies a few points at a time.

Before I saw the video I thought that anyone who questioned what happened was a crazy conspiracy theorist. Once you view the video, you have to conclude that the images makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Here are some big questions:

1. As stickdog and others have pointed out, the single most damning piece of evidence is the date stamp on the video. At the moment Berg is seized to be murdered, the date stamp switches from 2:44 to 13:45; there is also a gap of about a minute; and a jump back to 2:44. This is incontrovertible evidence that either 2 cameras were used, or that the actual beheading took place eleven hours after the killer took out his knife to begin the beheading.

2. The audio is about 5 seconds ahead of the visuals. Berg never opens his mouth although in the audio he can be heard screaming. This suggests that the entire video is dubbed. Or this may be an artifact of the poor quality of the internet feed.

3. I am probably the only person on these boards who has beheaded a living animal -- several sheep. When I lived in Africa, it was a sign of great friendship, hospitality and respect for a family or friends to give me a sheep to slaughter for a big barbeque, the idea being that I was spilling the blood for my ancestors. The video raises two issues for me. One is that all over the world there are basically only a few ways that a third world person would behead an animal, and presumably such a person would transfer this skill to the beheading of a person, and this is not the way Berg was killed.

Second, a beheaded sheep does not react the way Berg's body did.

First, the two main ways to kill an animal are to slit its throat with the sharp edge of the knife and then plunge the tip into the spinal cord. Only later do you then actually behead the animal. A second way is to plunge the tip of the knife into the carotoid artery and let it bleed, and again behead it later.

Beheading executions in the middle east (ie Saudi Arabia) are done using very large swords that decapitates the victim all at once, but the killers obviously did not have access to such a sword.

The sawing motion seen on the video is very odd in a culture in which people regularly kill animals for food, even in the urban areas.

Also, blood spurts out of an animal rythmically with each beat of the heart. There is suspiciously little blood spilled in this video although the quality is very poor.

More to come.

they found his body without a head on a brigde. What is the point of the accuracy of the video - he was still beheaded.

Of course Nick Berg was killed and beheaded. The question is who did it? And why?

It is very, very difficult to say this, but Berg may have been killed by persons other than those who claim to take credit for it.

Berg may have been killed under one set of circumstances, and the beheading staged to inflame public opinion and take the media's focus off the Iraqi prison scandal.

"Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld". Heard him say this on CBS News tonight. He also equated Bush and Rumsfeld to being as bad as Al Qaeda.

I didn't view the video of his beheading but if there wasn't a huge amount of blood spurting, that would call into serious question whether he was already dead at that part in the film.

Yes a body was found beheaded. But another body in a war does not have impact. This video clearly has impact. The questions become:

Is the figure in the video Berg?

Are the attackers who they claim to be?

These are the first issues that need to be answered.

The various glitches can be explained by both mundane and conspiratorial explanations. If the camera man lost his lunch on the first video they would have had to switch cameras and it would explain the distortion and switch of time.

If they were faking a murder they would have to switch from a live person to a dummy and this would explain the blur and switch.

Without knowing the answers to the first too questions these secondary questions are pure speculation. We need to confirm first that it is indeed Berg in the film. And then we need to ascertain whether the attackers are who they claim they are. If those factors match up with the claims then further speculation of conspiracy is meaningless.

I watched CNN this morning and saw the report by David Ensor who covers the Intelligence beat for CNN. He said that CNN's own Arab Language Specialists had confirmed that the voice on the video was NOT Zawaquri (spelling). He said that his intelligence sources had not yet reached a conclusion.

So your question: Are the attackers who they claim to be? appears, if not settled, called into question from reasonable sources.

There is no dispute that Berg was beheaded. There is no dispute that whoever did it is vile. But before we go off on a justice/vengence binge, we'd better be absolutely certain about from whom that justice/vengence is to be extracted.

At the moment, the who did this? question is too muddy.

Octavia Nasr from CNN:

NASR: Yes, and if you listen to these voices that we're hearing on Arab networks, Iraqis are condemning this execution. And they're saying these are foreigners. These are not Iraqis. They do not represent us and so forth.

Now, of course, the original claim was that Zarqawi is the actual man who performed this execution. Our experts listened to the accent, as you said, and they determined the accent is not Jordanian...

O'BRIEN: He is a Jordanian who is working supposedly, allegedly, at the behest of al Qaeda in Iraq. So go ahead.

NASR: Right, he is very close to bin Laden, and works, you're right, as an agent of al Qaeda in Iraq. Now, the accent is not Jordanian so that takes the Jordanian element out of the story immediately.

murder victims corpse is found

and that's the end of it? it does not matter who the murders are?

we can just shut down every homicide department in every police department in the world because once the victim is murdered, that's the end of the story.

As a parent, I would want to know the truth. I would want to know if my child was beheaded alive, or if he was already dead. It would make a huge difference in my mind to know that those were not his screams during the beheading.

We also need to know if this was staged to look like he was beheaded alive to get a specific reaction out of the American people. Let's say it was Al Qaeda who performed this act. They obviously want us to think he was beheaded alive. They wanted Americans to see the video and react. If we do not know the truth, we are giving these terrorists exactly what they want.

It also matters, because there are inconsistencies in the story of Nick Berg. His parents have an actual email from a US Consular officer saying that Nick was in US custody. Our government says he never was. Our government says he was held by Iraqi police, but we are occupying Iraq. Their police should not (and I dare say do not) act independently of our government officials in Iraq. The Iraqi police chief in Mosul said that Berg was not in Iraqi police custody. He said that they (the Iraqi police) are simply an extension of the coalition forces, and do not act separately from them. Nick Berg's parents also have copies of email exchanges with high level US officials confirming that their son was in US custody. Why is our government telling us now that he was never detained by US authorities in Iraq?

the time stamp switched around, and the audio was terrible. The way they killed him seemed wierd...there seemed to be little blood from a man that just had his head severed from his body.

You've just confirmed for me what others have said about that video.

I'm an RN, and no, I didn't watch more than the longwinded speech. I, too, noticed that the sound and video were mismatched. I'm not squeamish in the least, but I've seen more than my share of blood and misery and death.

I've never been around for the beheading of anything, not even a chicken (my granny was a wringer, not a chopper), but I have seen carotid arteries breached, and it is dramatic. The whole area would have been sprayed with blood, and everyone would have been covered. The fact that the blood flooded out rather than sprayed speaks to the fact that Berg was dead before the "beheading," possibly due to strangulation. That would also explain the time stamp discrepancy.

There are also real questions about the story of why he was there in the first place. What was a nice Jewish boy doing in Iraq looking for work, when he undoubtedly would have been hired as a subcontractor had he bothered to apply to US corporations handling that work while he was still in the US?

Then there's the all too fortuitous timing, never better for the Bush gang.

This story smells from beginning to end. My heart goes out to the family, because they have suffered a tremendous loss. That doesn't mean that I don't have serious questions about how that loss came about.

You are absolutely right. When a person's coratid artery is breached the blood squirts out several feet. Here is just dribbles out. There is not question that Berg was dead when he was beheaded.

My sister is a pathologist who early in her career rotated through the medical examiner's office. I will try to get her to see the entire video later tonight. But I remember she used to tell me about crime scenes involving routine stabbings, and the entire room would be splattered with blood.

But for those without such experience, just remember the OJ/Nicole trial and all the graphic testimony and evidence about blood being splattered everywhere.

So I think we can all conclude that Nick Berg was dead when he was beheaded. Why and by whom is a different question.

and twitch?

The screaming did not match any motions on his part. His lips were sealed the entire event. As to twitching .... if one were so inclined I am sure you could make a body move as his did with a minimum of effort. And that is presuming that the man we see in the video is Berg and that a switch was not pulled.

The information we have is still to sketchy to draw a valid conclusion from.

We do not know where much of the screaming came from. The initial loud screaming started long before he opened his mouth. I do not recall him opening his mouth but may be mistaken.

They may have recorded his screams as he was strangled.

Once a carotid is cut, unconsciousness is instantaneous.

The strangling would cut off the airway, no?
How could you scream with someone pressing your neck so hard you couldn't breathe?
If he was killed before the beheading, and was tortured to death, the torture screams could be the ones you hear.
I am just totally disabled by the horror of this killing, and my prayers are with the Berg family today.

between the video and audio segments.

maybe Berg accepted it?

I watched the video and noticed the lack of blood. I have cut my finger before on a blood vessel and it squirted blood all over the place. It had a rhythm to it, squirting out in pulses. The heart is a pump that pumps blood throughout the body. Cut any major artery and blood will squirt out like a geyser. If you have ever had a waterhose spring a leak while the water was on, you have seen the water squirt out through the hole. When you turn the water off, the remaining water will drain out the hole, but the pressure is gone. This is what I witnessed in the video. Blood did drain out, but there was no pressure behind it. It did not squirt or spew. Had Nick Berg been alive, the murderers would have been covered in blood.

Also question for those who know Islamic law better than I do:

Isn't blood considered unclean in Islam? Isn't that why they use a sword for executions? I know there are laws concerning the slaughter of animals. The throat has to be slit and the blood drained completely out of the animal, because they are not allowed to consume blood. I assume it is done the same way as in Kosher meat slaughtering. This beheading was anything but "Kosher."

Or more a question I thought last night. Why would he go to Iraq looking to get a contract? That's not the way it works unless you are carrying large bags of money. I am sure his best chance of getting work would have been right here in the states working with the main contract holders. The only explanation I can think of was that he was going to check out the logistics and any problems he might have before he made a bid.
A lot of unanswered questions here.
Regarding the video time lapse, maybe there was more to the statement reading and that section was what was used when they tried to get prisoners released. When turned down he was executed and the actual beheading staged. I saw the video once and remember seeing very little, if any, blood. I can't watch it again.
Other than that I feel for the horror and sadness that this has brought on the family. Very sad.

difference and then beheaded for the camera, for effect? I ask that because of what you have posted on the lack of blood. I have not and will not watch the video so am depending on those who have the fortitude to do so to judge. There is no question that a young man was murdered but there are, from what I have read, some solid questions about when, how and who did it.

If Berg was killed by terrorists, for the effect of terrifying or enraging Americans, why wouldn't they want the full effect of this horrific act on tape?

As the attackers go after Berg the camera loses focus and eventually there appears to be an edit. When it returns the time counter has changed as well as the positions of the attackers and the focus of the camera.

If the camera man lost his composure and vomitted on the camera they would have had to switch cameras and the time/date stamp may not have matched.

the video was definitely for effect, there is no question of that but why the 11 hour gap, the lack of blood and the questions about the time gap between the last time the family heard from him, April 9, after the US authorities released him from custody and the time this video was released, May 11. Many questions remain, the one that doesn't is that a young man is dead and I grieve for his family, for their loss.

Nothing less.

Those who refuse to believe that the leadership of this country would not do something like this better look at history.

Leaders in the past have allowed or even ordered crimes committed to further their agenda.

Hitler and his Nazis were the ones who set fire to the Reichstag, and then blamed it on the Communists. Winston Churchill let the city of Coventry be bombed so that the Germans would not realize that the English had broken their code. And let's not forget the Watergate break in, all just so Nixon could find out what the Democratic Party
might be planning.

So to believe that this administration with its history of lies, secrecy, and under the table dealings, would not kill an American to further it's agenda is naive. Stop and think, what kind of reaction was there when those four contractors were attacked and killed.

Were there calls for calm, no. The RW talking heads were calling for the total destruction of the city of Fallujah. Americans, including some politicians tried to justify the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, by pointing to the murder of the four contractors, just like
Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma was doing yesterday.

Bush's poll numbers are going down, more and more Americans are now
looking at this war as not being worth the cost in lives and money spent.

Now to the doubters, ask yourself if a man who stated that "things would be easier if this were a dictatorship, and I were the dictator", wouldn't use everything he could to remain in power, to include killing an American citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Sorry to take up so much space Hamden

You don't need to go all the way back to the Nazis for this kind of manipulation.

Just on the unlikely and unproven hypothesis that US forces or US surrogates (eg Iraqi security or police) had anything to do with this, there are US precedents:

The case of Charles Harmon, made famous in the movie, "Missing." Harmon was a US citizen who was murdered during the American sponsored coup in Chile against Salvadore Allende and that put Pinochet in power there. At the time, Donald Rumsfeld had recently completed a stint as "counselor" to President Richard Nixon. Many years after the event, FOIA document releases show that the Nixon administration was complicit in the murder of US citizen Harmon, because of his knowledge of US participation in the coup.

There is also the precedent during the Reagan administration of several US citizens being murdered with US forces complicity in El Salvador. Elliot Abrahms, convicted Iran-Contra felon, was at the State Dept. then and is now on the National Security Council.

It is not unheard of for Republican administration to be involved in the murder of US citizens overseas.

Good insight.

Putting aside all conspiracy theories and speculations, we can draw two preliminary, minimal conclusions that cast doubt on the Berg murder video:

1. The murder and beheading do not take place in "real time." The video is not a record of a single event taken from a single perspective. It is at least spliced or edited record from two cameras that happen to have different time settings.

At worst, the seizing and beheading took place 11 hours apart and are recorded by the same camera.

This tells us nothing about the who or why. But it does tell us that the video record is not what it purports to be -- a real time record of seizing and beheading. Therefore, at minimum, its veracity is called into question.

2. The person who is beheaded was already dead when he was beheaded. The behavior of the blood, even though difficult to see, is not consistent with the beheading of a person with a beating heart and live blood pressure.

3. The audio and video have been edited together from separate audio and video recordings.

Beyond that, it is impossible to draw more conclusions now, but it is a start.

to discuss and learn in a rational manner, without judgment. It is much appreciated!

he looks like he is already dead--his head severed placed atop the body.

When you look at the stills, as in the video, there is a dark ring Around his neck, and it does look like the head is propped on. At the time I saw it, I flashed on that thought, but figured he had a rope around his neck. I also remember thinking that maybe his head was photo shopped on or something, because it does not look quite right at first glance. May be why he seems calm and still, as well as at the end he does not seem to struggle?

*Realized that the his facial hair may have been the dark ring.

I thought it was too speculative to raise, but throughout the video, it seems to me that the head is "floating" very very still above the body, as though it had been "cut and pasted" onto the body. The body is also amazingly, amazingly still for someone who is a terrified hostage.

what if this guy is actually CIA or something? well trained to behave in such a hostage situation. he thought it was routine, he wasn't expecting to be killed in moments, by whoever it was holding him. the camera, the read statement, would indicate a "routine" hostage moment.

his field of expertise, the unlikely name of his company, his circumstances of being in iraq, the fact that his political beliefs seem to be completely opposite of his parents, much stinks of covert operative.

is anybody CLOSE to his hometown to do any real legwork on finding his company? sounds like a tiny one man operation, so no website is no surprise, but he probably had business cards tacked up in a bar or something.

"is anybody CLOSE to his hometown to do any real legwork on finding his company? sounds like a tiny one man operation, so no website is no surprise, but he probably had business cards tacked up in a bar or something."

I live about 10 or so miles from the Berg family. One of my old roommates acted as a spokesperson for the family at one point, and was a neighbor and friend of Nick's. He was no CIA operative. Frankly, he was far too young and far too average for the CIA. Nick's going to Iraq was not surprising as he had always been an adventurous sort, and he'd gone on such trips before.

Probably because of my location, there is virtually nothing else but this story being played in the media. There is no question that this is NOT helpful to the Bush Admin. People here are spitting mad. The spin the government is trying to pull is that the FBI is now claiming that he was never is US custody but in the custody of Iraqi police for the entire 13 days, which is false, and the Berg family is shouting it to the skies (and it's being extensively covered). Nick was questioned by the FBI every day while in custody. The FBI is also trying to claim that they told him it was dangerous for him to be in the country and wanted to get him home, but NICK told them he didn't want their help and would find his own way home... BULL. Michael Berg has been in every media camera claiming lies of the government, abandonment of his son to try and find his own way home, and playing politics with his son's tragedy to score points for the war, etc... and he is coming off extremely credible. Of the scores of "man on the street" interviews, every single person is firmly on the Berg family's side, and believes just as the family does that the government is shamefully trying to use this tragedy to their advantage and that they had no intention of helping Nick in any way... they blame the government for his death. I've been in Center City, West Chester, the Main Line... all over the Philly area, and NOBODY is buying the government line. I'm convinced PA will go Dem come the election because of this... people are PISSED.

There's no question that the person in the video is Nick. Family and friends have confirmed that. They're playing the video on the regular network news over and over again and still it right at the first knife cut but continue the audio.

Incidently, Nick's body was flown home yesterday and arrived at the Dover base today (the base is only about a half hour's drive or so from West Chester). There is a memorial service on Friday.

(On edit: those damn psycho italics from hell)

Yes, you are right there is a dark ring that clearly is Berg's facial hair. There is, however, a more subtle ring on "anomolies" just below the facial hair ring. It is there that the head seems to float away from the body.

when you first view it.

Like the head was already detached but placed on the body. It's already very white.

2. Berg's video, from my recollection looked like he had already been beheaded and they just mimiced it again for the camera - the way his head came right off was less than believable. That is in my recollection however.

how he really died. I remember reading that the Wall Street Journal reporter (whose name escapes me) was offered sedation before he was executed but declined it. The terrorists are still evil people, lest I be quoted in Freerepublic as saying otherwise.

It may be small comfort to Bergs family, but it is better to visualize than that tape.

if it was a cia hoax then why did they make such a bad job of it?

the obvious time difference points to it not being a professional hoax

A few possible explanations

1) Fuzzy details make positive identification harder
2) Amateurish video would lead viewers to conclude that "amateurs" (i.e. "Al Qaeda" goons) had been doing the filming
3) Filming was hastily arranged

Had to get the video out the day Rumsfeld was visiting the Senate.

I said something to my husband last night about Nick Berg having long hair. He said, "His hair was short." I saw pictures, and my husband is right, but I remember from the video, when they dragged him to the ground, they had him by the hair. They held on to his hair in the floor as they beheadedd him. I remembered the hair being longer in the beheading portion of the clip than what I saw of him sitting in the floor. It may have just been shadows, and poor lighting, but it looked that way to me. I went to watch the video again last night, but I was unable to find it online. I may very well be remembering wrong, but I know after watching the video, I had it in my head that Berg had long hair, and was shocked to see him with a shaved head in a picture from November. Did you notice this? Or is this a wrong memory from me?

So far, trying to bring together all the insightful discussions on all the threads, maybe we can divide our discussion in just the way a police criminal investigation would -- Opportunity, Motive, Modus Operandi, Forensics, Chronology.

Video forensics -- what is wrong with the video evidence, such as time stamp, mismatched audio and visuals, etc.

Medical forensics -- what is wrong with how the body in question behaves on beheading.

Motives -- many threads are already trying to explain what the Iraqi insurgents, Al Queda, and US forces or surrogates would have to gain or lose by being involved.

Modus Operandi -- how actors behaved in the past. Again there are already threads about how Chenen rebells beheaded Russians, how third world people execute people or slaughter animals, how Republican administrations have silenced US citizens in Chile, El Salvador.

Opportunity/contacts -- threads lean heavily toward concern about Nick Berg having been in US custody for 13 days before being executed.

Chronology - not just the video stamps at the murder scene, but the strange coincidence of the prison scandal, news of Berg's being missing in Iraq, Rumsfeld being served with lawsuit by Berg family, Rumsfeld under pressure to resign, then sudden reversal with Bush supporting Rumsfeld and the surfacing of the Berg murder video. When I put the chronology together and my hair stands on end!

March 24 - Berg told his family he was leaving Iraq on March 30. Communications from Berg cease.

March 31 - the FBI go to Berg's parents home. The parents were relieved to know their son was alive, but in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about. FBI spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

April 5 - the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq. Rumsfeld is a defendant, so he would have been served papers in Washington.

April 6 - Nick Berg was released. According to some reports he has been in custody for 13 days, indicating he was detained on March 24, the day he told his family he was leaving Iraq.

April 9 - Berg disappears again.

May 1 - Iraqi prison abuse scandal breaks

May 1-6 - stories appear about the Berg family trying to find their son

May 5 - Bush leaks that he is unhappy with Rumsfeld

May 7 - Rumsfeld testimony. Oddly, the tremendous press focus on the prison scandal takes the pressure off the Falluja and Najaf stories. US forces begin their assault on Shiite militias in the South inflicting very heavy casualties.

May 7-9 - Rumsfeld is under pressure to resign

May 10 - Bush expresses confidence in Rumsfeld after Pentagon meeting

May 11 - Nick Berg murder video is discovered on an Islamic website during Congressional hearings over the Iraqi prison abuse scandal.

Welcome HamdenRice! Kudos for a great job at fostering rational, civil discourse about this horrible incident!

The photos yet unreleased are mostly of women.

My mother just viewed them and called me in a state of alarm.

Anticipating the release of these photos, since they already are available to a limited audience,(and it would be impossible to suppress their eventual exposure), would require desperate measures to establish damage control in an attempt to justify the horror..

the unreleased photos? Is she a staffer? or better yet, a leislator?

Dirk

--courtesy of a researcher on Alternet

http://forums.alternet.org/bin/motet?show+-uibZep+-chz+Currents+1099+394

I've seen a number of questions raised in various threads. Some about whether the voice was that of an Iraqi or even a native Arabic speaker. Others about the odd behavior of the speaker in turning the pages he was apparently reading from back and forth almost at random.

Someone on Tinoire's thread who knows Arabic said she was sure she heard the name "Jenin" on the soundtrack but it wasn't anywhere in the translation.

There are also the fuzzier questions about the clothing and body language of the men on the video, but those are far more subjective and may be unanswerable at this point.

That was me on Tinoire's thread - "Jenin" was one of the few things I caught clearly, probably because I was so freaked out about what was about to happen on the video I couldn't play close attention to the audio. I still don't think I can watch the actual beheading, but would like to watch and listen again to the statement and see what I can translate, but I don't have a working link to the video any more. Can anyone help?

We are all saddened and mortified by the beheading of Nick Berg, a young U.S. citizen working in Iraq. Despite all the media hype, the U.S. and Western media have prohibited us from seeing this video. There are now reports that the video may have been a fake to divert attention away from the stories of abuse of
Iraqi prisoners. Decide for yourself - Is the video a fake or a horrific account of brutality. To see the actual video of the beheading of Nick Berg, click on
http://www.nobloodforoil.org/berg.htm

Louis Posner
Director
http://www.Votermarch.org
http://www.NoBloodForOil.org

I don't mean to attach any significance to this other than the fact that it seems to be omitted from all "official" translations I've seen of the video statement to date.

I'd like for someone else to confirm or invalidate this for me. When the video hits 2:41:12 (after jumping around timewise a bit - it is about a minute into the 5:37 minute copy I downloaded today), the speaker clearly talks about "Jenin".

I can interpret more than just that word, but first want to make sure I am hearing things clearly in the version of the video I've downloaded. I've listened carefully to the audio at video files at both the "iraq2vediom" and "nobloodforoil" sites, and the time and voice match up on this.

Again, the reference to Jenin may be meaningless in and of itself - I am more concerned about the accuracy of the translations we are getting. If none of the public translations mention "Jenin" then I am either going deaf in my mid-30s, or people who are supposed to speak Arabic far better than I do are not getting this one right...

Ok, after listening again with less tired ears I believe the point I referenced in the video has the speaker saying "Muslimeen" not "Jenin". Sorry for my error!

Got the following with several forwardings in my email. Original said to be from an American woman married to a Jordanian. Comments?

I will tell you what Mohammed said about this video.

First, the killer shouted "bahkteer!" before he started anything. Mohammed said his entire life in the Middle East he never heard anyone say that. Only when he came to the United States did he hear it. He says that is not said in the Middle East that he knows of. It is a call to have everyone around say "Allah uh Akhbar"

Then, Mohammed was very upset saying that it is very inappropriate to have the people around saying "Allah Uh Akhbar" repeatedly. He said you only say it once.

He was emphatic from the start that that video was not authentic.

Moderated by people with experience in some of these areas, each point documented up the yinyang?

Language: Someone on DU mentioned she is married to a man who spoke the same language as the one used in the video (Arabic?) and she thought the captors had a strange accent.

Does anyone have a link to this on DU?

Sorry I don't know how to post a link to another thread, but here's my post from the GD thread called "translation errors" about my take on the speaker's accent:

southlandshari (12 posts) Thu May-13-04 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #22

30. My Arabic is still good, and I agree with Scoopie

Edited on Thu May-13-04 05:01 AM by southlandshari
As the wife of a Palestinian who has lived and traveled extensively in the Middle East, I am certain that the speaker on the Berg video is not a native speaker of Arabic from any of the countries Scoopie mentions (and add Palestine to that list).

I am undecided as to who I think is actually on the video, but the speaker sounds to me like he is speaking classical Arabic, learned in a classroom as opposed to picked up through immersion in an Arabic speaking community. The difference is very clear to me as someone who has learned in both settings. The speaker is definitely fluent in Arabic, it just sounds very stilted. Didn't sound Egyptian to me, either.

From a Moslem on one of my other lists.

http://www.upsizethis.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12298&start=20

A couple of folks over at DU who know Arabic as native speakers said they don't think the speaker on the video is a native Arabic speaker. He's speaking fluent Arabic, but he doesn't have any recognizable accent.

That's because he's speaking fus-ha - Classical arabic as used in the Qur'an.

Sort of archaic to give that thundering effect.

in King James English?

That is actually what I was trying to describe - the speaker was definitely using classical Arabic. He was speaking fluently, just not naturally, which made me question whether it was his first language. Classical Arabic is what is taught in most classroom language courses.

So it is possible he is a native Arabic speaker using classical language, or a non-native speaker who doesn't know colloquial (sp?) phrases and patterns. If the former is true, I still don't think this guy is from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria or Palestine. The Leventine accent just isn't there.

Still lots of questions about the video. This is very confusing!

Spokesman Says Berg Never Held by Forces

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=721&e=7&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_berg



Senor told reporters that Berg, 26, from West Chester, Pa., was detained by Iraqi police in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. The Iraqis informed the Americans, and the FBI (news - web sites) met with Berg three times to determine what he was doing in Iraq (news - web sites).


Senor said that to his knowledge, "he (Berg) was at no time under the jurisdiction or detention of coalition forces."


However, calls by The Associated Press to police in Mosul failed to find anyone who could confirm Berg was held there or why.


The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority controls Iraqi police and military.

(This strikes me as a distinction without a difference as the Iraqi police are under the direct control of the US military through the CPA)

This raises the question of why the parents insist that he was in the custody of the US in Iraq, indeed, even went to court about it and shortly after their son was released.

I don't have any answers but the questions keep coming.

On March 31, the FBI went to Berg's parents home and questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about. FBI spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

Is that Berg in the video?

Do we know the attackers are who they claim they are?

Why hood yourself if you identify yourself?

why the masks if you claim you are someone.

From what I understand AlQueda does not have a large presence in Iraq and I have to think what are the chances that this guy would happen to end up in the hands of a group most beneficial to bush propaganda wise.

From the video I don't get the impression that these guys are experienced in this kind of work at least to my inexperienced eye.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...


http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Tower-pro/message/19321



Dear Friends and Customers of Nick Berg and Prometheus Towers,

I am enclosing the following news release which my wife and I are about to release to the media for you. If anyone out there in the broadcast industry can do anything to help us spread the word about our son's disappearance especially to the Mid East, we would be very appreciative:

On March 14 our son, Nick Berg, left for Iraq to inspect some radio towers that had been damaged during last year's war. His goal was to secure some contract work for his business, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. He planned to return on March 30 through Amman, Jordan.

On March 24, Nick was picked up by the Iraqi police in Mosul and held for questioning for no apparent reason. He was subsequently detained by the U.S. military and interrogated by the FBI until his release on April 6. No reason was ever given for holding him for these 13 days. Immediately upon his release he emailed the family and proceeded south to Baghdad where he was staying at the Al Fanar Hotel.

On April 9 he called us and said that he was seeking a safe route out of the country either through Jordan, or possibly Turkey. Most of the major routes were closed due to military action around Fallujah. Since that time we have had no contact with our son. No one we know in Iraq has seen or spoken to him, and we know that he has not accessed his email. We are extremely worried about his safety. We are asking anyone who has seen Nick or knows anything about his whereabouts to come forward and give us this information so that he can be safely brought home.

We extend our sympathies to all of the many families who are in the same situation.

Suzanne and Michael Berg

Beetwasher beat me to it, but very glad to see your pixels, HamdenRice. Keep posting!

I was just watching CNN, which is doing surprisingly good and skeptical reporting under the circumstances.

1. There is now clear disagreement between the US government and the Berg family about whether Nick Berg was in US custody. The Berg family believes that Nick was in US custody. Presumably the Berg family's conclusions are based on communications from Nick. The coalition forces have official announced that Berg was at no time in US custody.

It will be very easy to determine in the next few days who is more likely to be correct, because the Berg family is likely to have a record of Nick's emails.

The Berg family has now directly blamed the US coalition forces for Nick's death -- not directly, but for preventing him from going home when he planned to.

2. It is now highly unlikely that the people carrying out the execution are the people they claim to be. The video was posted on the Islamic website under a heading to the effect that the American was being executed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, and reportedly Al Queda's top operative in Iraq. But CNN reports that its translation experts have concluded that the voice could not be al-Zarqawi, because the accent is wrong.

Although this does not tell us who killed Nick Berg, it clearly reduces all other aspects of the credibility of the video. In other words, if the killers are lying about who they are, then this calls into question all aspects of the video.

Remember that Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office confirmed that the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

Sat, May. 08, 2004
West Chester contractor missing in Iraq

Associated Press

<snip>

When FBI agents arrived at the Berg's West Chester home on March 31, they were relieved to know their son was alive, but in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about.

Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq.

<snip>

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/8621773.htm

Is it possible that even though the voice was not al-Zarqawi's he's still responsible? Did the person speaking claim to be al-Zarqawi or is it possible he was a spokesperson FOR al-Zarqawi?

While I don't speak Arabic and cannot speak first hand, all news reports say that the voice identifies himself, the killer as al-Zarqawi. Now CNN says this cannot possibly be true.

Lawyers and judges in trials typically use a kind of rule of thumb that if someone is lying about one thing they are likely to be lying about other things. This is called veracity or credibility. The more lies a witness tells that can be exposed, the less credibility he has.

If the person claims to be al-Zarqawi and cannot be, then the video is lying about at least one thing. It is also lying about the chronology of events, because of the time stamps.

Whether other aspects of the video are true is hence called into question.

If the person speaking claims to be al-Zarqawi and is confirmed not to be him then indeed the validity of the whole thing is thrown into question.

Curiouser and curiouser...

I understand that the title of the video contains his name. Identified at least twice, yet he's wearing a MASK? That doesn't make much sense to me.

...by a leaflet distributed by members of his own group, according to this AP story on MSNBC in early March (link below). No authentification of whether the leaflet is really from those close to him (no surprise there) but it seems believable to me.

first part of story...

The Associated Press
Updated: 6:31 a.m. ET March 04, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombing and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a statement allegedly from an insurgent group west of the capital said.

"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of Northern Iraq “during the American bombing there,” according to a statement circulated in Fallujah this week and signed by the “Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen.”

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/

the statement on Zarqawi's death in a US bombing raid went on to accuse the US of forging documents under his name to further the notion of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. A specific "letter" released in February is specifically cited.

Hmmm...

Without reposting the links to the sites listed in what I posted then, I can summarize here --

The reports of his death were based on the assumption that he had had one leg amputated following an injury. In all the dozen or so reports I read, all from established news sources (BBC, WaPo, FT, LAT, etc., as opposed to vozdeAztlan.net), there was no definitive statement claiming hard evidence of the amputation. There had been reports of the injury and then Zarqawi had gone to Iraq, with the reports speculating that he had probably gone for surgery and that the surgery had probably been an amputation. but no one offered hard proof. Nor a primary source.

When the bombing in Afghanistan started, reports claimed that he must have been killed because he wouldn't be able to escape with the artificial leg. This however is only an assumption based on a previous assumption, not a conclusion based on fact.

Zarqawi may in fact be dead or be missing a leg. But none of the reports offered any conclusive proof.

Interstingly enough, one report -- and I think it was CNN but I'm not sure -- claimed that the US government had reversed its claims of Zarqawi's death and/or amputation, because he (or his supporters) were taking credit for some of the attacks in Iraq. This report came out, IIRC, on April 6, 2004 -- the very day Nick Berg was allegedly released from U.S. detention.

Do I think that's indicative of a conspiracy? No. But I do think it has the potential to be a lot more significant than the "identical" color of the walls as seen in the Berg video and the Abu Ghraib photos, which could be very different when viewed in person. (Don't even get me started on the chair, the light skin, the time stamps. . . . .or any of the other "evidence" that isn't.)

This is really gross to talk about, but I have a family album from 1926 China, when they used to do public beheadings. There is a collection of shots of these events that show what happens in very graphic detail.

In the shots the victims are all kneeling. In the few shots before the sword strikes victims have their heads slightly tilted forward. And in all of the post-strike shots, including those in which the head was just severed and had not yet hit the ground, there is clear evidence of arterial blood spurting and masses of pooled blood.

I have not watched the video and have no intention of doing so. Those old photos were damaging enough to me. But if what you say is true and there was little evidence of blood flow, then there is a serious problem with that video.

Am I the only one that does not know where to find this video? I have not decided whether or not I will actually watch it and I feel weird just asking for this info, but I don't have a clue where everyone is viewing it. If you don't want to post it, could someone at least PM me with this info?

Edit: nevermind! The thread with the info just suddenly appeared before my very eyes. Doh!

http://video.bmj.net/Alluh_Akbar.wmv

But don't eat first. The people who did this should be publicly executed.

A public execution (if it was what it appeared to be). Under their particular sense of justice (not one we agree with) that was justice being served. So we are supposed to engage in a tit for tat escalation of our vengence is better than yours? Isn't that the same thing as what they did?

into a moral one. It will negate all the good work done. I linked this to your post but my plea is for all.

Forgive my clumsy attempt to moderate what I percieved as a call for revenge. It was an attempt to maintain the rationality of this thread.

That was a MURDER. We would try them, and after their INDIVIDUAL guilt had been established, and their appeals exhausted, (rrapidly, I would hope), we would execute them. Hanging would be good. BUT GOOD GOD! Did you see that?? It was Sick! They SAWED off his head with a goddamned knife.

So, no, I see no moral equibalency between what they did, and their thorougly justifed executions under the administration of President Kerry.

To the desire to keep this thread dedicated to a rational examination of this matter I cannot respond to this post other than this comment. I am sorry. Perhaps we can start a new thread to discuss the ramifications of conflicting moral systems. I would be more than interested in discussing the matter there.

*

Nothing in the remarks in the original post point to anything at all. For instance,who are we to critique the beheading technique of another person, even if we have done it once or twice oursleves on a sheep? What does that prove? It proves nothing except that this fellow did it a different way. Even in America, I have noticed that different people have different ways of doing the most commnplace things, eating soup, for instance, or shaving. Obviously the guy knew what he was doing. He had a severed head, didn't he? maybe he had a dull blade.

Time stamp proves nothing either except the speech and the murder took place at different times. So where is all this going? My guess is that it will go toward the "CIA did it" meme. But none of these discrepancies show that, at all.

So, rationallly, I have to ask: Why is it so much easier for some people to believe that the USA (and, of course, George * Bush) is responsible for this than it is to believe that the same fanatics that brought us 9/11 did it? I think I answered my own question. And I want to get rid of *, too, but I don't have to engage in infantile fantasy theories to justify my desire.

Oh, and yes, start a new thread. PM me the link, because I might otherwise miss it, as the time I can spend on-line is limited.

As has been brought up in this thread and others, there are some glaring discrepancies in this video. If they were not there we may have been less likely to raise the questions we did. But they are there.

Time code mismatch
Apparent edits and breaks in the continuity
Mismatch of the sound to images
Mismatch of cultural body language
Lack of blood
Mismatch of accent to claimed nation
A man taking the trouble to hood himself but then gives his name

All these issues are unanswered. There may be no link to George and Co behind this heinous act (other than the war itself) but the matter still is unresolved. It has problems matching the claimed story. It is this discrepancy that has aroused our interest.

very flimsy. As I said, I don't need to indulge in fantasy to justify my political position. And I think this kind of fantasizing just turns off the voter who might be tempted to go our way. but you guys have fun. I could be wrong.

On edit: I think the CIA would have made a much higher quality video, too. The very amateurisness of it (yes, I watched it) argues against it being American made. just my opinion, of course.

white burka "magically" takes his place when it's time to display the severed head!

And:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.terrorist.capture/

And:

http://www.counterpunch.org/weiher02262004.html

AS for the links, state your point so that I don't waste a lot of time refuting you and then find out you were talking about something else.

The two articles I linked offer supporting evidence that our newest al Qaeda bogeyman has a history of disseminating BushCo propaganda.

so what? where are you going to go with this?

how switch of shot from dark-hooded person to light-hooded person is "proof" that video was not shot in real time.

Could they not have had DarkHood on tape, then paused and/or edited tape while LightHood got into position, taking only a minute or less? or does that pause equate to "not in real time"?

My leaning is toward someone such as Chalibi. This wold account for the amateur nature of the video and the difference of accent and behaviour. His security forces are drawn from westernized Arabs. They would fit all the peaces of the puzzle.

Again this is just supposition. But it is gaining credibility. There is now a doctor on board verifying that there should have been much more blood seen. Something is fishy. It may well be a clumsy act on the part of the attackers and flubbed camera work. But it is not what it appears to be. So we dig.

something fishy. but the terrorist captors could have done it all. applying Occam's razor to the situation, until there is something that cannot be explained by this hypothesis, I am going to retain it. so far, I have seen nothing

Refraining from a conclusion until the evidence adequately supports the case.

In this case the evidence does not support the claim beyond question. So we look for more evidence and apply ideas to the existing evidence seeking something that fits. This in turn gives us new locations to look for evidence.

shipped home to the parents. I wonder if they will ask for a postmortem to confirm the manner of his death? It would certainly answer some of the questions I have. Actually, why was a postmortem not done in Iraq? If it was, why is there no reporting of such?

As DancingBear noted in his/her thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1585675

a new discrepancy has been reported by CNN.

CNN's Arab media expert, Octavia Nasr notes that the official US translation of the Berg murder video has the killers saying, in respect of the prison abuse, something to the effect of, "is there anything else that Al Queda needs to know to act?"

Ms. Nasr says that any Arab speaker would know that the word was not Al Queda but "al quai".

The latter phrase means, those who sit and do nothing. So the phrase really was "is there anything else that those who sit and do nothgin need to know to act?"

Ms. Nasr suggested that this was a really obvious error that no Arab speaker would have made, but she declined to speculate how or why the error was made.

Again, without drawing larger conclusions we at least can conclude that the US government has tried to guide or misguide interpretation of the tape for public relations purposes.

wonder how the repugs are gonna spin this one because I saw a news clip on MSNBC that the Berg family had sued the Federal Government and were holding the US responsible for the death. Golly Gee, those good ole compassionate conservatives just can't seem to get a break !
I am appaled as well by the killing. They probably let that one happen too. There is too much carnage at the hands of this administration but I am preaching to the choir. I have thought it seemed strange to me after their son was captured back in March and they file suit on the US government in April, he dies in May.
It has gotten so crazy, how do we even know that the hooded people were not mercenaries instead of Al quaeda and how do we know whats his face (Sidekick to Osama) took the blame. How do we really know anything?

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/12/lol.02.html

OCTAVIA NASR, CNN SR. EDITOR FOR ARAB AFFAIRS: No. Arab viewers of the big networks, as well as the local TV stations did not see the actual execution. They did see at the beginning of this tape, just like we saw here on CNN and most Western networks, you saw the beginning of the tape right before the beheading. They reported on it, and as a side story. It certainly isn't playing as a big story or as the story.

O'BRIEN: That's very interesting. When we hearken back to Danny Pearl, "The Wall Street Journal" reporter who was killed in Pakistan in 2002, the entirety of that, which included a beheading, was shown on these outlets. What happened? What changed?

NASR: What changed is the learning. And also the reaction to showing gruesome pictures and atrocities and the reaction from viewers and authorities alike. Also, it has been a few years since then. Back then, there was no Al-Arabiya. Al-Arabiya is brand new. It started a few weeks before the war last year.

Again, it's a learning process. It seems that the networks are responding to their viewers. Remember, Al Jazeera is seen all over the world, the Americas, Africa, Asia, Australia, all over the world. And viewers there are not accepting of these images as people in the Arab world are.

O'BRIEN: Well, let me ask you this. You've had a chance to really listen to this tape and get a sense who might be responsible, just by deciphering, say, accents. And certainly, there in the Arab world, they're very attuned to that. And given the fact of who this may or may not be, does that have some effect on how it is being played?

NASR: Yes, and if you listen to these voices that we're hearing on Arab networks, Iraqis are condemning this execution. And they're saying these are foreigners. These are not Iraqis. They do not represent us and so forth.

Now, of course, the original claim was that Zarqawi is the actual man who performed this execution. Our experts listened to the accent, as you said, and they determined the accent is not Jordanian...

O'BRIEN: He is a Jordanian who is working supposedly, allegedly, at the behest of al Qaeda in Iraq. So go ahead.

NASR: Right, he is very close to bin Laden, and works, you're right, as an agent of al Qaeda in Iraq. Now, the accent is not Jordanian so that takes the Jordanian element out of the story immediately.

O'BRIEN: Interesting. All right, now one final thought here. You did a very careful translation of your own, of the statement. And in it, you see no reference to al Qaeda. And yet the official U.S. government translation does. Explain how that happened.

NASR: Oh, I find it very interesting, because out of the blue, there is a mention of al Qaeda on the U.S. government translation. It says: "Does al Qaeda need any further excuses?" Any speaker of the Arabic language is going to notice a difference between the word al Qaeda, which means "the base," and al qaed, which means "the one sitting, doing nothing."

My translation says: "Is there any excuse for the one who sits down and does nothing?" Basically they're telling people, you have no excuse for not doing anything, for not acting and defending Islam and so forth. Whereas the U.S. government translation has this factual error, I'm sure it's an honest mistake, but basically it sort of adds al Qaeda to the statement, which is not on the statement.

O'BRIEN: All right, Octavia Nasr, we don't know exactly how that got in there. We'll try to get more on that. We appreciate you bringing that all to light and appreciate your insights, of course.

NASR: You bet.

O'BRIEN: Kyra.

No matter what people believe about the video, there's no denying that you put a lot of thought into your conclusions and everyone can respect that ... or at least, they should. ;)

I happen to agree with you - there are inconsistencies and "weirdness" about the whole thing. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad the man was killed. As I said in another post, nobody deserves to die that way, no matter who did it or what the circumstances were. However, I don't think it's the least bit disrespectful to ask questions, especially when the inconsistencies are so obvious. Yes, he's dead and nothing is going to change that, but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore the questions. On the contrary, that's all the more reason we should ask questions - Nick Berg and his family deserve justice.

By the way ... welcome to DU! :hi:

That the family was at odds with Bush and Co. They have a huge lawsuit going regarding their kid getting captured and them dragging and stonewalling his situation. Out of all the people and military who have been captured, kidnapped, why did this kid get decapitated? I mean...there is a hole in this bucket somewhere and sure has changed some folks minds aout the torture of prisoners 1 First thing you hear...Now you know why we are over there.....I haven't drank any Koolaid and I question this one.

mainly because i refuse to, BUT i have seen the Perl video. They pretty much follow the same procedures that hamedenrice mentioned above.

i believe that this would account for the time descrepancy stickdog caught in the berg footage. perhaps the murder occured 11 hours previously, they waited for the blood to drain before beheading him on film and dubbed the screams from 11 hours earlier over the footage.

but nonetheless, we shouldn't let our dislike and distrust of the current administration lead us to believe that everything that occurs over there is a rovian, CIA or PNAC plot to get bush another term. Maybe allowing the release of the video had a political motivation (american), but not the berg murder itself.

and with all due respect, i feel as if pointing out the discrepencies in the film are along the same lines as pointing out the car driving in the background of the cornfield scene in fellowship of the ring -- it's an unusual error which has little or no effect on the ending of the film. berg was murdered.

i enjoy playing detective as much as the next guy, but i guess the subject matter is a little too macabre for me to feel that i'm not being direspectful of the poor guy's family by discussing it so non-chalantly.

just my $.02 (hope i'm not sounding too irrational)

Keep in mind that on thread is trying to keep the discussion rational and skeptical of all claims, and that few here have concluded that the US had anything to do with the murder, only that the video on its face is internally contradictory and obviously not what it purports to be -- in terms of chronology, who the murderer is, etc.

Also, and we have not really discussed this here, the context between the Berg and Perl murders is completely different.

What set off the skepticism about the Berg murder is the context, including the family's claims. In the Berg case, according to the family, Berg was in US custody for 13 days of interrogation before his release and abduction by the killers. The family explicitly blames the coalition forces.

Neither of these circumstances was present in the Perl case so there was little reason to be skeptical about that video.

that's the only reason why i brought perl into the conversation.

i was just hoping to shome some skepticism about the claims made last night/this morning in regarding the CIA or Israel killing berg to further their agenda.

i hope i wasn't showing any disrespect at all.

We're suspicious, and one huge reason we're suspicious is that we refuse to take anything Al Queda says at face value. Regardless of suspicions of CIA or Mossad involvement, we should be sceptical of any Al Queda claims and reports.

i have problems with the quickness with which the head was severed. i do a good deal of butchery as a chef and feel that even with a very sharp knife it will take some time to cut through the neck bones and esophogeal cartillage.
also there is the fact the the knife is being wielded with only one hand so not as much strength can be brought to bear. with a sword or an axe you have the weight plus the kinetic energy to do most of the work so you can quickly cut through the flesh, but with a knife it is all about the strength of the arm behind it that does the work.

One of my favorite dishes, before the mad cow epidemic and warnings not to eat nerve tissue of cattle, was ox tail. I have never been able to cut up oxtail without a cleaver. You simply cannot cut through vertebrae without some form of ax, hatchet, sword or cleaver.

On the tape, the killer appears to have a large serrated knife and "saws" through the vertabrae. Another reason, perhaps, that the entire thing looked phoney to me.

Whoever killed Berg -- and CNN is now quite sure it is not who claimed responsibility -- was not killing him live, in real time, for the camera.

This may explain the time lapse -- they may have killed him and severed his head many hours later. At the point that they appear to be sawing off the head, it appears that it was already severed. The act of severing seems to be fake.

In the "is it fake" thread, truebrit makes an excellent point. If the killer announces his name, why has he covered his face?

The official story is he says, my name is al-Zarqawi, revealing his identity, but then covers his face. Yet his face has been plastered all over CNN.

Of course, we now know that it probably is not al-Zarqawi, according to CNN.

identity.

While I may be revealing my age, I suggest one think of the concept of, say, Zorro, or the Lone Ranger, or the Dread Pirate Roberts. The mask and the name go together, but if one doesn't know what "the Dread Pirate Roberts" looks like without the mask, the name is irrelevant.

Also, if there are in fact more than one person masquerading as al-Zarqawi, announcing the name serves a very useful purpose: confusing those who are doing voice analysis, for instance. Is it, or isn't it? and which one is the real one?

As I've posted elsewhere, the "official" and "mainstream" reports on al-Zarqawi are inconclusive at best. Some say he's dead, some say he has one leg, some reverse others.

I too have serious doubts...let's keep this subject alive

My islamic friends only buy meat from the Islamic meat market because there are prescriptions for the way an animal is killed that have to be followed for the food to be "clean".

It has to be killed humanely. They say this affects taste. As the poster detailed, there is a very specific way of doing it.

Anyone from an Islamic upbringing knows more details about this than I have mentioned.

The point is, they would never hack away at a neck with the wrong tool. And "sawing"? absolutely not.

These hacks didn't know enough to impersonate the cultural nuances.

It looks like classic Bush kill multiple birds with one stone scheming. Get rid of a potential problem - someone who saw something from up on a radio tower at Abu Girab and could potentially talk, at the same time, use this as bloodlust and justification for the tortures. When I read the Yahoo story this afternoon there was a section heading in the middle of the tory that said in all caps

JUSTIFICATION FOR TORTURE

and then you also have the CNN polling us asking us the same question. Can they telegraph it any louder?

What are the cultural protocols, if any, here?

Skinner? Anybody?

A U.S. diplomatic official in Iraq told the family of slain American Nicholas Berg that he was being detained by the U.S. military when they lost contact with him for several days in early April, according to e-mails provided by the family Thursday.

snip

To back its claims that Berg was in U.S. custody, the family showed The Associated Press an April 1 e-mail from Beth A. Payne, the U.S. consular officer in Iraq.

"I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly," the e-mail said.

In two e-mails later that day, Payne wrote that she was still trying to find a local contact for the family.

more

http://pennlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/national-23/1084471751239910.xml

Can anyone tell me why the US officials are lying in saying he was not in custody? What are they afraid of? This just makes me more and more suspicious that all is not what it seems on this tragedy.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/12/lol.02.html

OCTAVIA NASR, CNN SR. EDITOR FOR ARAB AFFAIRS: No. Arab viewers of the big networks, as well as the local TV stations did not see the actual execution. They did see at the beginning of this tape, just like we saw here on CNN and most Western networks, you saw the beginning of the tape right before the beheading. They reported on it, and as a side story. It certainly isn't playing as a big story or as the story.

O'BRIEN: That's very interesting. When we hearken back to Danny Pearl, "The Wall Street Journal" reporter who was killed in Pakistan in 2002, the entirety of that, which included a beheading, was shown on these outlets. What happened? What changed?

NASR: What changed is the learning. And also the reaction to showing gruesome pictures and atrocities and the reaction from viewers and authorities alike. Also, it has been a few years since then. Back then, there was no Al-Arabiya. Al-Arabiya is brand new. It started a few weeks before the war last year.

Again, it's a learning process. It seems that the networks are responding to their viewers. Remember, Al Jazeera is seen all over the world, the Americas, Africa, Asia, Australia, all over the world. And viewers there are not accepting of these images as people in the Arab world are.

O'BRIEN: Well, let me ask you this. You've had a chance to really listen to this tape and get a sense who might be responsible, just by deciphering, say, accents. And certainly, there in the Arab world, they're very attuned to that. And given the fact of who this may or may not be, does that have some effect on how it is being played?

NASR: Yes, and if you listen to these voices that we're hearing on Arab networks, Iraqis are condemning this execution. And they're saying these are foreigners. These are not Iraqis. They do not represent us and so forth.

Now, of course, the original claim was that Zarqawi is the actual man who performed this execution. Our experts listened to the accent, as you said, and they determined the accent is not Jordanian...

O'BRIEN: He is a Jordanian who is working supposedly, allegedly, at the behest of al Qaeda in Iraq. So go ahead.

NASR: Right, he is very close to bin Laden, and works, you're right, as an agent of al Qaeda in Iraq. Now, the accent is not Jordanian so that takes the Jordanian element out of the story immediately.

O'BRIEN: Interesting. All right, now one final thought here. You did a very careful translation of your own, of the statement. And in it, you see no reference to al Qaeda. And yet the official U.S. government translation does. Explain how that happened.

NASR: Oh, I find it very interesting, because out of the blue, there is a mention of al Qaeda on the U.S. government translation. It says: "Does al Qaeda need any further excuses?" Any speaker of the Arabic language is going to notice a difference between the word al Qaeda, which means "the base," and al qaed, which means "the one sitting, doing nothing."

My translation says: "Is there any excuse for the one who sits down and does nothing?" Basically they're telling people, you have no excuse for not doing anything, for not acting and defending Islam and so forth. Whereas the U.S. government translation has this factual error, I'm sure it's an honest mistake, but basically it sort of adds al Qaeda to the statement, which is not on the statement.

O'BRIEN: All right, Octavia Nasr, we don't know exactly how that got in there. We'll try to get more on that. We appreciate you bringing that all to light and appreciate your insights, of course.

NASR: You bet.

O'BRIEN: Kyra.

I'd rather have my head chopped off than to be sexually assaulted

Or is there any way to verify the date when a video was made? There is a statement on the video supposedly dated 5/11. If the video was made then, this does not square with the reports that the body was found over the weekend 5/9-5/10. But then the statement may or may not date the video.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C6F93CE0-8FCB-425E-BD40-672B38CF68B1.htm


ööA body found on Monday by US military patrol along a roadside over the weekend was identified as Berg's.

The website said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top ally of al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin, was the man who cut off Berg's head. The statement in the video was signed off with Zarqawi's name and dated 11 May.

Just an HHMMSS overlay.

It's speculated that there are two cameras. This is possible. However, one camera with two timer settings would also suffice.

setting 1 shows the 24-hour time (e.g. 13:44 == 1:44 PM)
setting 2 shows the time on the tape (e.g. 2:44 == 2 hr 44 min elapsed )

The dropping of the camera during the execution is difficult to explain, as it was quite steady -- tripod steady -- during the speech and other shots of Berg in his chair. Why take the camera off a tripod during the most crucial part of the video? Even if it were not on a tripod, why did the cameraman lose his/her grip?

Possibilities:
a) the camera was initially being moved to get a face-forward shot of the beheading, but the cameraman decided a side view was the only one feasible
b) something interfered with the cameraman (while moving to a different angle?)
--? slipped in blood
--? lost his lunch
--? tripped on the matting
--? got caught in the scuffle to pin Berg on the mat
c) Berg was already dead before the cuts were made, hence the camera drops to avoid confirming a lack of blood pressure during the decapitation

And why use a reddish-brown floormat if you're going for execution drama? Use a white or gray groundsheet to maximize the gore, if possible.

So very much about this video begs to be questioned, taboo though it may be. The government's dissemblance regarding both the contents of the speech and Mr. Berg's March detainment only pique my curiosity.

It is right at his head and neck. Switching the camera is a must or the whole thing would have been hidden behind the timestamp.

two cameras, both operating in real time; two videos edited together.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1596064

<snip>
I looked at just the times when the transition was from one camera
to the other and I compared the time stamps. I assumed the camera
that said 13:xx:xx was set to 1 pm and the one that said 2:xx:xx
was 2 pm. It doesn't really matter since all I am looking at is
the relative difference between the 2.

There are 3 times this happens. The last two appear to be a splice
at the same moment (no overlap and no pause). The difference in
the clocks is 58 minutes and 25 seconds BOTH of the last 2 times!
I considered that significant in confirming 2 cameras.
<end snip>

<snip>

The audio is way way out of synch that is true.
However, windows media is a very crap codec for video and that is
not a surprise at all. Especially since the very small file size
seems to indicate outdated software and perhaps purposely going
for a small file size (which kills the quality).

<end snip>

<snip>

They paused the camera for about a minute and yes, when it started
again there was a new person at the head. But that doesn't put
anything in doubt.

We still have 2 distinct sets of time frames. 2 distinct angles.
The sequence of shots are chronological for BOTH sets of time
frames. That they switched people around during a 1 minute pause
doesn't alter that or call in to question 2 cameras.

No one who thinks I am wrong has explained any of it. Why are
there 2 sets of timestamps? Both in Chronological sequence. If
Berg was killed before he was beheaded , then did they just get
"lucky" about the 2 sequences seeming to be correlated? How did
they get Berg talking with both sets of timestamps if he was dead
during one set of timestamps? Did they 1)move to kill him 2)call
"cut" 3)get him up , put him back in the chair and have him calmly
speak again (how can he calmly speak after the knife tackle?) and
4) Then really kill him lay him down and 5)stage the beheading
again getting the two timestamps to synch up... did they wait
around watching the clock?)

<end snip>

Initially, there was some discussion about the orange overalls or jumpsuit that Nick Berg was wearing in the video. Some thought it looked like US-issue prison garb; others said it looked to "silky" and the subject was dropped.

The New York Times reported on page 1 on Wednesday that Berg appeared to be wearing an orange jumpsuit of the kind that US coalition forces issued to Iraqi prisoners in Iraq.

This raises new questions, because Berg was, according to the Berg family, in the custody of US forces for 13 days just three days before his capture by alleged terrorists. If he was wearing a US issued jumpsuit in the video, either (1) he continued to wear the jumpsuit for three days after his release, (2) he was re-detained by US forces and issued a new jumpsuit, sometime between his release and the killing, (3) the killers had at least one US-issued jumpsuit and decided to dress Berg in it, or (4) there is some other reason for him wearing the jumpsuit.

Sorry not to report this earlier, but I did not get Wednesday's NY Times until yesterday.

as an attempt by the attackers to mimic US practices. Its too glaring a mistake to assume that US forces would dress him up in known US garb.

I have tried to not draw any conclusions in this "rational" thread, but only to raise questions about anomalies in the video -- although I have my own theories.

I don't think that US forces had anything directly to do with Berg's killing, just as Charles Horman was not directly killed by Americans in Chile, nor the American nuns in El Salvador.

Usually in the past, it has been US "assets" who were involved in the killing of US citizens abroad. The orange jumpsuit could link the killing to groups who were supplied with US issued jumpsuits, such as the Iraqi police.

Maybe someone would like to link this picture with Gitmo and Berg pictures for comparison?

http://www.nationaltextile.us/correctional_clothing

Jumpsuits, orange and traditional striped. V-neck and regular collars. Short sleeves pictured.

Firearms experts have stated the AK-47 carried by one man was a
"Gilal." This actually is an Israeli-made weapon that improves on the famous AK- 47.

Got this via email, but noted that this was a single unnamed source, and the assertion was not backed up with photo comparisons.

Comments from people who know the subject?

Anyone know anything about these folks?

This is the website and physical address of the parties who FIRST
RELEASED THE BERG VIDEO. Therefore this decapitation is irrefutably
linked to:

Saudi Research and Publishing Limited SPRC
Contact Information
184 High Holborn, London WC1V 7AP
Tel: +44 171 831 8181
Fax: +44 171 831 2310
Web Site: http://www.arab.net/srpc /
History
Founded by Hisham Ali Hafez and Mohammad Ali Hafez in 1972
http://www.arabdecision.com/show_func_3_11_21_0_5_10015.htm



Yet Her Majesty, Queen Elisabeth, appears to be satisfied with the quality of services provided by this company which has apparently worked in her interests for at least five years.

ArabNet is owned by ArabNet Technology (ANT), part of the Saudi
Research and Marketing Group, publisher of the leading newspapers and
magazines in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia including Asharq Al-Awsat.
http://www.arab.net/sections/about.html