CBS leads with Nick Berg story. Calling it a bizarre mystery.

www.cbsnews.com

and now CBS leads with it... you KNOW the Chimpster is in trouble RIGHT NOW

:shrug:

redeemed once again?

.....they're tryin' to connect him DIRECTLY WITH 9/11!!! :evilfrown:

...this unbelievable anymore.

THAT's why Zaqawi <sp> personally did the deed with his wooden leg. Because they hated him for his freedom, or something. Just remember, the RWers wanted to make sure everyone saw the video, and knew about this. Apparently, they didn't think anyone would actually ask questions...

first things first, neocons :silly:

sign on your lawn, bring a federal suit against Rumsfeld and you too will suddenly have "links to Moussaoui".

This administration is so dumb and, right now, so panicked.

If they hadn't floated that lie that Berg was killed by Al-Qaeda, we'd now be hearing that Berg had Al-Qaeda links.

The whole house of cards is going to come down because they can't coordinate their lies fast enough.

:hi:

I only got like 2% of your message the other day

:hi:

Wanted to talk to you about this week-end also. I may not make it :( not sure yet.

my car has an untimely passing, making such journeys infinitely more difficult :evilfrown:

link the copilot of Wellstone's plane with Moussoui because they were at the flight school in Minnesota at the same time.

Looks like anytime they want to smear someone they'll link them to Moussoui.

wait, adjusting my tinfoil hat....there. better

ass. ty

I got an amazing bollocking for suggesting that something was wrong with the tape...

first time i been kissed in years =)

So at least some useful thing happened out of it. :)

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

very useful for those who evade issues in thier attacks..

I'm glad it happened this far from the elections.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

Bush and Rumsfield for the death of his son, saying he died for Bush and Rumsfield's sins. It makes me sick to think about that poor soldier, I feel for his family.

Berg was not affiliated with the US military, as far as we know...

No, not really.

Unusual aspects of this young man's life were reported from the very first media stories.

Assertions that the CIA beheaded him, or Bush ordered it, or whatever remain just what they were from the beginning--Conpiracist horshit coming from hobbyists who have little to do but base wild speculations on supposition and specious logic.

In this case the journalistic community has begun to do its job and dig out the details. But that requires more than a connection to the internet and Google. It takes actual investigation by actual reporters asking actual people actual questions.

Oh, and a bit of solid intelligence rather than the preening self-important smart-aleck kind.

.. however, the intelligent people here starting putting things together and asking questions. You know, like a journalist might do. I get pretty bored with relatively new posters on DU telling all of us what to think, how to think, and how to write. If I'm having a conversation at an event, and I express my opinion.. will people like you tell me to shut up? Or is that reserved for Bill O'Reilly? Please.. asking questions is how the truth is learned. If you believe every single thing that comes out of network t.v. or the White House, then you aren't thinking hard enough. Question Authority.

He just has a hard time interacting with others. This is his way of reaching out to others. It's a little wierd but it is his way.

"It takes actual investigation by actual reporters asking actual people actual questions".

What Reporters? Are there any left other than Sy Hersh?
What People? A conspiracy of silence.
What Questions? Who would dare ask the questions asked at DU?

By and large the Nick Berg beheading skeptics are not alleging conspiracy theories. We are only saying (1) there are anomolies in the murder video, (2) the video cannot be what it purports to be, in terms of a real time record (time stamps, medical forensics) or in terms of the identity of the killers (al-Zarqawi accent, amputee, etc.) and that therefore we cannot accept the original explanation for the video.

Investigation is needed and you are correct, the media should continue investigating.

What is truly annoying is that those who want to shut down discussion of the questions (1) accuse skeptics of tin foil hat conspiracies and (2) seem to be taking the position that any questioning of the video hurts the Berg family and is unpatriotic. Why not just say that we need to support the president and coalition forces and never question what's going on in Iraq, right or wrong?

This just gets stranger and stranger.

from the radar once the propaganda effect is done wiht

and even common people see the inconsistencies

:wow:

CBS did say that the FBI determined it was a "careless collge student" who had allowed his password to slip out. From this I take it that Moussaoui didn't just have the same password (i.e., me and some other random person both having the password Edna78651), but that Moussaoui had Berg's password for a specific system (say, his user name and password for his university access account). They said Moussaoui was "in possession of" Berg's computer password.

nothing more

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/8654371.htm?1c

(snip)

The source said it's unclear exactly why Berg spent close to two weeks in jail. Although he insisted that Berg was under Iraqi control, the FBI also questioned Berg three times and visited his parents back in West Chester.

"He'd made some contact with Arab kids at the University of Oklahoma - that's what the FBI was checking into...a guy from Oklahoma," the source said. He said the FBI wanted to know if the Oklahoma connection was "why he came over here."

He said the Oklahoma contact was "related to somebody who was involved in 9/11." But he didn't know if that person was jailed al Qaeda supporter Zacarias Moussaoui, who attended the University of Oklahoma close to when Berg was there in 2000.

Hollinger said he knew Berg had attended the University of Oklahoma and made friends with some Arabs or Muslims. He made friends with people from every culture and religion. "He told me there was some type of identity mixup - either with ID or e-mails, something along those lines," Hollinger said. "He said he was contacted by some prominent officials."

Moussaoui had Berg's password AND Berg was on the Freeper hit list? Putting 2 and 2 together... What I'm thinking is just too much to process, so I'll just leave it hanging. Lately the truth is MUCH stranger than fiction.

.... a group of us for the last few days have been reciting th strange details, only to be called conspiracy theorists. Now even the major media is catching on.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any apologies.

Don

after all, he wasn't a liberal and he wanted to help--sounds like good recruiting material for OGAs

just strange, I guess

:)

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

nt

it's always the same conspiracy theorists, too.

-timeline is contested:


"Meanwhile Thursday, new details emerged about Berg's last weeks in Iraq — a timeline that has been contested by his family and the U.S. government."

-Iraqi police deny they ever had him:


In Mosul, police chief Maj. Gen. Mohammed Khair al-Barhawi insisted Thursday that his department had never arrested Berg and maintained he had no knowledge of the case.

"The Iraqi police never arrested the slain American," al-Barhawi told reporters. "Take it from me ... that such reports are baseless."

that he was being held by Americans.

The Americans deny this, & the Iraqis deny they had him.

Very suspicious!

acknowledging that their son was in US custody. This is even beyond The Twilight Zone!

Diplomat's e-mails show Berg in custody



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

Was Berg murdered to prevent him from testifying for or against Moussaoui?

That may be a stretch, but these days . . .

Or is it no coincidence at all -- was Berg a spy or was he tracking Al Queda? Is that why they wanted to murder him so gruesomely?

Once again, you've been redeemed! Bravo!

And yet, all this counting....;-)

yet swallow whole ellephants without a wimper

peace

I won't say they're 100% right, but they knew something was incredibly fishy about this whole thing.

The official story isn't making sense and reversals of statements are coming all the time.

I think that's worth some praise.

(BTW, I actually have chickens hatching right now! How did you know!:))

First, I have already apologized for my aggressive denunciation the first night. I did so last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1589397

Second, my motivation the first night was not to convince people to accept the official story, but rather to behave with more tact in the wake of the brutal murder. I saw much of the speculation as wild and without a minimum of foundation. I think that the people here who do default to BFEE conspiracy do themselves a disservice by assuming that everyone who finds their speculations strained either are 1) trying to "debunk" them or 2) swallowing the official pronouncements whole. One can be suspicious of the official pronouncements AND suspicious of the conspiracy speculations. These are not mutally exclusive beliefs. The conspiracy folks, however, feel themselves under such a state of siege that they lash out at anyone who questions an implication (they are against us, after all), or they carry on as in this post demanding apologies for imagined attacks.

The whole thing is rather sad, in fact, since people could be building alliances rather than attacking each other. But, whatever.

I didn't attack the foilers or those who denounced them.

I just congratulated the foilers for digging around and sniffing things out.

You were right about the tact issue.

The problem is not you, or others like you. The problem is that we are so infested and have gotten so big that we no longer all know each other the way we used to.

I was one of the ones who jumped on you in one thread because that was one incredibly busy day & I had not seen the post you just linked to until afterwards.

We've gotten too big and sometimes it's hard to differentiate between critical thought and disruption... We've become victims of our own success.

For my attack, I apologize.

...a supposedly Jewish American, a supposed independent (and unemployed) contractor roams around alone in Iraq...is supposedly kidnapped and executed by some men supposedly connected to Al Qaeda...then it turns out Moussouai (sp) had his computer password in 2001 and he was supposedly contacted by the FBI/CIA whatever.

The guy sounds like a CIA agent or a member of Al Qaeda or both. And was he actually killed?

between the CIA and al Qaeda anymore?

The distinction has become much less clear to me since the Berg beheading.

Some CIA must have started out under deep cover in Al Qaeda, and vice versa. They're probably pretty much co-mingled by now.

:shrug:

my head is spinning.

Double Agent??

always coming in at a funny time

the guy who took flight lessons, but didn't want to learn to land...

The guy initially charged as the 20th hijacker, but then has his death penalty charges dropped because, horror of horrors, he wants to subpoena guys in Gitmo...

That guy??????

:wow:

going on? Was he CIA? This shit definitely stinks.

many people have a theory that Mossad was connected to the 9-11 Iraq war push.

Is it possible that there is a secret Anti-Likud organization? Perhaps the Bergs are more involved than meets the eye. Could Nick have been a spy for the anti likudniks?

maybe he was also photographing what he could inside the compound of the prison from up on that tower and got discovered.

All we have at this point is wild speculation. Hard to even imagine a scenario where the apparent details make sense.

But guys, we are on to something.

We know that

1 - Nick was a supporter of Bush AND the war in Iraq at one point in time.

2 - He moved freely about Iraq at one point in time.

Some immediate questions:

Why, in an area as dangerous as Iraq would Nick have just been allowed to roam freely? Could it be because the "authories" already knew who he was? Was he recruited by the CIA to infiltrate Al Quaeda and/or other Islamic groups?

Let's say he was recruited by the CIA as an agent. This "looking for a job in communications" would then just be a cover. Of course his family wouldn't be aware of his true reasons for being over there. Perhaps Nick found out some things that caused him to rethink his support for the war in Iraq. Already we can tell from his emails to his family that he was aware of the deplorable conditions the prisoners were kept in. I suspect Mr. Berg came across some type of information that caused him to abandon whatever the hell he was really doing in Iraq and come home. Remember, he roamed freely for a while, and then there seemed to be a sense of urgency that he get back home. Was it the escalating violence or was it something else?

One question we should all be asking is what the hell did Nick find over there that was so dangerous he had to be murdered?

And it's not my wrench, it's one that was thrown at me, off-line.

Do we indeed know that Nick Berg was really a Bush supporter? If you had an activist son in Iraq, trying to do good, would you consider trying to protect him by painting him as a Bush supporter who agreed with the war?

Just a thought that someone threw my way.

I like your theory by the way- just thought I'd toss that one to you because it's very hard for me to believe that someone from that type of a strong activist family could really be a Bush supporter. You become to informed to be that & it would be rather rare.


we can tell from his emails to his family that he was aware of the deplorable conditions the prisoners were kept in.

Where did you get that? Please tell me! I haven't seen that. That's an important piece of information.

BUT, why did Berg have such easy access *into* Iraq? I'm thinking it's because the U.S. gave it to him. Only when they became suspicious of his motives did someone higher up decide he needed to be detained. Actually, on that note, your wrench could make sense, in that Berg could have been a double-double agent... pretending to work for the CIA/government, but really seeking the goods on what was truly going on in Iraq for the anti-war activists!

<<we can tell from his emails to his family that he was aware of the deplorable conditions the prisoners were kept in.>>

Where did you get that? Please tell me! I haven't seen that. That's an important piece of information.

It's sort of my interpretation taken from this NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/national/13BERG.html

If you go to the second page of this rather long piece, there is this passage:

"I did get on much friendlier terms with the other prisoners after they discovered I could speak a little Arabic and verified I didn't have horns or anything," Mr. Berg said.

He described the conditions for other prisoners and their treatment, depending sometimes on nationality. The others, he wrote, were behind closed cell doors and had no time outdoors. Some prisoners, considered political or suspected war criminals from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran "had been in custody for 40 days without a single interpreter interrogation, just waiting as they still do today, and the Iraqi guards treat these poor fellows — especially the Hindis among them — as real dogs.'

Mr. Berg was released on April 6, a day after his family filed a suit against the United States government seeking to have him freed.

Personally, I think there are more emails the Berg family has that they haven't disclosed. Nick would have had to have been guarded in what he could say to his family through email, but the fact that he described prisoners as being held without interpreter interrogation and being treated as "real dogs" is significant. I believed he learned something. Why did the Berg family release those emails to the Times? The answer is in the intro:

The family of Nicholas E. Berg challenged American military officials on Wednesday, insisting that the man beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Iraq had earlier been in the custody of federal officials who should have done more to protect him.

Mr. Berg's brother, David, emerged from the family's split-level house in this Philadelphia suburb with a four-page e-mail message that he said his younger brother, Nicholas, had sent hours after being freed on April 6 from a jail in Mosul, Iraq.

They are challenging the government's official line. We've got to press this issue, because I believe Rumsfeld and this administration are panicked. Nick Berg could possibly blow this whole house of cards down. The more the administration tries to cover the true reason Nick was being held over there, the more they talk, the easier it will become to point out their lies and discrepancies.

I've not been looking at this that closely, other than to be driven to tears about the sheer horror of it. Been too busy, besides, out and about, "converting" people.

Until I got to your post, I wasn't sure which-a-way to go or to think or to suspect. Still don't, but at least I have a point of departure. So much about this is making my head spin. Difficult to connect the dots here when you're not even sure what the dots at hand mean. All I know is it was horrible, heartbreaking, and a little fishy. But then again, I've reached the point where I automatically assume that EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that has something to do with bush or his henchmen or the republi-CONS or freepers is fishy, just by definition.

Tinoire has done some awesome posts on this topic and those posts have what actually has gotten me researching this tragedy. There isn't something "fishy." It's sinister, it's evil. This administration is hiding something big, something that surpasses even the torture photographs.

It's hard connecting the dots, but you've got to find the dots first.

1 - Nick had easy, unfettered access into Iraq.

2 - That access, at some point, was revoked. Not only was it revoked, but instead of kicking Nick out of Iraq, they detain him.

3 - Nick is released A DAY AFTER his parents file a lawsuit against the government. (Rumsfeld did NOT want this lawsuit to become public knowledge. He wanted this kept quiet. WHY? If you think about it, we only know about this lawsuit because of Nick's death. Are there OTHER Americans being detained over there? Have OTHER lawsuits been filed? We don't know, and we need to start pressuring our Senators and Representatives to start asking these questions.)

Everything points to Nick being involved somehow with the CIA.

"He never talked about the war or said anything bad about Iraqis," Hugo Infante, a Chilean who works for United Press International, said.

He was in Iraq, a WARZONE, but he never talked about the WAR??? That makes NO sense, unless you don't want to draw attention to yourself. Infante, a friend Nick had made over there, also said he never said anything bad about the Iraqis. That jives with Tinoire's theory above that Nick was really an activist. If he had supported the war in Iraq truly, he would have believed the neocon spin that all the Iraqis were terrorists and deserved the horrible treatment the Americans gave them. But he said nothing bad about the Iraqis.

because I would seriously love to be proven wrong about this sinister shit.

For a change it would be nice to be given a reason to hope that we're not dealing with bloody devils here.

This is just to weird.

in public and are asked about denying that "to the best of their knowledge" Berg was never held by US military? "Well, we were just lying, but can't tell you why!"

US custody? Email? Phone call home? Witnesses who spoke with him?

Hey, Joe Wilson just wrote a story about the truth in Niger. These poor bastards had the nerve to SUE!!!!!!!

related website? a website that poses as "al Qaeda-linked" or something? or am I mixed up here?

a plane ride out of Iraq, but he declined because he was too afraid of the ride to the airport because it was dangerous. (The soldiers supposidly have nicknamed it RPG alley). Berg traveled by himself all over Iraq. Berg had sent e-mails to his family that he wanted to leave Iraq. Yet Berg refused a free plane ride to Jordan because the drive to the airport was dangerous? Berg said he would prefer to stay in Iraq? It doesn't add up at all.

The "Never in US custody" statement is a proven lie. The chief of the Mousul police station Berg was supposidly detained at said the only American they've had in custody in recient months was a woman. When AP called the police station, they could find no one who remembered Berg being there. The Berg's were told that he was being held by the US Military by a councilar offical. He was released a day after the Bergs filed suit to get him released.

I've heard that western reporters no longer travel because it's too dangerous for them to leave the area around their hotels. Iraqis are afraid of being seen with westerners for fear of being called a colabarator. Yet Berg moves around Iraq freely by himself. He travels to Mosoul and meets an Iraqi his aunt was married to before she died. He states in an email that the man was happy to see him, but was nervous for their saftey should anyone see him there.

1) Where was Nick Berg at for 13 days when he was supposed to be in the Mosoul Police Station? Why did the coalition lie about it?

2) How was it that Nick Berg could move freely in Iraq? Would someone like this be too afraid of the Iraqis to have the US drive him to the airport?

the key to the final unravelling of shrubco.

"Berg traveled by himself all over Iraq. Berg had sent e-mails to his family that he wanted to leave Iraq. Yet Berg refused a free plane ride to Jordan because the drive to the airport was dangerous?"

Maybe he was afraid of what would happen on that drive to the airport (where there would be far fewer witnesses than, say, a PRISON)....

Don't we always say, stay out of small aircraft? If you had just been held in an orange jumpsuit by "US officials" for two weeks, would you accept a plane ride from them or try to find your own way out of the country?

or we never would have even known..
whew!

:kick:

http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine05082004.html

Torture, the CIA and the Press
Who Let the Dogs Out?

By DOUGLAS VALENTINE

"O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!"

Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I.

(snip)
Is this not a recipe for the type of "contractors" who flooded Iraq after the invasion and occupation? The only difference is that a CIA agent under "non-official cover" is no longer referred to as a NOC, but as an OGA, for Other Government Agency.

Before I continue to put in context the persuasive impact of what Hersh said two and half years ago, when he was prodding America to unleash its dogs of war, let me remind you that the agents who drew the CIA into the line of fire over the systematic use of torture at Abu Ghoryab prison ­ as a result, ironically, of Hersh's most recent "explosive" article in The New Yorker ­ were two individuals who fit the "nonofficial cover" bill exactly: Mr. John Israel, a contract US civilian interpreter, working for the company CACI, and ostensibly attached to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade; and Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, a contract US civilian interrogator, also working for CACI, but not attached to Military Intelligence, and certainly working for the CIA.

The whereabouts of Messrs. Stephanowicz and Israel are currently unknown, and CACI doesn't have to tell, because: 1) as we are told by Hersh, "Exposure could mean death," and 2) because, their trail leads to the CIA people who hired them; and the one thing Bush cannot accept, is having heroic a CIA agent brought up on a murder rap.

Try, if you can, to imagine a trial by jury, or tribunal, in which a CIA officer was sentenced to death for killing an Iraqi civilian.

Then come quickly to your senses, and realize that CIA officers have a license to kill, just as Army snipers can assassinate Iraqi civilians with impunity. The fact is, the war crime of murder is not punishable by death under the Bush Regime, for it was the Bush Regime that lifted all the moral and legal restraints on its soldiers and spies in the first place. So far, murdering Iraqis carries with it only a less than honorable discharges.



Dishonorable Discharges

Speaking of dishonorable discharges, the press was crying for blood in the days after 9/11, and fruitcakes like svelte Ann Coulter were calling anyone who wasn't a "traitor!" In this respect, Seymour Hersh was running out in front of the pack. On 1 October 2001, he asked the "hard" (overarching is a better word) question about the "lengths the C.I.A. should go to." As a suggestion, he referred to a tactic used by the Jordanians against the horrible terrorist Abu Nidal. "The Jordanians did not move directly against suspected Abu Nidal followers but seized close family members instead-mothers and brothers. The Abu Nidal suspect would be approached, given a telephone, and told to call his mother, who would say, according to one C.I.A. man, "Son, they'll take care of me if you don't do what they ask." As Hersh reported the official added. "You have to get their families under control."
(snip)

Why would Al Queda kill him?

They are trying to pin it on al Queda and assassinate Berg's character by suggesting an Al Queda link.