Xymphora on Berg video

[Eloriel]

I think Xymphora has great insights. Here's just the latest of his/her comments on the Berg video:

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/05/puzzles-of-berg-videotape-answered.html

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

The thesis that the Nicholas Berg execution video is a composite made up of two parts - one part being a routine interrogation when Berg had previously been in American custody, and the other part being a faked beheading of the already dead Berg - explains two of the biggest mysteries about the death:


Why did the Pentagon lie in saying that Berg was never in American custody?; and

Why did the video contain odd incongruous statements by Berg identifying his father and mother?


Why wouldn't the Pentagon have simply confirmed what Berg's family already had official notice of? It could have stated that Berg had been in American custody, but was released before he fell into the hands of the bad guys. Why lie about it? The Pentagon lied because it did not want anyone to know about the prior interrogation by American officials and the fact that it was videotaped. Many people must know about standard procedure, which probably consists in the taking of such a videotaped statement, with the prisoner wearing a standard-issue orange jumpsuit, sitting on a standard-issue prison plastic chair (someone should ask Andreas Shafer about his experiences). Anyone who knew that Berg had been in American custody would be able to put two and two together. In other words, the Pentagon lied, not because it was concerned about the fact that Berg had been in American custody, but because it didn't want someone who knew that there would have been a videotaped interrogation to reconsider the nature of the obviously heavily edited decapitation video (the video was edited with extremely sophisticated techniques to make it look completely amateur, with degradation of image quality used to hide the editing). The odd statements by Berg identifying his father and mother are even more interesting. Why would Berg even think to raise the names of his father and mother to a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq? What would they care about the names of his father and mother? However, there are people who would care. Nick Berg's father's name was on a enemies list published by the Free Republic. Military interrogators are apt to be aware of that site, and it is not inconceivable that Berg was picked up due to the fact that his father's name was on that site. It would have been normal for an interrogator who knew about Berg's family background to begin by confirming the names of Berg's suspicious parents. That particular snippet then made it into the final composite video, possibly as part of a message to those who might question the wisdom of King Bush. Berg may not have been intentionally killed, but his dead body, together with a pre-existing interrogation videotape, made an excellent video distraction from the stories of torture and murder, and has even been used to argue that continued discussion of the torture issue is unpatriotic as it puts the lives of Americans in Iraq at risk. The American knuckledraggers see the video as confirmation that the 'sand niggers' are subhuman, thus confirming the righteousness of murdering them in large quantities. It has been an extremely useful piece of propaganda, and is almost certainly a fabrication of the Pentagon or the CIA.
-----------------

See Xymphora also for interesting comments on Chalabi, and others on the Berg event.

http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/

[Minstrel Boy]

1. Xymphora's a daily visit for me.

A lot of sound, out-of-the-box critical thinking there.

[mike_c]

2. Welcome back!!

Or am I just clueless? Haven't seen you around DU for some time. :bounce: :toast:

Nice post, BTW. Thanks for the pointer.

[Eloriel]

4. I've been visiting a bit lately

Not sure I'm back to stay.

:hi:

[Straight Shooter]

3. And now we have the latest twist that Moore interviewed Berg

Seems to me this guy Berg was everywhere, a VIP of sorts, in touch with the enemy tangentially, working close to Abu Ghraib, and now we find he's been in close contact with filmmaker Moore, the quintessential bush antagonist. How does someone get interviewed by Michael Moore? I would guess you need to be rather high-profile.

More stinky smells from one of the biggest piles this administration has dumped on us in a long, long time.

[Must_B_Free]

5. Lets see...

We have Berg:

a. - at 2000 RNC convention
b. - with associates of the 911 hijackers
c. - working in the town Abu Ghraib where the political prison is
d. - interviewed by Michael Moore
e. - beheaded by Islamic terrorists in an orange jump suit

We don't know what the content of the Moore piece is but we can guess that it is something damaging to the right wing protection scam.

suggestions are:
- he was portrayed as a profiteer or
- he had something unflattering to report from his first Iraq work

He seems pretty clearly to be a radio tower technician as portrayed, however his two professional jobs we are aware of could be avenues for spying. Wiring could allow bugging and so could the radio tower work.

Here's the only plausible explanation I can imagine - the Jewish anti-conspiracy.

one need look at some little details.
1. Semitic means Arab, yet anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish.
2. Cspan callers are cut off if they mention Zionism, but they can say they want to nuke the Arab word and it's OK.
3. Helicopters with RPGs vs. people throwing rocks.

Now those little things hint that there are right wing religious fanatics / nationalists who would manipulate public perceptions to get what they want. Clearly we see this phenomenon in America, so why not Israel?

If so, then I could imagine a reaction to this. Left leaning Jews would be mad at the dangerous, reckless way the right wingers have portrayed their culture to the world and possible have an organized opposition movement with its own spies. So the premise is that Berg was a spy for the left.

This would explain why his father would perpetuate his cover of a right wing Bush fan.

a. at 2000 RNC convention
- Berg was spying on the GOP planning?

b. with associates of the 911 hijackers
- ???? doesn't fit into the speculation - unless he was keeping tabs on a known effort to pull of 911. If he were, nothing was done to stop it.

c. working in the town Abu Ghraib where the political prison is
- Berg was spying for the left - took photos of Abu Graib from the tower?

d. interviewed by Michael Moore
- left connections got Berg in touch with Moore's project to present some damaging information. This brought Berg to the attention of the right who was spying on Moore's bombshell film?

e. beheaded by Islamic terrorists in an orange jump suit
- he was discovered and snuffed to silence him and also use the video for counter propaganda to the torture photos?

Sorry to get into the highly sensitive area of Jew/Israel/Likud, but it must be considered as a potentially relevant factor in this mystery. Can I present a conspiracy because I have countered it with an anti-conspiracy and thus diffused any offensiveness? The discussion can then can't be accused of being one sided?

I think it's OK because it doesn't paint a people with a broad brush bur rather shows them as diverse - a same patterns of diversity we witness in every culture / Nation / religion.

Well, at any rate, there are clearly come problems with this speculation. Anyone have any ideas?

[KoKo]

6. The password given on the bus to a terrorist in Oklahoma is the key. I

don't know quite how it fits, but it's too bizarre a story. Plus, as you said, he really got around and was in some interesting places.

I think he was a spy. But I don't know for which side. I think the video was doctored. And, I still say the "supposed terrorists" who were
standing behind him, look just a little too duded up to be real. And, that orange jumpsuit..it just doesn't fit that he would be wearing that in the hands of terrorists when it's a known US/Iraq Prison jumpsuit.

There are so many questions, I have a feeling somethings going to come out in the next few months. They got sloppy because they had to rush out something to counter the Abuse Scandal. That's why we have all these questions. Either that or they can't get anyone with some editing ability to work for them anymore. :-(

BTW: I didn't know he was at the Repug Convention. More weird stuff...