Is the death of Nicholas Berg a result of George W. Bush's actions in Iraq?

[russ_watters]

I always do, theyre just as horrible.
When an Iraqi POW is killed, the focus is on him being a civilian(endlessly repeated, as should be). When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on him being american, him possibly deserving it for Abu graib and new theories.
Already for many ppl (including regulars here), Nicks horrible death is blamed on both sides when its these sick terrorists that are solely responsible.

Important point: there is a double standard here (and Artman is right - though its not absolute, there are a lot of people who by into it). When a POW (a soldier at best, possibly a terrorist) is abused/killed, the focus is (rightfully so) on the criminal act done by the soldiers/cia to the individual. When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on the justification of the killing due to the fact that he was an American.

But then, we already covered this in the 'dehumanizing of america' thread (Njorl's excellent post). In the eyes of our enemies, Americans are not worthy of individual human rights and can be killed to avenge an affront to the rights of "their people" (an irony I'm certain is lost on them)(I put "their people" in quotes because by and large, the people they claim to represent don't want anything to do with them - as moral people should).

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry for so many posts, but I have a theory:

I think its unwise to underestimate terrorists (though my opinion of them is quite low). Is it possible that they knew about the flaw in using a civilan to avenge the death of a soldier but didn't have an american soldier available to kill in that way? IIRC, he mentioned in his rant about coffins of soldiers.

Not that I necessarily believe he makes the distinction, but its a possibility.

 

[honestrosewater]

No government means I can kill you with no retribution.

My father punished me when he disapproved of my behavior. Would you consider my father a government?

 

[member 5645]

My father punished me when he disapproved of my behavior. Would you consider my father a government?

Will your father stop be from killing you? or him?

 

[honestrosewater]

Will your father stop be from killing you? or him?

Well, I don't know what he would do. He was a firefighter and put himself in danger to save many lives. He is now in prison for murder and attempted murder. He broke into our house in the night and attacked my mother with the intention of killing her (by his own confession). My mom's new husband awoke and was stabbed to death, saving my mom's life. My father said he did it to get custody of his children. (My mom was granted full custody in their divorce, and refused to let him visit us.) He gave up trying to get custody by going through the courts. The government didn't work for him, so he worked for himself. Now he is in their custody. The government didn't work for my stepfather, and now he is dead. True story and relevant to your question (which is the reason I told it).

The point is that individual people can reward and punish, protect and harm, with or without governments. Governments don't interact with people. People interact with people. Governments don't kill people. People kill people. Governments don't love people. People love people. Governments don't punish people. People punish people. Etc.

The concept of governments only complicates the situation. The concept of anarchy can be frightening if it is not understood or explored. That is why it has become synonymous with disorder and chaos. And that is why I brought up the subject of parents raising children.

Well, this is a complex issue and perhaps beyond your interest. I just wanted to point out what I perceived as a misunderstanding.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Simon666]

THE TERRORISTS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG , ALWAYS. There is no just cause to kill innocent civilians on purpose.

Yes there is a just cause, if it is a threat to US business interests or when people ask social rights they should be killed. You can even get promoted for it to UN ambassador. conservatives love speaking about scum in the UN, well, they are in at least one occasion absolutely correct.

John Negroponte:

He is accused of sponsoring terrorism for supporting the Contra insurgency against the left wing Sandinistas, the first ever democratically elected government of Nicaragua. He is also accused of inciting Contra attacks on civilians.

 

[Shahil]

Is it possible that they knew about the flaw in using a civilan to avenge the death of a soldier but didn't have an american soldier available to kill in that way?

Interesting viewpoint and I do agree with it. As I said earlier, there ARE 2 sides here and you must respect that. You may not like one side but you MUST empathise! Can any bosy here relate here! Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!

 

[Shahil]

Just thought of something.

A war normally has opposing factions. So the factions here are:

Coalition vs. Terrorsist

Am I the only one to see the bias and stupidity in that statement!

 

[studentx]

Can any bosy here relate here! Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!

So, when terrorists blow up civilians, you remind us we must empathise with them. When Americans blow up civilians, will you remind us to empathise with them?

Coalition vs. Terrorsist

Am I the only one to see the bias and stupidity in that statement!

I hope for Allahs sake that you don't insinuate Coalition is as much a terrorist as Osama.

 

[Simon666]

I think he insinuates that besides terrorists there are genuine resistance fighters who do not like to be occupied by any foreign country or organisation like the UN.

 

[jimmy p]

I don't think I can REALLY blame Nick Berg or anyone. The only thing I can say is that he was a little naive. But then, who would have gone to Iraq and expected to have been beheaded? No-one. How many reports have there been of News-teams and other Western civilians being kidnapped AND brutalized. I don't think I have heard recently. There are quite a lot of reporters in Iraq and they DO get about a bit. But they don't seem in much danger. Maybe they have military protection, but when is that going to stop a terrorist.

Before this event occurred can anyone honestly say that this is what they would expect to happen to THEM if they went to Iraq? I know I couldnt. But then, bad news happens to other people.

 

[kat]

Interesting viewpoint and I do agree with it. As I said earlier, there ARE 2 sides here

I think there are far more sides then 2.

and you must respect that. You may not like one side but you MUST empathise!

Some I can respect, others I cannot and..no, I do not have to empathise.

Can any bosy here relate here!

There's a lot here I can't relate to, one is the singularity of some peoples views. Such as there only being the 2 sides, or the view that Iraqi's do not want, or somehow are not advanced enough to grok self determination through democracy, or that they somehow don't desire it. All the while closing your eyes to who it is that are the "terrorist"/"Militants" and continueing to claim what Iraqi's feel or Iraqi's want.

Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!

I don't think it's neccesary to "understand" where they are coming from in the manner that I think you're suggesting. I think it's important to understand what their goals and methods are in order to defeat them and allow Iraqi's the self determination they desire and that is supported by Article 21 of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.