I remember the whole Nic Berg thing and how truly horrible it was. So when I saw an interview with his dad, Michael Berg (below) I decided to give the article a read. Here is the interview:
O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.
MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that. I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.
BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.
O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?
BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?
O'BRIEN: There have been family members who have weighed in, victims, who've said that they don't think he's a martyr in heaven, that they think, frankly, he went straight to hell ...
You know, you talked about the fact that he's become a political figure. Are you concerned that he becomes a martyr and a hero and, in fact, invigorates the insurgency in Iraq?
BERG: Of course. When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously. I've been shot at. I've been showed horrible pictures. I've been called all kinds of names and threatened by all kinds of people, and yet I feel that I have nothing left to lose, so I do those things.
Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?
That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?
O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading, which would say at some point, Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK -- that they'll be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of he was turned in, for example, we believe by his own No. 2, No. 3 leadership in his ranks.
And, that's actually them saying we do not want this kind of violence in our country. Experts whom we've spoken to this morning have said this is a critical moment where Iraqis need to figure out which direction the country is going to go. That would be an alternate reading to the scenario you're pointing to.
BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.
O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...
BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.
O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.
BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.
Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?
And then cometh the right wing shitstorm...and with it, a change in MY attitude.
Everyone from Laura to Rush to the psychos on ham radio went ape shit and called Michael Berg....the man who lost his son to a decapitation for fuck's sake....a PUSSY!
Ah, America. What a special place. According to Mr Berg, this is not a recent occurrence. Apparently, when has spoke of peace and trying to get along with everyone, people have.....THREATENED HIM AND SHOT AT HIM? You know, you really gotta love this fucking place. I guess they proved him right!!
I am absolutely disgusted at the reaction to this interview especially by Laura Ingraham (left). She made a joke out of it and said, "Well I am happy that he is dead!" This coming from the same woman who two weeks previous had proudly proclaimed how she is Pro Life. Well, which is it honey? If you think all life is sacred, why is this OK?The Red States of America answer is: Killin' is alright when WE judge them to be bad. God has given America the power to judge people and it is our job to carry out His judgment.
Now, my rant here aside, I don't think we should stop looking for Bin Laden or al Zawahari. It is clear to me that they will stop at nothing to detonate a nuclear device in our country. They have declared these intentions and we need to stop them. It is unfortunate and sad but NOT our fault.
Iraq is our fault. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is our fault and reading the interview made me realize that there is a very clear distinction between him and bin Laden. Zarqawi was "created" by our own foreign policy. He saw an opportunity to make himself into something bigger than he would ever be. The proof of how much of a Noriega-like buffoon he was is in a hilarious video of him trying to fire a gun. He can't figure out how to clear the gun when it jams for crying out loud. Bin laden, on the other hand, knows how to fire a gun, and the last time I checked, was ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9-11 ATTACKS.
So, while all you chuckleheads out there in zombie land are drinking Busch Light and firing your guns into the air to our "victory" in Iraq, maybe you should take a step back and listen to the words of man who actually has lost someone over there. Ask yourself, is there any truth to what he is saying? Can we change?
Can we?
6 comments:
Can we change?Can we?
No. No easier than they can. That region has been at war with one group or another for over 5000 years. They'll change before we will.
Stephen
You know, Ann Coulter has a book out now. While I don’t agree with her when she says that the wives of the 9/11 victims enjoyed their husbands deaths, I absolutely agree with her when she states that when someone suffers or is deemed a victim, people all of a sudden aren’t able to question anything they say. Looks like that’s the case here on this blog again – notice earlier when it was stated that Mark Kennedy shouldn’t have ran a negative ad against Patty Wetterling simply because he son was abducted.
I’m to the point where I discount the kooks on each side of the political spectrum. Watch the Behind the Music of Ted Nugent – he shows letters mailed to him and plays messages left to him by animal rights activists who threatened to kill his children on the way to school because he hunts. For every example of a right wing nutjob you post about on here, I’ll post about 2 left wing nutjobs.
I understand that the whole Nick Berg situation puts democrats in a real bind...I say that because they have to choose between showing they are more macho and vowing tougher revenge, which would mean expanding the war; or appearing to knuckle under to terrorists if they appease a large portion of their voting base by going the "peace at any price" route.
As far as Nick Berg, if a civilian showed up who was: 1. Not with the military 2. Not with the government as a civilian 3. Not an employee of a registered civil contractor. 4. Not with a UN or other mulilateral organization or 5. Not a registered relief worker with a registered NGO (non governmental organization like the Red Cross) I would have detained him (like the US military did a few days before his capture). War zones are no place for civilians seeking adventure nor a place to look for work. There was talk about him running a business which inspects cell phone towers...isn’t there a protocol established for bidding on contracts for reconstruction? Another thing: how the hell did he get into the country? It is not like going to Minneapolis to Chicago where you can just walk on in. Did he fly to Aman and just drive in? Either way, he had no business being in a war zone. It is tragic he was killed in a cruel manner, and I hope others seeking adventure in a reckless manner learn from his experience.
So he thinks that Zarqawi’s family feels the same way he does? Naw, they think he is in the promised land with his 72 virgins.
"Each time we kill an Iraqi..."...spoken as if that is our mission over there. Yawn. Have you noticed that wars where people demanded civilians not be killed haven’t gone too well?
"...because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation." So someone who had his son killed in a war zone is qualified to make that determination and pass it off as fact?
So now Saddam Hussein is no worse than GWB? Please, if this guy doesn’t understand the difference between the state sponsored murder of several hundred thousand Iraqi citizens and our actions over there thus far there isn’t much anyone can tell him.
Iraq was stable under Saddam? Wow. A government killing 30,000 of it's own citizens a year is the definition of stability?
60,000 deaths a year? Given the fact that we have been there 3 years, are you telling me that we have killed 180,000 Iraqi civilians?
It clearly is Mr. Bergs right to feel the way he does, however those who wish to kill my innocent countrymen and women, as they did the morning of 9/11 as they started their work days, are my sworn enemy until vanquished one way or the other. I’m glad Mr. Berg wasn’t around in Europe back around WWII.
See, I’ll disagree with Mr. Berg all I want to and the loss of his son has no bearing for me as far as my disagreement with his political stance goes.
I agree with Stephen, there will never be peace over there, just as there hasn't been when there hasn't been some dictator or sword wielding king in charge. This may be difficult for people to grasp, but there are whole societies out there that can not operate the way that U.S. culture does. They actually require a level of fear and violence that we find intolerable. That is not an endorsement of the practice, it is merely a statement of fact. Iraq is one of those places. The ethnic differences between the various groups (that includes religion of course) has always been too great for unification. That was the lesson that should have been taken from the long-term picture created by the Brits in the 50's. That little tidbit from a history book must not have been included on the Commander-in-Chiefs night table with his Zippy the Pinhead comics (cheap shot, acknowledged). Things were better for most Iraqi's under Hussein...I know that sounds ludicris, but recent public surveys have indicated that along with basic facts about the quality of life under the interim government and American occupation. The lack of electricity, clean potable water and the constant threat and execution of public violence are a product of our removal of Hussein and that is not debatable. Years ago when several of you bloggers lambasted me for being against the war I simply said that I am not anti-war...I am against this war. Why? Because our best intelligence from people who had lived in Iraq was that Iraq was a black box and had been for 10 years. No one knew what was going to happen when that box was opened. Well, now we do.
As for the death toll...no one is really sure, but i sure as hell see on average 4 - 10 deaths per day. Over the long run, that is alot of people being killed as a result of our occupation and forced regieme change. Here is one for you that may feel I am a little too weepy over the loss of life...it has been estimated that due to the failure of U.S. foreign policy after the first Gulf War (the lack of support given to Iraqis that wanted internal regieme change) upwards of 500,000 people have died as a product of Hussein's Soviet-style purges, but more devestatingly, the destruction of infrastructure such as water and electricity. That was Bush Sr. and Clinton's fault. No questions about that either.
I respect Mr. Berg's opinions on the war and the situation. I feel badly for him that his son is dead regardless of how it happened. No one should have to die that way and even if he was not supposed to be there, it is a hell of a way to die.
One last thing...Crab, the Iraqis were not with Bin Laden's boys. Two different groups of people, so in reality, the Iraqis are not your sworn enemy as they had nothing to do with 9-11. I don't think it can be said any plainer than that. As far as Zarqawi is concerned, he might fit your bill as a sworn enemy, but like Markadelphia said, you might want to consider what set of actions created him. As far as the importance of the death of Zarqawi, you may recall the story of another rebel who was punished with death for his popular rantings about 2000 years ago. We are still living with his legacy and although his message was one of peace, acceptance and love, we (and our children, not in your case Crab)will unfortunately have an opportunity to see that message spread from generation to generation, especially if we continue on the present course. That is why conflict will never beat terrorism...you can never kill them all, new ones sprout up when you kill one, and the message they send resonates with poor religious people. More people have been converted to terrorism since we started the insanity of a "War on Terror" then before. Even the Pentagon and State Department reports confirm this.
All we can do is shake our heads and watch as this idiotic administration commits blunder after blunder. I never knew that short-sightedness could reach epidemic proportions, of course I've only been around for about 40 years.
I know the Iraqis and Al Queda were 2 different kettle of fish. My main focus was Zarqawi.
I didn't consider what set of actions created him because, IMO, that is immaterial when one gets to the frame of mind he was in at the time he assumed room temperature.
But if you want to get specific, here is a little inside the Capitol history on terrorism: in 1989 the budget came to the Hill and missing from New President Bush Sr's budget were line items for nation building in Afghanistan which had been there in the Reagan budgets and carried over each year to be expended when the Soviets were evicted. The GOP on appropriations were invited over to the White House to listen to why the budget was the budget and Charlie Wilson of Texas asked why it was gone since he was the champion of the freedom fighters, (what they were called in those days, see Rambo III) in Afghanistan. Brent Scowcroft bristled and said this administration would do none of what Reagan had promised and they could go back to their 15th century existence as far as he was concerned and that was policy and that was that. We would fund their training and arms as long as the soviets were there but to the hell with them when the soviets were defeated. Needless to say that policy pissed off the "freedom fighters" and it didn't take much for Iran to get them to jump onto the Islamic Fundamentalist bandwagon.
So if I were looking to where to point the finger at who helped created terrorists I would look to Brent Scowcroft and John Sunnunu, they are the two that hammered out that budget.
IMO, looking at what actions created him accomplishes nothing. It seems to me like Muslims are always pissed off about something nowadays and they will stay that way as long as they are kept poor, uneducated, and ignorant as to what their religion TRULY stands for. Have they even TRIED freedom yet? I've said it before on here - I think many muslims hate us because of the conditions they live in. Free people who have the oportunity to better themselves don't spend as much time thinking about who to hate, who to blame and who to lash out at.
Leaving the Bush bashing aside for a moment (no we haven't gone into an alternate reality in which markadelphia has lost his focus), I want to echo the above two comments with the example of what happened in the Palestinian parliment this week. Fist fights, screaming, violence....the people in that part of the world have a lot of what is the problem over there. IMO, they act like my four year old boy when he doesn't get his way.
The answer is for them to grow up. The question is how do they do that?
To cast aside all signs of progress in Iraq because "Things were better for most Iraqi's under Hussein" is ludicrous to me. Assuming that's even true - and based on what, by all accounts, were the devastating effects of UN supported sanctions instituted after the Kuwait invasion, that would be a tough assumption to accept - how is it even relevant to discuss how "most Iraq's" had it under a brutal dictator who consistently violated UN mandates? This is presently the greatest lie being perpetrated on the American people by the Democrats, if you ask me.
It's short-sighted to take action when nobody knew what would happen? I have to reject that notion as also being ludicrous. We're supposed to sit back and be reactionary with respect to world events? BS. Too much at stake. Nobody knew that anything good was going to happen when the Taliban was crushed (temporarily, apparently) in Afghanistan, but the voices of dissent for that invasion are few and far between. Those were the same voices that said an invasion of Afghanistan would be a bloody slaughter for the invaders - a lesson taught by history, undoubtedly.
Nobody knew what would happen when we attacked the Libyan coast in the early 1800s in response to the Barbary Pirates. The domestic and international opposition, along with historical precedence, suggested this was a short-sighted move. 200 years later history views this act much more favorably.
We also must remember that, unlike the world even 30 years ago, the threat posed by even a small group of people isn't limited to merely staging a coup in some shithole country or steamrolling Poland.
No, with all due respect, short-sightedness is failing to act upon a vision, imperfect as it may be. You may not agree with the vision of the Bush admin - it's certainly your right. But all you people that consistently piss on this administration will have to do better than "we ruined the Iraqis' lives" or "we caused people to become terrorists" if you hope to win over the majority of Americans who rightfully believe that we're not the bad guys in this scenario.
Since the "War on Terror" was mentioned, take a moment to examine the message that the administration has consistently put forth. Contrary to the "kill them all" message posited, the administration's "war on terror" is defined as denying terrorists safe haven or control of a nation, preventing them from gaining access to wmd, cutting off their sources of support, and winning the battle of ideas. If you want to argue against that philosophy, or argue that history proves that will be impossible, so be it. If you're right, then I can see why Markadelphia lives in a much bleaker world than I do. But frankly I'd rather error on the side of acting how we think is best rather than waiting for the disaster that is the impotent UN to author another "strongly worded letter."
Post a Comment