New View on Nick Berg

Disclaimer: I am not claiming I believe it. I just thought of this new view.

Is there any possibility that the people holding Nick Berg were American mercenaries/CIA agents etc and they killed him to cause outrage in America to attempt (unsuccessfully from what I gather) to rally Americans to support Bush's war in Iraq and fuel a hatred of the insurgents?

Just a thought

I have considered this possibility myself. It is quite possible knowing the current administration, but until more evidence comes to light, we can't say if it is true or not. After all, the CIA did back bin Laden originally - maybe he's returning the favour.

Awe browha! That's awful! How could you think like that? It's a war sweetie! The Americans are on foreign soil! The Iraqis are not happy about it! They just saw some immoral treatment of their soldiers and they are taping some of their own! There's really no mystery in daily life, where all humans have feelings. Come on. Put the conspiracy where it belongs!

Please see the thread "Did the freepers cause the demise of Nick Berg?


Read near the end.

you must be kidding me !.....Theres really no mystery in daily life...!.......I suggest you dig a little deeper as there are many mysteries in daily life and youll find that conspiracy does exist in this mundane world of ours.....come on put the government does nothing wrong out look where it belongs ......in a toilet ....and FLUSSHHHHH...................

ahh ...once again fined for a comparatively small quote compared to past quotes ive made....it should be called a fine for excessive points made against our political feelings.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by watcheroftheskies]

I thought this was true the minute I heard about it. I even wrote CNN telling them so. Many reasons why: 1>americans need a scape goat, need to re-direct the attention, and who better than the terrorists 2>his parents had legal issues with Rumpsfelt 3> he was last seen in the custody of Americans 4>his body , conveniently, shows up to ship home 5>terrorists are not claiming responsibilty for the video, whereas, they normally brag about things like this 6>terrorists are hooded, much too convenient. I feel about 95 percent sure this was an act of the American government, along with many other little mishaps along the way. It is beginning to infuriate me. Can no longer tune into CNN because the propaganda and avoidance behaviors are killing me.

Furthermore, it is people like Samara, with their oh so naive attitudes, that allow these types of things to happen. You need to open your eyes wide, and quite following so blindly!!!!

SMA, stranger things have happened. I surely don't think Americans carried out the act, but who knows if Berg wasn't in some way offered up as a sacrificial lamb? Since were discussing this now, I think that it's entirely possible that this strategy was at least discussed by planners. The extremists are calculated and predictable in this way. We could almost have been certain that there would be an immediate and revolting reaction on the part of the insurgents after the POW abuses. This kid could very well have been camera fodder.

I discussed this very issue with my neighbors last night. Avrage people in their late 60's who don't go online for their news yet, they even noticed the lack of blood and the head not looking like the guy in the other pictures. They thought it looked a bit bogus.

They don't like Bush much either.

When I watched the video, I'm pretty sure I saw a big pool of blood at the stump where the head used to be...

Your right Browha who actually know who where under those hoods?? they were completly covered.

I admit the likely case is that the video is exactly what it is. But then we have to, openly and scientifically, consider all other plausible possibilities, and see where we conclude

What i dont get is Bush saying"we will bring these guys to justice" How the hell are they gonna find them in a war torn country like Iraq? Bush said this about OBL and that was 4 years ago.

It's for show to the American public, a public view on a potentially strong, but nonetheless paper thin position.

According to CNN, Nick Berg was questioned by the FBI in 2002 because he let a stranger use his computer to send emails. That stranger happened to be part of a terrorist organization.

If it were a plot to deflect attention from the prison scandal, it certainly worked.

The US is also denying that he was ever in US custody, in lieu of the testimony of people who spoke to Nick and were told by him that he was.

I have no opinion as of late, just many more questions.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Narnia]

Remember what happend to that Daniel Pearl guy? Remember he was filmed being executed also? Well, our government had access of the video and told the media that there was a video of him being executed and I was searching ALL over the internet for that video of him being executed and had no luck in finding it (ATS posters note: please inform us if you know the link of this video). I think our government didnt think it was the correct timing in releasing a execution video on the internet for everyone to see for themselves. I think that after the Berg execution, it was PERFECT timing to stir the emotions of us Americans because after we seen the photos on the news and the un-censored photos on the internet most of us thought to ourselves "I am no longer supporting this war" or "Somebody from a higher power than that Filipino Sergeant (that was involved with the Iraq prisoner abuse) ordered them to take pictures of these prisoners playing naked twister to stir anger amongst the Arab people in Iraq". After I showed the execution video to some people that were not my friends but friends of friends they said something similar to "Let finish the job and drop a big bomb on them the humane way". THAT right there made me think that these same Americans that thought this way after seeing that video are the Americans that the Bush administration is trying to turn heads because of Bush's stupidity. These are people that are not aware of whats going on in the world and take what they read on the newspaper and see on T.V. for 100% truth when they dont know that the media feeds these same people "sugar coated" information. My conclusion, this war was to get everyone involved with 9/11 which was OBL and Al Quida NOT to just veer off to Iraq and say "hmmm, Saddam is a terrorist (which I agree) lets go get that Mo-fo".Most of our military effort and our media is focused on Iraq. OBL FIRST, hes the one that ordered the attacks THEN deal with the rest.

Just a thought on this, and i'm not defending the USA (thats the last thing i want to do), but if it was the CIA or someone doing it for the benefit of the US, why would they ahve said that they offered the captive in exchange for prisoners in Abu Ghraib, that statement makes the USA look bad, but why would someone doing this on the USA's behalf want to make the USA look bad? Maybe they did for realism purposes, i personally think it was insurgents but i dont think it was the guy they blame...

did you try google? this is what i found here. link is at the top of the page. beware though, it is extremely graphic.

i managed to see it around the time it happened, as some have. though it was a little harder to find it this time. maybe this is why:

FBI Seeks Pearl Video Ban on Net

that answers your statement i believe. dfh out.

ps: google is your friend.

The timing of this stinks to high heaven...

Another point that someone brought up- why did the sob reading the speach turn the pages over at least 4 times trying to find his place...

Browha,

How about this theory instead...

Nick Berg, goes to Iraq a second time to try and find business opportunities. After being picked up at an Iraqi police check point, by jumpy new recruits, he's handed over to the U.S. The U.S. hold him for two weeks while trying to find out why exactly his name is connected to Zaccarias Moussoaui in the FBI files back in the states. Once the U.S. officials decide that the original report is correct, and that his connection to Moussoaui , and his subsequent arrival in Iraq is purely coincidental, they release him. However, Mr. Berg while being detained made arrangements with a fellow detainee who claimed to be an "innocent civilian". These arrangements turn out to be to meet with someone outside the detention center to "discuss business" for Berg in Iraq. During this hypothetical meeting he's kidnapped, by Islamic radicals, and then later beheaded on tape. I'm not saying that this is what happened either. My point is that at least so far, there is just not enough information to know either way. No matter what conclusions some here want to jump to.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Cypher]