Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[Scott & Lai 12]

Who cares if we are pissing them off? They cut off innocent people's head and that PISSES ME OFF! I hope they all get a 500lb. bomb dropped on their head.

Please give me an example of an "innocent person" who was beheaded.

Excuse me??? Are you saying the people whom the terrorists beheaded are not innocent? None of them?

How about these girls in Indonesia?

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/...t_Jun06_04.html

[yabasta 0]

3) Is there another reason for the fake video I haven't considered?

Did you ever consider that Nick Berg died and they (CIA or Al Qaeda or whoever) simply used this fortune to make a video? Maybe it was easier to direct if he were dead already? I have not seen the video so can`t comment on what it shows really. I have no desire to see the video just as i do not look at the photos of torture that come out. Does nothing for me. If we assume the video is real it is of course not at all pleasant even with my scenario it is low. So the issue is boiled down to invasion and reaction to that invasion. We invaded for either Oil/WMD`s or 9/11. The offical line seems to claim bringing democracy to Iraq but that is just as crazy as the KKK bringing racial harmony to the world.

How about these girls in Indonesia?

Indonesia?

[*Robert* 2]

Don't you just hate it when you try to have an intelligent debate, and the whole time there is some annoying little nat buzzing around, making no sense at all, and calling others names?

VJ Sheesh!

Meanwhile, I’d like to tell Yabasta, UAL777, and Fishdude that I’ve particularly enjoyed reading your posts. It’s nice to see people who have differences discussing a topic without resorting to childlike behavior.

[*Robert* 2]

Clearly it isn't - as the numbers of executions don't seem to reduce the national crime rate, which as far as I'm aware rises slightly each year.

I just know all the criminals out there are factoring in the death penalty before they commit a heinous crime, or is it that they just forget all about it when they actually commit the crime?

The death penalty is a draconian measure to make right wing fundamentalists feel good. Though I hate our prisons filling up with “lifers” and the taxpayers paying for them, at least they are off the streets.

[dalegg 143]

3) Is there another reason for the fake video I haven't considered?

Did you ever consider that Nick Berg died and they (CIA or Al Qaeda or whoever) simply used this fortune to make a video? Maybe it was easier to direct if he were dead already?

No, because in the beginning of the video he is clearly alive. Now I suppose that they could have shot the beginning of the video while he was alive, and then shelved the project because it wasn't quite what they wanted, and then later after he died of natural causes while in captivity they mutilated his body in the second part of the film-

but, that is really more to my point in the second scenario. So what if he was already dead? What is the difference? They put this film together to horrify people and they clearly intended for people to think they slaughered a living person on the film, and indeed later his body was found with head unattached.

[yabasta 0]

3) Is there another reason for the fake video I haven't considered?

Did you ever consider that Nick Berg died and they (CIA or Al Qaeda or whoever) simply used this fortune to make a video? Maybe it was easier to direct if he were dead already?

No, because in the beginning of the video he is clearly alive. Now I suppose that they could have shot the beginning of the video while he was alive, and then shelved the project because it wasn't quite what they wanted, and then later after he died of natural causes while in captivity they mutilated his body in the second part of the film-

but, that is really more to my point in the second scenario. So what if he was already dead? What is the difference? They put this film together to horrify people and they clearly intended for people to think they slaughered a living person on the film, and indeed later his body was found with head unattached.

Sorry like i said i have not seen the video i was just offering a possible explanation which it seems is not possible. I was at no point defending the making of the video by any means. The point is however that we don`t really know who killed Berg and if it was "terrorists" how do we know who? Also how do we then justify dropping bombs on people who chances are didn`t have anythign to do with the video. that is the real point here. The video is obviously made for the purpose of terror and it seems to work.

[ual777 0]

3) Is there another reason for the fake video I haven't considered?

Did you ever consider that Nick Berg died and they (CIA or Al Qaeda or whoever) simply used this fortune to make a video? Maybe it was easier to direct if he were dead already? I have not seen the video so can`t comment on what it shows really. I have no desire to see the video just as i do not look at the photos of torture that come out. Does nothing for me. If we assume the video is real it is of course not at all pleasant even with my scenario it is low. So the issue is boiled down to invasion and reaction to that invasion. We invaded for either Oil/WMD`s or 9/11. The offical line seems to claim bringing democracy to Iraq but that is just as crazy as the KKK bringing racial harmony to the world.

How about these girls in Indonesia?

Indonesia?

Indonesia is another country struggling with islamic militants, and three christian school girls were beheaded.

Furthermore, Islamic extremism did not occur under Saddam because he brutally crushed anyone who opposed him (and often their family members as well.)

Secondly, islamic extremists are not extremists because of 'carpet bombing'. They are a result of hate being teached by radical imams.

Expanding the discussion, explain the following for me:

9/11- Cause and why?

Madrid- Cause and why?

Bali- Cause and why?

London- Cause and why?

The CIA did NOT behead Nick Berg. If they did, why did Al Qaeda take credit for it? See, I don't think that one should blindly follow the government, yet at the same time, defying logic is worse.

Also, as I said before, I am pro WINNING the war, yet I think in principle invading Iraq was wrong. As I ALSO said before, I am/was a soldier, not a politician. My job is not to decide policy, but rather execute the plan of battle in hopes of a victory.

I feel that since we are in Iraq (for whatever reason it really is) we need to win. Why you may ask? So the lives of the fallen troops and innocent Iraqis are not soley for a 400 billion dollar expedition. We must win and leave Iraq better than we entered it. Is it easy? NO. Is it possible? YES. To spark a change, which could lead to the elimination of terrorism by islamic radicals is worth fighting for, not only for us, but for our children.

The thing that makes radical islam SO dangerous is that they are not afraid to die.

In their twisted mind, blowing up a crowded market, night club, subway station, etc. = paradise with X number of virgins.

Why do you think SO many are suicide bombers?

Answer: Because they truly believe that they will be rewarded in heaven for their deeds.

Very few people who are not religously motivated will commit suicide attacks. They favor ambushes and guerrilla attacks and 'living to fight another day' because THEIR reward is living to see the result of their struggle and blowing up civilians defies logic.

The biggest key to winning a war is KNOWING your enemy. Know his tendencies, his habits, his history, his beliefs, what is important to him, and what is not. By knowing your enemy, you can better respond and defeat him.

Al-Qaeda and the other insurgent groups know that we are winning. Every insurgent killed, every ammunition dump found, and every IED disarmed saves lives.

Go dig up the statistics on IED explosions in Iraq. Well over HALF are disarmed or do not inflict casualties.

If the coalition can keep the pressure on the insurgency (like this week, Zarqawi, over 100 insurgents dead, and 500 captured), then the insurgency will die. Ammunition will run short, morale will die off, leadership will become confused, and as Iraqi troops become better trained, equipped, and grow in numbers, the insurgency will implode (for the most part).

If the terrorists are truly 'freedom fighters' as you say, what are the Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard members who are dying every day for their people?

[yabasta 0]

First off, the secret service men acting as insurgents is the most rediculous thing I have EVER heard, and I find it insulting. A group of U.S. military men would NEVER murder other American soldiers. How do I know? Because I am a former Marine, my uncle is a retired army officer, my parents are retired air force officers, my grandfathers were in the navy, and about 80% of my friends are in the military.

Military servicemen do not kill eachother.

So how many of your relatives were in special forces units? Do you really expect people to believe that men trained to kill are not capable of killing? I didn`t even say U.S. but you assumed that bit although it would not suprise me. There seems to be a little bit of a misunderstanding that you have. You seem to see one thing and apply it to other things.

Thirdly, I believe we were punched in the nose when 19 terrorists killed thousands of my countrymen.

You are making a bunch of statements with NO base, NO evidence, and that are far from logical.

Like what have i said you disagree with? Being vague is rather pointless.

Perhaps the reason you do not understand my views is because you have never been in the military. I was against the invasion, but hey, soldiers dont start wars, politicians do. It was my job as a Marine to WIN. I know military tactics, I know military strategy, and I know how to defeat the enemy.

Well i have had this ####### argument given to me before. What difference does it make if i was in the military? I am well aware that soldiers do not start wars. I am well aware that they are there to fight and die in wars. The reason i have never been in the military is because i want to dife fighting for what i value and not for what somebody who won`t even be fighting with me wants. the whole i was in the military issue is just a poor attempt at qualifying yourselves above others to speak on a topic.

However, thanks for the visit to the twilight zone. I'm so at awe by your far reaching, baseless statements that I dont know what to say, because I know you wont get it.

I won`t get what exactly? baseless statements? I would like you to at least tell me what you think is baseless and far reaching? It stands to reason that a suicide attack is ultimately going to be a waste of your resources as a soldier and if you are going to be a suicide bomber then why not go out with a bigger bang as it were? Many suicide bombs could as easily be secret service planted bombs. Also in case your "marines" won`t kill other Americans a lot of the time they don`t have to as the deaths are more often than not civillian deaths.

http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200509

[ual777 0]

First off, the secret service men acting as insurgents is the most rediculous thing I have EVER heard, and I find it insulting. A group of U.S. military men would NEVER murder other American soldiers. How do I know? Because I am a former Marine, my uncle is a retired army officer, my parents are retired air force officers, my grandfathers were in the navy, and about 80% of my friends are in the military.

Military servicemen do not kill eachother.

So how many of your relatives were in special forces units? Do you really expect people to believe that men trained to kill are not capable of killing? I didn`t even say U.S. but you assumed that bit although it would not suprise me. There seems to be a little bit of a misunderstanding that you have. You seem to see one thing and apply it to other things.

Thirdly, I believe we were punched in the nose when 19 terrorists killed thousands of my countrymen.

You are making a bunch of statements with NO base, NO evidence, and that are far from logical.

Like what have i said you disagree with? Being vague is rather pointless.

Perhaps the reason you do not understand my views is because you have never been in the military. I was against the invasion, but hey, soldiers dont start wars, politicians do. It was my job as a Marine to WIN. I know military tactics, I know military strategy, and I know how to defeat the enemy.

Well i have had this ####### argument given to me before. What difference does it make if i was in the military? I am well aware that soldiers do not start wars. I am well aware that they are there to fight and die in wars. The reason i have never been in the military is because i want to dife fighting for what i value and not for what somebody who won`t even be fighting with me wants. the whole i was in the military issue is just a poor attempt at qualifying yourselves above others to speak on a topic.

However, thanks for the visit to the twilight zone. I'm so at awe by your far reaching, baseless statements that I dont know what to say, because I know you wont get it.

I won`t get what exactly? baseless statements? I would like you to at least tell me what you think is baseless and far reaching? It stands to reason that a suicide attack is ultimately going to be a waste of your resources as a soldier and if you are going to be a suicide bomber then why not go out with a bigger bang as it were? Many suicide bombs could as easily be secret service planted bombs. Also in case your "marines" won`t kill other Americans a lot of the time they don`t have to as the deaths are more often than not civillian deaths.

http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200509

Looks like a leftist conspiricy website to me thus it is NOT a valid source. I see 2 pictures and a bunch of nice bomb making materials in a tiled room with a computer in the background.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/?id=14566

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...n=theworld&col=

These two RELIABLE sources think differently.

As far as special operations go, my uncle was in special operations as well as the FBI and 2 of my best friends are in Spec Ops. One is intel and one is operations.

Your statements are baseless because they defy logic. What you are stating is that the Americans are behind the insurgency. That is BASELESS and ILLOGICAL.

My military statements are NOT weak because I stated the duties of a soldier, and you yourself said they are contradictory, and that you didnt understand my point of view. You dont get it because you dont know what it is like to be a soldier. Clear enough?

BTW what is that last comment "Also in your case 'marines' (BTW its capitalized) won't kill other Americans a lot of the time they dont have to as the deaths are more often than not civilian deaths" mean?

Finally, seeing one thing, and applying it to other things is called "comparison and reasoning."

Thanks for playing.

[yabasta 0]

Indonesia is another country struggling with islamic militants,

Another country and therefore not really one that can be wedged in on this topic. It is best to stick to one topic. They may be linked in your mind but it is like talking about American operations in Vietnam, yes it is linked in a way but not really fair to brand the insurgency in Iraq as being the same as these "al qaeda" beheadings and if you are going to make such a link it is a stretch to include Indonesia events.

Secondly, islamic extremists are not extremists because of 'carpet bombing'. They are a result of hate being teached by radical imams.

What exactly gives you the authority to speak on this topic? How do you know what causes extremism? Would it not be safe to say that such extremism, even if it existed before the invasion or iraq was certainly boosted by Iraq? That seems a logical link to me.

Expanding the discussion, explain the following for me:

9/11- Cause and why?

Madrid- Cause and why?

Bali- Cause and why?

London- Cause and why?

Well that is like please explain the universe to me? Kind of a big topic to put within another topic on a small message board. Also it would require me to know thigns that not many people know. What exactly do you expect me to explain?

The CIA did NOT behead Nick Berg. If they did, why did Al Qaeda take credit for it? See, I don't think that one should blindly follow the government, yet at the same time, defying logic is worse.

Do you not see how Al Qaeda serves the purpose of the invasion?

The thing that makes radical islam SO dangerous is that they are not afraid to die.

In their twisted mind, blowing up a crowded market, night club, subway station, etc. = paradise with X number of virgins.

You just showe dhow you think that way too though. You must win for your family and they win for ##### although not if they are strict muslims i don`t think but as you said you are a soldier.

Why do you think SO many are suicide bombers?

As i said i think many are not really suicidal and those that are are just resorting to effective means for their families. They are just like you "fighting to win".

blowing up civilians defies logic.

So why do pretty much all armies do it?

Al-Qaeda and the other insurgent groups know that we are winning. Every insurgent killed, every ammunition dump found, and every IED disarmed saves lives.

No you already WON. Bush declared it as soon as his big check cleared i think. The war is over. Winning a losing battle.

If the terrorists are truly 'freedom fighters' as you say, what are the Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard members who are dying every day for their people?

I don`t recall saying that they were freedom fighters. I believe Al Qaeda are different to insurgents and yes you have people who want to join the empire of course so the police will have willing recruits. In many ways though it is probably a case of "what else can i do to feed my family"? The same reason many people do shitty jobs. Nobody said that all Iraqi people have that fight in them to resist invading troops either.. Wars happen TO people.

[yabasta 0]

Looks like a leftist conspiricy website to me thus it is NOT a valid source. I see 2 pictures and a bunch of nice bomb making materials in a tiled room with a computer in the background.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/?id=14566

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...n=theworld&col=

These two RELIABLE sources think differently.

How do you decide which sources are reliable and which are conspiracy sites? Obviously the mainstream doesn`t tell the truth 100% of the time. You don`t think it does do you?

As far as special operations go, my uncle was in special operations as well as the FBI and 2 of my best friends are in Spec Ops. One is intel and one is operations.

So how come you know nothing of the kind of special operations that are involved in special operations?

Your statements are baseless because they defy logic. What you are stating is that the Americans are behind the insurgency. That is BASELESS and ILLOGICAL.

Again please use examples otherwise you are simply flaming me as it were.

My military statements are NOT weak because I stated the duties of a soldier, and you yourself said they are contradictory, and that you didnt understand my point of view. You dont get it because you dont know what it is like to be a soldier. Clear enough?

Sorry but you are not clear. What exactly are you referring to?

BTW what is that last comment "Also in your case 'marines' (BTW its capitalized) won't kill other Americans a lot of the time they dont have to as the deaths are more often than not civilian deaths" mean?

I mean simply that a lot of these "suicide attacks" actually kill civillians and therefore your "marines would not kill other marines" statement is really not the point. I do wonder however what kind o fperson can murder human beings but not "american" human beings. Very odd.

Finally, seeing one thing, and applying it to other things is called "comparison and reasoning."

comparisons are fine but as i said not really relevant directly.

Thanks for playing.

This is not a game. I know you want to fight and win here but i am simply stating my views. i am not sure why you have this need to "beat" me but i don`t think you have beaten me as the losers here are human beings dying(on both sides).

So thanks for trying to make it a game about YOU.

[yabasta 0]

By the way the pictures were from Reuters including the one you dismissed as if it was made by the website or something. The website includes sources aswell. You can dismiss any media of course but at least read the page and perhaps ask yourself why they need to be immune to Iraq law?

[slim 1,533]

Miss a day.... miss a lot. OK, I'll jump back in here. (Seems I'm sleeping while everyone else is debating.)

As a former Marine, soldier, military person, whatever you want to call yourself... if you are out now, YOU ARE A CIVILIAN!!! As a civilian, you no longer have to "follow" the policies, moreover, you get to choose the policies. Like yababsta, I too didn't like engaging in military actions that I disagreed with. That's why I got out of the military. However, while I was in, I fully supported what I was doing, that was my job. I believe, like UAL, (and still do) that if you're going to get into a fight, you should win that fight.

Now, as far as knowing the enemy, knowing the actions, etc. That's where the US has made huge mistakes so far. You asked for causes of 9/11, Madrid, Bali, London, etc.? It would take hours of typing to explain the whole situation, but in brief:

9/11 is where this whole "war on terror" started for us. (The Madrid, Bali and London bombings were a byproduct of this, just further action down the line in the "war on terror.") If it wasn't for 9/11, there wouldn't be a "war on terror" because Joe and Jane America still wouldn't know who Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda or any other "islamic fundamentalist terror group" was. Back in 1991 the US Government told their best Arab allies in the region, the Saudi Monarchy, that Iraqi troops were amassing on the borders of the Kingdom to stage an invasion. (Which, by the way, never happened.) Bin Laden, and his band of fighters (who had just thoroughly whipped the Soviets in Afghanistan... with a lot of help from the CIA) flies home to volunteer to protect the Holy Land from Iraqi invasion. The Monarchy, under US pressure to utilize Saudi land and air space, declines Bin Laden's offer and allows the US military to occupy the Kingdom "for protection." The US does, invades Iraq and Kuwait, kicks the Iraqi military's butt back to Baghdad, but stops short of complete victory. Why? Because the imagery on CNN, Sky News, Al-Jazeera, etc. showed the "highway of death" where US airstrikes had annihilated Iraqi personnel and equipment and the US was starting to be accused of disregarding Iraqi (and Arab) life. They stopped short, negotiated a truce, then kept a huge military force in the region for the next 15 years. Bin Laden was slighted by the slap in the face from the King, then kicked while he was down by the US with the huge troop presence in the Middle East. After all, this was his 'hood. He vowed to get back at the US somehow.

The "official" 9/11 story is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. What better way to get back at the US and the Saudis than to have the vast majority of the attackers be Saudis? Ha ha, pie in the face Mr. President.. and King!

This attack was a major success for Al-Qaeda in the way terminating Al-Zarqawi was a major success for the US Military. Without the means to drop a 500 lb bomb on the White House, using a 20 million dollar aircraft, they had to do what they could.

That's where the mindset comes in. If you are little, and someone big picks on you, you might pick up a stick next time they hit you. You might wait until they're asleep and really knock 'em good with that stick to ensure they never hit you again. Now, if that bully is really, really, really big (and has lots of big friends) you're going to have to let them all know that you have no problems hitting them in the nuts with that big stick, and doing your best to see that their male parts will never work again. Maybe next time they want to pick on you, they'll think twice.

That's what beheading people on a video does. It makes all the people sitting at home in Podunk, Iowa, reconsider if they want their sons to go to Iraq, to support this "war on terror." When the terrorists aren't afraid to die (but like Patton said, you don't win the war by dying for your country, you win it by making the other poor dumb ####### die for theirs.") and their enemies are not, this is a highly effective tactic.

You guys kill me with all that "but the terrorists behead innocent people, and we don't do that sort of thing." We don't? Why is beheading any more wrong than shooting a missile from an unmanned aerial vehicle? I brought up this point previously and got hammered with "because pushing a button is nowhere near the savage and barbaric nature that it takes to cut someone's head off." ARE YOU NOT STILL KILLING PEOPLE??? IS THIS NOT A WAR??? And pushing that button is just a more efficient way of killing people. Just because you don't have to see it up close and personal doesn't make it any less barbaric.

If you are in a war, the way you win is to KILL your enemies, or effectively destroy their support base so you can neutralize their effectiveness at KILLING you. Once you identify your enemies, you KILL them, even if the other side sees them as "innocent" victims.

Berg - Built and repaired communications towers.

Johnson - Worked on AH-64 attack helicopters.

Armstrong - Worked on construction for a firm with a $2.6B project in the Gulf Region.

All of these men were so-called "innocent" victims of terrorist attacks, yet all three of them were working on projects for American interests in the region. To win the war, you must destroy the support structure of your enemy!

Additionally, it was previously posted that there are volumes of volunteers for the Iraqi military and police forces. With Americans being paid to work the jobs necessary at rebuilding infrastructure, where are the Iraqis supposed to work? (More Americans and other foreign workers = less jobs for Iraqis and more money being exported from the region instead of spent there.)

Solutions:

American presence in the Middle East needs to be reduced as much as possible. (Out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq at a minimum, although countries like Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc., will always want us there to deter the threat from Iran.)

Iraq needs to be divided into a minimum of 3 independent states, based on religious majority, with individual sects and tribal alliances falling into the most similar larger group, with oil-wealth divided equally among them.

Israelis need to be relocated. Control of disputed areas needs to be relinquished to the Palestinian authorities (even if they are identified by the US as a terrorist organization) and the Israeli government needs to do a better job of ensuring it's citizens stay within agreed boundaries. The Palestinian government must maintain a tighter control on attacks against Israeli citizens in disputed areas, and the Israeli response must decrease in scale. When an 8-year-old Palestinian boy throws a rock at a tank, that tank doesn't need to fire high-explosive rounds into the neighborhood. (US Marines could also heed this lesson. Not knocking the Marines or the IDF, knocking the policies which allow this response to be acceptable.)

And last but not least.... WE COULD ALL WALK A MILE IN THEIR SHOES!!!

[MPGGPM 0]

You guys kill me with all that "but the terrorists behead innocent people, and we don't do that sort of thing." We don't? Why is beheading any more wrong than shooting a missile from an unmanned aerial vehicle?

Put it this way....would YOU...`Slim`...or whatever your name is in real life, prefer to have YOUR head slowly and laboriously cut off......or would you rather have yourself been blown unknowingly to smithereens without hardly feeling a thing?

Then you tell everyone there is NO difference.

Your telling me that EVERY means to kill a person is the same? If someone is killed by slow torture, there is no difference?

I also disagree with your views on Nick Berg. What they did to him (as well as the victims of 9/11) was the cowards way out. If the members of Al Quaeda and whomever they are recruiting in Iraq and other places were REAL men....and not total cowards, they would go head on against the military.....and not attack women, children (as on the planes that flew into the Trade Center and in the buildings). etc...

Instead, they behead a man who was not directly involved with the military, and also blow up others who are weak targets .........in other places, cities , etc...

That is one major difference I see between THEM...and us. (we do NOT intentionally target civilians....they do)

That is what separates us from them. (it is also not saying our government is perfect, either)

But I still see a MAJOR difference between our way of thinking......................and theirs.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

As far as what exactly happened to the "real" Nick Berg, or what he was actually up to in Iraq..... I don't have answers for you.

Well, don't you see? This is the rub of the whole situation. The way I see it, under your observations, you've got two possiblities:

1) This is not the work of Terrorists at all. It's another CIA plot created to horrify Americans so we would believe we were fighting animals.

The problem with this idea is that if it was a CIA plot, and they had access to a Nick Berg double, and could create a dummy that well, you'd have to believe they would take this a bit further and actually show a struggle the whole way through and include gushing blood for that extra effect. So, I think we can rule that out.

2) These are actually terrorists and that actually is Nick Berg sitting there in front of them. I think we both agree that there is an alive human being there on the floor in front of them as they spout out their declarations. Then, at the end of the video, they stage a struggle, and in the part where you really cannot see what is going on, they bring in the fake body, and show these guys cutting it's head off. If you look close enough you can even see what I would say is blood pooling under his neck. They did a fantastic job with this fake, and why did they do it?

To show everyone that they are brutal and that they do not value the life of (the enemy) at all. I don't think for a minute that they thought everyone would think this was a fake. To almost anyone who sees the video, these guys accomplished their goal.

And to this option, I ask, what is the difference whether that was actually Nick Berg or not?

3) Is there another reason for the fake video I haven't considered?

Again. My point is a simple one: the "Nick Berg beheading" video does NOT show the slaughter of a living human. But whoever made the video obviously wants us to think it does, as you've mentioned.

As far as the two possible scenarios you have outlined here..... well.... these are your conclusions, not mine. There may well be other possibilities that you (or even I) have not considered.

The video has been extensively edited, apparently using footage from two different cameras stationed at two different angles, and cut in what appears to be in non-chronological order (at least according to the time stamps.) So it's very difficult to take it at "face value."

Again, I'm not sure exactly what Nick Berg was doing in Iraq. The "official" line that he was just a businessman who went there looking for work seems a bit hard to swallow. Was he or wasn't he detained by Iraqi police or handed over to U.S. custody ? Why did the U.S. consul send an email to his family saying he was being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul ? Why was he found with documents in Farsi ? There are more than a few conflicting stories in this case.

And to top it all off, apparently Berg had "brushes with terrorists" long before going to Iraq.... read this odd little story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/13/berg.encounter/

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm".....