Berg's father: My Son Died for Sins of Bush and Rumsfeld

[Ghost of]

Kurp,

Give him a free pass, eh? hey, if my mom is killed by white men do I get to make any comment about killing all whiteys? Or maybe cuz my rabbit died I should talk about Clinton and the Democrats? I mean, free pass, right?

The fact that AQ killed him should remove the whole Iraq thing from the equation.

This is DISGUSTING and it's not out of the blue. The man is one of the looney scumbag left and is using his son's death to continue his agenda. He's not even courageous enough to actually hold the murderers responsible. Zarqawi is responsible for hundreds of murders--nothing to do with the F-ing Patriot Act. If any of my relatives ever said any garbage like this after I was murdered by jihadists I would hope they passed away right there.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040513/us_nm/iraq_usa_beheading_family_dc&e=1

"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this," Berg said in an interview with radio station KYW-AM.

In the interview from outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a seething Michael Berg also said his 26-year-old son, a civilian contractor, probably would have felt positive, even about his executioners, until the last minute.

"I am sure that he only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life," Berg said. "They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend."

Berg described the Patriot Act as a "coup d'etat." He added: "It's

:puke:

[jbooma]

I guess the father forgot that the US was going to fly out him before he got captured and he refused. I don't think it is smart to attack the president when the US told him to get out. If his father turns this into a political issue then I have no respect for him anymore. It wasn't the US who asked him to go over, he decided that on his own.

[TheKurp]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you either don't know the meaning of context, or have trouble grasping it's concept.

Nick Berg's father is upset at his son's detention in Iraq. It is within the context of his detainment that Michael Berg holds Bush and Rumsfeld accountable.

In other words, Mr. Berg is upset at the policy that allowed the U.S. military to hold and question his son for two weeks without probable cause, without representation, and without regard to the safety of his son.

Now, I suggest you get over your irrational and completely unfounded repugnance of Mr. Berg's actions. He is well within bounds to question why his son was denied the very democracy that we are attempting to establish in Iraq.

[chomerics]

You know what, the father gets a free pass on this one. Look at what just happened. In the span of one week, He recieved word his son was murdered and found out that his beheadding was available for the whole world to see on the internet.

Jesus, give the man a break, he just lost his son for Christ sakes. In his eyes, the US detained him for an extra two weeks, weather this happened or not, in his opinion it did. During the two weeks, the fighting escsllated and it became a lot more dangerous. He feels if the US didn't detain him, then he'd be back home right now.

We are talking about a man who just lost his son, not a looney left wing tree hugger who wore a humat target shirt on and went to Baghdad. If you can't look past the fact that death effects people in ways they can't predict and often they act out in rage and anger, you're a lost cause.

This is what bothers me about the Burg case though. WHAT THE HELL WAS HE DOING OVER THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? I mean, come on now. He's a young Jewish man who traveled to a hostile Arab country, not knowing anybody and knowing the people hate Jews. He wanted to fing work working on telephone lines, but this is just rediculous. Why did he not take the US up on thier offer to send him home? What was he thinking? I just don't get it, it doesn't make much sense what he was doing over there in the first place.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by TheKurp

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you either don't know the meaning of context, or have trouble grasping it's concept.

Nick Berg's father is upset at his son's detention in Iraq. It is within the context of his detainment that Michael Berg holds Bush and Rumsfeld accountable.

In other words, Mr. Berg is upset at the policy that allowed the U.S. military to hold and question his son for two weeks without probable cause, without representation, and without regard to the safety of his son.

Now, I suggest you get over your irrational and completely unfounded repugnance of Mr. Berg's actions. He is well within bounds to question why his son was denied the very democracy that we are attempting to establish in Iraq.

Give me a break. First of all, if the situation were reversed, you'd be saying something completely different and you know it. I just wish you were honest enough to admit it.

"they did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend." ??!That has NOTHING TO DO WITH a detention and you know it.

you either cannnot read, refuse to, or are a liar. I'll assume it's one of the first two.

He was killed by AL QAEDA. I doubt Nick Berg would ever consider them his friend or even see the "good in them." These are the people who killed his countrymen on 9/11. Who killed hundreds in Iraq and in Spain and Morocco and Turkey and---you get the point.

What does the Patriot Act have to do with his son's detention? And to say the P Act is a coup d'etat? That's just batty. There are legit criticisms, but it doesn't even meet any standard of the definition of the term!

Please, stop shoveling that garbage because it makes no sense based on Michael Berg's own disgusting comments. And they just get worse. At least at first they made some kind of sense.

Chomerics-- Sorry, the father IS a lefty loonbat(or one of those bizarre right-wing tinfoilers) because 1) look at his comments--they have nothing to do with the detention of his son in this case 2) He was an anti-war protestor before and is linked to ANSWER, though I think they have since made the signatories to their cause confidential.

So, no, he doesn't get a free pass. And none of you would be saying something so ridiculous if it were someone else in the White House and a right-wing tinfoiler making the comments--guaranteed.

[Kilmer17]

I agree with chomerics. I cant fathom what would come out of my mouth if my kid was killed in any fashion, and for it to be like this? I dont hold anything he says against him.

[Hooper]

Great post, chomerics.

[TheKurp]

So now you profess to lay down judgement on those who refuse to hate?

Mr. Berg is simply stating that his son was not one to hate people. He was not the ugly American the terrorists claim to wage war against. This is what Mr. Berg is attempting to say when he says, "they did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend."

I guess the bigger question is, why am I having to explain all of this to you? Rather than taking this at face value, you are attempting to fashion a case against Mr. Berg for what reason? Perhaps to be self-serving?

[Ghost of]

He went to visit a family friend in Mosul. Maybe he thought that because he was friendly with one Iraqi family or individual, that he'd be safe. He probably WOULD be safe with most Iraqis, at least outside of Fallujah, but the problem is he got caught by Zarqawi.

I still don't get the free pass. Death can enrage you, but you're telling me you don't express anger at your son's killers?

What kind of reaction is that? A man kills your wife in this country. Cuts her head off as she screams. YOu see a tape of it.

Do you a) Rail against the Drug War

or Get mad at your wife's killer ?

If you're an ideologue to the core and filled with hatred for the present administration, then you'd make the comments about the Drug War(or Bush and the Patriot Act) instead of express hatred or anger at your wife's killer.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by chomerics

You know what, the father gets a free pass on this one.

No he doesn't.

Sorry but he is in a very emotional state right now and should not be even talking to the media. He might be saying many things right now because he is upset.

If it were my son I wouldn't speak untill my head was a little more clear.

He knows exactly what he is doing and it is just sad to see how he is going about it.

When Pat Tillman passed his father didn't start saying anything bad, he was very quiet about it. There family handled it with class and didn't get on the radio or tv so soon.

You can't blame the president for the actions of your own son which got him in harms way. He made a decision on his own, no one forced him.

[Ghost of]

Kurp

I somehow doubt Tillman's parents(though I could be wrong) hardbor the same kind of feelings and resentment toward this administration or towards the war in Afghanistan.

And even if they did, I WOULD give them a pass because they likely would be breaking a pattern of thought on the subject, rather than merely continuing the same nonsense.

Also, I'm AMAZED that you can't see the difference between being angry at the alleged detention, even saying something about the policy of detention and saying that he was AQ's best friend or that they didn't know what they were doing or that the Patriot Act is a coup d'etat?!

Come on. Get off it. Again, when someone is murdered in the US, most people get angry at the murderer. At most they might get angry at the Parole board who let the killer out again or something, but they don't utter this same venom.

Lots of people have lost someone, some were critical, others were kind of neutral or mildly critical and others said they were proud of their child. Maybe Berg's problem is that he isn't proud of his child's disagreement with him. In fact, he won't even give his son that respect.

If I ever have a leftist child, I'm not going to use the occasion of their hideous and savage murder to go off on some geopolitical rant. But maybe I expect too much. Let's hope I never have to face that scenario.

[TheKurp]

Again I'm having to explain things to you. It's becoming quite taxing.

Can we establish that a war is taking place in Iraq?

Can we agree that people are getting killed?

Can we acknowledge that since March many Westerners have been kidnapped, shot at, and killed?

That Iraq is a very dangerous place is a given. Mr. Berg understands that his son risked his own life by his voluntary presence in a violent country.

When a soldier is killed do the parents seek out the man who fired the bullet and blame him? If there is blame, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the parents will assign fault to the people responsible for the situation and circumstances in which their child died.

Mr. Berg is reacting no differently. I'm sure he does not hold dear the people who were directly responsible for his son's death. At the same time, if violence is a given, then he holds the people that he feels unnecessarily exposed his son to that violence responsible.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Again I'm having to explain things to you. It's becoming quite taxing.

Can we establish that a war is taking place in Iraq?

Can we agree that people are getting killed?

Can we acknowledge that since March many Westerners have been kidnapped, shot at, and killed?

That Iraq is a very dangerous place is a given. Mr. Berg understands that his son risked his own life by his voluntary presence in a violent country.

When a soldier is killed do the parents seek out the man who fired the bullet and blame him? If there is blame, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the parents will assign fault to the people responsible for the situation and circumstances in which their child died.

Mr. Berg is reacting no differently. I'm sure he does not hold dear the people who were directly responsible for his son's death. At the same time, if violence is a given, then he holds the people that he feels unnecessarily exposed his son to that violence responsible.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

It's not difficult at all to grasp, and if he made his general comments about the war itself or about bad planning, then I'd AGREE WITH YOU.

But that's not really the gist of his comments. Yes, at first. If anything Berg should be calming down a bit from his first comments. But he's just getting revved up.

Coup d'etat? Patriot Act(why is that even relevant?) Best friend to his killers? They didn't know what they were doing?

What is taxing is that you are bending over backwards to defend a man who is probably really saying what he's felt the WHOLE TIME. It's not like some guy who is just snapping, I can bet you he's merely repeating(minus the specific comments about the murder) what he's said before.

So would you give someone a free pass for saying what they've been saying?

Doubtful.

Please.

[TheKurp]

Nick Berg was not a combatant.

He tried to leave Iraq in March. He was not allowed to. Michael Berg, along with a friend of Nick Berg's, claim the U.S. Military detained him. In other words, he became an unwilling occupant of a country in which he was trying to leave.

If he was not detained he would very likely be alive today.

Let's try to think in rational terms, shall we?

[jbooma]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Nick Berg was not a combatant.

He tried to leave Iraq in March.

No he didn't. He was afraid of the trip because it was down RPG alley. He decided to stay and get out later, after the US told him to get out and was going to take care of it for him.

[Old Glory]

Hey!!!....maybe if the President didn't have an agenda when he got elected to invade Iraq, the guys son would still be here.

Remember..before 9/11 bush came into office and on the second day was asking his council "How can we invade Iraq?"

Bush had an agenda all along to go into Iraq and have a war. Before 9/11!!!!!

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Old Glory

Hey!!!....maybe if the President didn't have an agenda when he got elected to invade Iraq, the guys son would still be here.

Remember..before 9/11 bush came into office and on the second day was asking his council "How can we invade Iraq?"

Bush had an agenda all along to go into Iraq and have a war. Before 9/11!!!!!

You sound as bad as the rest of them.

Al QAEDA killed his son.

You know the same ones that killed people on 9/11. Or in Madrid, or in Morocco, Turkey or tried to in about a dozen other places. The ones who basically had free run of Afghanistan before we went there.

BTW, Zarqawi went to Iraq in 2002. he went to get treatment for a leg wound suffered in Afghanistan. He got that treatment at a Baghdad hospital. You really think a guy coming from out of nowhere can get to a Baghdad hospital for a serious wound without consent of Saddam? :laugh:

[Old Glory]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

You sound as bad as the rest of them.

Al QAEDA killed his son.

You know the same ones that killed people on 9/11. Or in Madrid, or in Morocco, Turkey or tried to in about a dozen other places. The ones who basically had free run of Afghanistan before we went there.

BTW, Zarqawi went to Iraq in 2002. he went to get treatment for a leg wound suffered in Afghanistan. He got that treatment at a Baghdad hospital. You really think a guy coming from out of nowhere can get to a Baghdad hospital for a serious wound without consent of Saddam? :laugh:

Then why doesn't Bush go get the Al Qaeda?????

Because he really doesn't want the Al Qaeda!! If he put as much energy in catching the Al Qeada as he's put into this Iraq war, Bin Laden would have been caught by now.

You support good logic. One guy bombs you so you go beat up another guy who had noting to do with the bombing. Yeah...great logic. :rolleyes:

[@DCGoldPants]

I was wondering why we never finished Afghanistan. Seems like that should of been the focal point with Iraq being secondary.

[Kilmer17]

Wow imagine that, a leader who isnt only a reactive person.

I know that must astound some of you.

I'm GLAD Bush wanted to do this. It needed to be done.

And I agree, I cant believe we arent done in Afghanistan yet. Every other war we've had only took a couple of months.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by jbooma

No he doesn't.

Sorry but he is in a very emotional state right now and should not be even talking to the media. He might be saying many things right now because he is upset.

When your balling on your front lawn because you just found our your brother/son's murder is on video and a god damn reporter shoves a microphone what do you do? I can honestly say I don't know how I would react. I would probably say something real stupid, punch the reporter and smash the god damn camer because I wouldn't be thinking straight at the time.

If it were my son I wouldn't speak untill my head was a little more clear.

He knows exactly what he is doing and it is just sad to see how he is going about it.

When Pat Tillman passed his father didn't start saying anything bad, he was very quiet about it. There family handled it with class and didn't get on the radio or tv so soon.

You can't blame the president for the actions of your own son which got him in harms way. He made a decision on his own, no one forced him.

I'm not arguing with you Booma about this, I'm just saying I'm not going to judge him because he said some things when he was grieving.

Have you ever said something you didn't mean when you were angry, mad, upset or hurt? I know I sure have, I regretted it later, but it came out of my mouth at the time. I don't think it was calculating, I don't think it was politically motivated, I think it just rolled off his chest because he was emotionally drained to the point to where he couldn't think straight.

Until you loose your son, and under the circumstances this happened under, you have to give him the benifit of the doubt, I know I will, even if it was the other way around.

[Kilmer17]

When your balling on your front lawn because you just found our your brother/son's murder is on video and a god damn reporter shoves a microphone what do you do? I can honestly say I don't know how I would react. I would probably say something real stupid, punch the reporter and smash the god damn camer because I wouldn't be thinking straight at the time.

BINGO!!!!

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.0

I was wondering why we never finished Afghanistan. Seems like that should of been the focal point with Iraq being secondary.

HOw? by going into Pakistan?

You do realize that we'd get criticized(as well as other consequences) big-time if we just invaded Pakistan, even though international law allows for you to pursue your enemies if the country of refuge does little to kill or arrest them?

it's mop-up. The Afghan government is in power, there was an election. How would having an additional 50, 000 accomplish success and are you aware that when engaged with guerrillas that you can battle them for years?

Kilmer--the sister said "no one from this family will ever talk to the media again." Oops, she spoke too soon.

He's called a press meeting and he's been on the radio. I mean, come on. It's not like they came up to him right after.

And he might also carry some guilt. When he filed suit on April 5th re: his son's detention, Nick was freed and was likely captured on April 9th. He might have even been in that big convoy that netted several hostages(and dead bodies)

[BG]

The father gets a free pass whether we agree with his comments or not.

Ghost, I think you are sticking to your guns waaay to hard here. You know where I stand on alot of issues, but there is nothing that will console this father right now.

Yes you are right he should balem his killers. However, if true that he was detained against his will, then we have another issue that really complictes matters. However, for all we know, perhaps he was detained due to the possibility that maybe Berg was taking far too many risks in the wrong areas. I don't know. I can only speculate and I have heard SOOOOOO many conflicting accounts of Berg's business in Iraq that i just can't believe anything anymore. Not even the heartbroken words coming out of his father's mouth.

The fact reamains is that Zarafaggot thought he was an innocent American. He beheaded this person who he thought was an innocent American to show all of us in this country that his specific group, having ties to Al Quaeda are sick f*cks.

They should be killed, and Berg's father can say whatever he wants. It doesn't change the fact that Berg's killers should all be killed.

[TheKurp]

Let's get the timeline straight, shall we?

On March 24, Nick Berg spoke to his parents and said he would be on a flight back to the U.S. on March 30.

On that same day he was stopped and questioned by Iraqi police. According to Michael Berg, Nick was turned over to the U.S. Military by the Iraqi police and held for 13 days. On April 5th, Michael Berg filed suit to have his son released, which was done on April 6th.

On April 9th Nick Berg checked out of a hotel in Bahgdad, at which time U.S. officials offered to fly him to Jordan. Nick refused, thinking the trip to the airport would be too dangerous. Instead he felt it was safer to travel to Turkey and catch a flight to the U.S. from there.

Bottom line for Michael Berg is that had his son traveled on the day we was supposed to, March 30th, he'd still be alive today.