The Berg Murder: A Democratic Underground Poll

[hang a left]

Poll question: The Berg Murder: A Democratic Underground Poll

I have read many many threads on this subject over the past 18 or so hours. Some people see it as a MIHOP type of incident. Some people imagine it as a LIHOP type of incident. Some DUers are angry at the tin-foil rantings of some. Some believe the official story that is being told via the American press.

There was alot of infighting going on yesterday and last night. There was alot of name-calling. Some people have left DU forever because of bad feelings. Some DUer's, I noticed, stayed completely away from the threads. I would assume it was because of the toxic nature of the exchanges taking place.

I would like to get an idea of what percentages of our DUers believe we are not getting the correct story from our media. What percentage accept the story. It is an issue that has caused great division here.

The intention of this poll is not to start a flamefest. It is to find out scientifically how we are divided.

Poll result (340 votes)
This poor kid was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Al Queda needed a subject and they found one.	(88 votes, 26%)	Vote
This was not Al Queda, but some militant Iraqi group, trying to use Mr. Berg to get friends or family released from the Abu Graib prison.	(10 votes, 3%)	Vote
This was an act committed for the purposed of forcing the withdrawal of the Coalition from Iraq.	(2 votes, 1%)	Vote
This was a staged event to get the torture by Americans off the front pages and the lead stories of American news.	(20 votes, 6%)	Vote
I am not sure yet. But I have some questions.	(139 votes, 41%)	Vote
This story just doesn't sit right with me. I think it is likely it is a staged event.	(35 votes, 10%)	Vote
This is definately a CIA/Mossad propoganda piece, with the purpose of inflaming the Americans, and shoring up waning support for this war.	(46 votes, 14%)	Vote

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I chose the first option

But I'd add in the part about how they HAD to retaliate for the crimes we committed.

[Claire Beth]

3. yeah, my thoughts, too! n/t

[kcwayne]

6. No one "has" to commit barbaric acts against innocent people

let alone the guilty. These murderers are ignorant fools whose act will bring a great deal of harm to thousands of Iraqis.

Put yourself in the place of an American soldier in Iraq. The image of Berg's hideous murder will be a great motivator to kill first, and ask questions later. Look forward to many more stories of 2 year olds shot through the head, elderly women blown up while grocery shopping, and even greater amounts of torture and barbarity committed by our military.

This act will harden the resolve of the right wing to kill every Arab on this planet. How many Americans are now more willing than ever to let this administration exert its hostile intentions where ever it sees fit?

Only morons with no ability to reason will commit acts such as this that are perfect propaganda tools for their enemy. The slaughter of Mr. Berg is inexcusable, utterly unjustifiable, and abysmally stupid.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. You're thinking it through from the wrong angle.

If you're a terrorist organization who's entire membership pitch is that Americans are evil and your group is committed to getting revenge upon this evil scourge, YES, you absolutely have to do commit this horrible act. You lose your credibility if you do not. Your enemy will not fear you if you do not. Is it justified? Hell no! But neither were the acts of our soldiers.

And now, look at it from OUR angle. The fucking right wing monsters are already clamoring for eye-for-an-eye type justice. They feel they HAVE to avenge this act.

Do you understand now how this cycle continues?

[kcwayne]

12. I think my post shows that I understand perfectly well how the cycle runs

If your goal is to have increased escalation of death and destruction, you act exactly as these terrorists and our right wing have done.

That is why I say they are morons, incapable of seeing their way clear to an end game in which daily death and destruction cease.

I haven't had discussions with Islamic terrorists, but I have had discussions with right wing fanatics in our country. Our fanatics will say they want peace and prosperity as the end goal, that the goal is not simply to engage in warfare. I suspect Islamic terrorists will say the same thing.

When you read the speeches of Osama Bin Laden, he is selling a vision of Islamic justice, security, and self determination for Muslims. Warfare is a necessary tool to achieve those results, but he is asking Muslims to sacrifice and kill the enemy so that one day, they will have vanquished us and then they can live in peace.

Of course he is selling a totalitarian oligarchy, and will never achieve his goal. His only "successes" will be the pitifully cowardly and barbaric acts that get their 15 minutes of fame, and in the end, each act will result in a thousand more Muslims dying, and the moronic call to exact retribution by committing another stupid act of murder.

And the same applies to the way we respond, as long as those responses are governed by the simple minded ideology of the right wing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. That's fine,

We're saying the same thing about the cycle, but you're saying they didn't HAVE to commit these atrocious acts, whereas I'm saying they did have to in order to save face. If they didn't retaliate, they wouldn't have credibility amongst their own people. This is true for both al Qaeda and the U.S.

[kcwayne]

15. True if credibility is only measured by how many people you get killed

and not by achieving results that meet your professed objective of a better life. I am saying that barbarians can become civilized and use their brains to find solutions.

This has happened before in history, for example the US and the Soviet Union managed to stop the nuclear brinksmanship without turning this planet into a nuclear wasteland. The numbnuts that run our government today, and the imbeciles in Al Queda would be more pre-disposed to launch the nukes than to use detent.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Which barbarians are going to blink first though?

I don't see the U.S. blinking with the enormous right wing bloodlust that we have today, and I certainly don't see al Qaeda doing it. So where does this end? So who steps up and becomes the bigger man? You cite the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but the big difference is the fact that the Soviet Union was a government with definite land and legitimacy. Al Qaeda, having neither of those, is not seen in the same light by the U.S., and as such, will not be treated with any form of respect. There will never be a meeting between leaders, never any peace negotiations. So again, where does this end?

I think we're agreeing here, but you're missing the point where I'm only taking the perspective of the opposition here. I'm not justifying what they've done in any way, and I'm not justifying what we've done in any way. I'm just calling them as I see them.

[kcwayne]

19. I am not missing your point at all

I understand your point about why each side will seek revenge, and feels it is the only course very well. The model is perfectly well demonstrated in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. Neither side is capable of acheiving what they want, and they are locked into a murder cycle that has no foreseeable end.

My point is that just because that is the way these cycles are playing out now, does not mean that is the only course of action. I am addressing what is possible, not what is. Call me an idealist.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I think you are an idealist

Because of your opinion, I have to ask you, which side do you see "giving in" first? According to your plan, someone has to.

[kcwayne]

21. Which side quits first depends on too many unknowable factors

If Al Queda explodes 10 nukes in American cities, we might. The sitting President would have to decide whether he wants to incinerate the entire Middle East killing 20 million people who have nothing to do with Al Queda.

If we kill a million Arabs, ala Viet Nam, Al Queda may decide to give up.

If Bin Laden dies, and the next leader of Al Queda has any sense at all, he would do well to learn from Ho Chi Minh, and win the way the Vietnamese did.

Throughout history, powerful nations have subjugated disenfranchised insurgents, virtually without fail. North and South American Indians, Australian aborigines, and the tribes of Africa all fell under the power of nation states. Al Queda will go the same way, unless they are able to acquire WMD, which is the great leveler against powerful militaries.

If I were an Al Queda leader, I would opt for the Ho Chi Minh model in all likelihood. I get to keep my nation, the US pulls out declaring victory, and the world sympathizes with my cause against the Americans. To get there, I would not do Berg style atrocities and prolong the inability of my foe to pull out and save face.

There is no reason why if Ho Chi Minh could do this, Al Queda couldn't use the same strategy. Its the smart play. But I think their religious fanaticism prevents them from making the smart play. So we'll see.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Again, Ho Chi Minh had a country

Al Qaeda has no country and thus has no citizens to perpetuate their armies. They need the propaganda to self-sustain. They need extremists to enlist. And in order to get them to do it, they need to show that they're serious about getting the Americans where it hurts. They're not truly defending any homeland and they're not fighting for independence. In these situations, they have to be able to show something tangible in order to get people to fight. That's why it was a horrible idea to get into this Iraq war alone as we did, because we gave anyone thinking about being a terrorist proof that we are indeed the evildoers, as we had absolutely no one else legitimizing our actions. That's why the abuse photos were so horrible, because it tangibly shows that we are "evil" - it proved everything Osama was spewing about us. And that's also why the beheading was video taped, to tangibly show other young Muslims that SOMEONE is doing SOMETHING about this evil - that it's not necessary to just sit back and take the abuse the Americans have to offer.

With an actual country, none of those things are necessary. The rallying cry is simply "freedom", and that's all Ho Chi Minh needed. They had just endured years of occupation at the hands of people like the Chinese and French. They didn't need to demonstrate to anyone else that not only did they have to fight for their freedom, but also that they could be victorious. That's a gigantic difference compared with al Qaeda's situation.

[kcwayne]

24. Al Queda does have a country

Its called Islam. Islam is not simply a religion, its a theocracy. The national borders applied to the Middle East have been largely established by Europeans and have less relevance to the various sects of Islam.

Al Queda is fighting for Islam. It is just as compelling to fundamentalist Muslims as fighting for Vietnam was to Ho Chi Minh.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Islam is an ideology

It's not even CLOSE to being the same as fighting for one's homeland. There are no "citizens" of Islam. There's no one you can draft. You can be a Muslim anywhere you want and you can worship where you wish, but you can't be American or Vienamese anywhere. Islam has no borders to defend. There are no homes in the "Nation of Islam", there are few jobs (only clerics), and there are no natural resources. It's a totally incorrect comparison to make. Being pushed off your homeland is a much easier sell than defending an ideology.

[kcwayne]

28. A Nation is an ideology as well

Think about the US Governments' war against Native Americans. There were no borders, or conscription. Their homes were not part of the US territories. There homes the territories the traveled in were part of the "world".

My ancestors were Cherokee. They belonged to the Cherokee nation in exactly the same way that Muslims belong to Islam. It was an ideology bound by family and cultural ties, not a nation bound by law of a central military force. The war we fought against European invaders was similar in a lot of respects to the war fundamentalist Islamics are fighting against the West. We lost it, we lost our ability to use the land we had used for thousands of years, our homes, our lives, and finally our culture. Although my father was born on a reservation in Oklahoma, neither he, my grandmother, nor I know squat about our heritage. The fact that our (Cherokee's) "nation" was defeated does not mean that we did not exist, and fight for our ideology, and do so with great fervor. The wars between Europeans and Native Americans were considered to be true wars by the Europeans, not police actions of a nation rounding up unruly citizens. Even though the Native Americans had no sovereignty of nation, in that manner in which you are thinking of nations, the US Government negotiated peace treaties and trade agreements with virtually all of the tribes. This was clearly a defacto recognition of a force that has many parallels in Al Queda.

You should spend more time reading what the clerics in the Middle East say in their Friday sermons. You should spend more time observing how all of the Islamic nations profess brotherhood and support for fellow Muslims, even when the nations that control those Muslims are abhorrent to their ideology, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. Look at all the Saudis, Palestinians, Jordanians, and even Iranians that came to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight the Great Satan. If you believe they were motivated by nationalism, then you truly, truly, do not understand Islam. You simply cannot cast Islam into the same light as you cast something like Christianity. As I said, it is more than an ideology, it is a theocracy. The relevance of national borders and structure to Islamics as they were to my ancestors.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Native Americans had no sovereignty?

With all due respect, methinks Native Americans were here first and had the only legitimate claim to this land. That's sovereignty enough for me. Perhaps they did not develop nations as Europeans knew them, mostly because they didn't have the same population density that the European nations had, and thus, weren't tripping over each other at every turn, but they certainly held stake to the land. Further, those "peace treaties" were utter and complete jokes. Most of these so-called treaties weren't ever respected by the U.S. Government, and the ones that were respected were complete jokes, such as the purchase of Manhattan for something like a dollar. They completely took advantage of the Native Americans and held exactly zero respect. Further, you're talking about the actions of a fledgling country, not the world super power that we are today. We have far more ego than we did back then which makes us far less likely to ever negotiate.

Further, I know a lot about Islam, and even more about religions in general. They attract many zealots, yes, as do all other religions. However, the number of zealots choosing to fight pales in comparison to the 100% participation you receive when someone is attacking your home. If there was ever a true, full scale invasion of the United States, there wouldn't be the dissent we have now. We'd ALL pick up arms and fight, because we ALL have something to lose. You absolutely cannot say that about any religion, for many reasons. Firstly, it's not as easy to identify an attack against an ideology. Sure, many of their clerics argue that the U.S. is trying to stamp out Islam, but many of their followers simply don't buy into it and aren't going to fight. A lot of Muslims think the U.S. is attacking Iraq for oil, and many really did think Saddam was evil and needed to be removed. Those people aren't buying into the holy war concept and aren't likely to join al Qaeda. Secondly, an ideology doesn't need a physical location in order to exist. It can go to and from anywhere, and thus, with most people not willing to risk their lives for something they can do elsewhere, will simply pick up and move instead of fighting. Thirdly, an ideology is easily changed. We're already throwing zealots out of the equation, because they're the leaders, but what about the rank-and-file Muslim? Is he or she prepared to die for belief? Or would they sooner just not be a Muslim? Many would rather live and either hide or not practice than to fight and lose everything. You can't say the same thing about someone attacking a country, because you would have to leave EVERYTHING YOU OWN behind if you wanted to pick up and move, and most people would rather die than start over.

Finally, you have some very faulty information if you think Arabs were simply pouring into Iraq from all these other countries. There were some who came to fight, but most stayed put. The percentage of the population that went to Iraq to fight was negligible, and those, as we've already established, were the zealots.

[kcwayne]

32. Now you are missing my point

With all due respect, methinks Native Americans were here first and had the only legitimate claim to this land. That's sovereignty enough for me.
I was using sovereignty in the context of a nation state, which in a previous post you seemed to saying that only nations have sovereignty. The sovereignty of the Native Indians over the lands they habitated is a moral sovereignty as compared to the Europeans notion of legal sovereignty.

But mainly my point of using Indians as an example is to highlight that nations do go to war against non-nations, which you seemed to be making the claim that they did not. I don't care that it was in the past, 100 years is not a long time in the scheme of what we are talking about.

Further, those "peace treaties" were utter and complete jokes.

Of course the treaties were jokes. But many of them were binding, such as the reservation treaties which still stand today. But that's not the point. The fact that the US would negotiate with tribes, which were not nations points to historical precedence for nations to take groups of people not represented by a nation seriously, which again, you seemed to be refuting.


But this is distracting to the main argument I made about Al Queda looking to Ho Chi Minh for inspiration, which you take issue to.

If the House of Saud falls and is replaced by Wahabi clerics, and Iraq becomes an Islamic Sunni government, and Pakistan has another coup in which the western military government is replaced by Islamics, OBL's vision would come true. This is his stated goal, to unite these nations under a single Islamic ruler.

The best way for him to achieve that is to not engage in a bloodbath that keeps the US interested in killing Arabs. The best way is to follow Ho Chi Minh's path, and wear the Americans out. Enraging us is not a good strategy.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

2. I voted #1

...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[seventhson]

4. Nothing in politics is an accident...

if it happened you can bet it was planned that way - FDR

Cite:

http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/3ca34a5e3...


I say it was a staged event by Cheney's goons

[radwriter0555]

5. LIke daniel pearl... he was killed by our freaks, for their freaks, to get

control of the mess in the media about the freaks.

It worked. We're all talking about it, right?

Nah, this was a US operation. CIA assets killed this guy like they killed the 4 mercenaries.

[seventhson]

8. Danny Pearl killed by OUR spooks???

Yikes.

Why would the Pakistani ISI with all the links to/financing by the CIA (and Osama's handlers) want a WSJ reporter investigating these links killed.

[mmonk]

7. First answer

though I think he would be alive today if he wasn't taken to the prison but was instead, given help to leave.

[KittyWampus]

9. Just the fact that it very well COULD be a staged event

and that there ARE serious questions to be asked about how this says a lot.

[hang a left]

10. So far it is 35% for the official version.

40% have questions.

25% in the "fringe" categories.

BTW just to be fair, and let you know, I am amongst the fringe. But alot of you already knew that.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

13. I chose 'doesn't sit right - staged', but by and for whom, I have no idea.

Could be Al Queda, could be another group, could be someone looking to distract. I don't know.

[question everything]

17. I chose the first, but why inject the Mossad here?

If some think that the CIA is behind, as demented as this thought is, fine, let them. But why do they think that Israel - a land the size of Rhodie Island and a population of 6 million - is part of this?

Oh, of course. Read my first sentence.

It will be very difficult to gain the votes of the 10% undecided if some of these opinions - and I have not read them here, lucky me - find their way into the general public.

[hang a left]

18. What an odd theory.

"It will be very difficult to gain the votes of the 10% undecided"

I have already read a story this morning in LBN from the mainstream press questioning the different timestamps on the video.



on edit
really need to proof-read more

[devinsgram]

22. Chose the last option

CIA has done a lot worse than this. Poppy has a lot of friends in the CIA willing to do anything for him and sonny boy.

[rppper]

26. who really knows.........

there are as many unanswered questions as there are explanations. i almost choose #2, but he was held there , this being backed up by his parents filing suit, and he was not part of the cheneyhalliburtonbrownandroot coalition of the greedy. hell, maybe it was haliburton thugs that offed him because he was dipping into their pot of gold...only god, the murderers and the murder-ee know at this point. a few things are clear though...war is hell and war should be left to warriors, not greedy oil firms and cronyist governments. this debacle bush has thrust on us is turning into more and more of a meat grinder by the second.....damn that asshole * and his cabinet...damn them to hell...we have become the nazis we fought so hard to defeat 55 years ago.....a banana republic with nuc-u-lar missuls.....i take comfort in knowing that we, the left in this country, saw this coming a long time ago.......

[hippiegranny]

27. this story just doesn't sit right

i was not online last night at all, instead i was watching the news on tv. the last story we watched before turning it off was that of the beheading. when i woke up this morning, the first thought in my head was "this does not pass the smell test." why? a couple of reasons; first, while i believe there is mega tons of rage boiling in the mid-east, the release of the torture photos handed the arab world the sympathy of the entire world community and the moral high ground. thus, to enact a display of such gruesome proportions only served to take the spotlight off the squirming soul-less bushistas whose policies created the torture environment.

ask yourself who benefits from this, and it is undeniable that the headlines (no pun intended) have to be a relief for pinhead, cheney and rummy. it was not a stretch at all for me to imagine the team from hell sitting around a big conference table last weekend and asking the question, "how in the hell do we FIX this election year nightmare?"

as always, the thought that they mihop is so out there for most of the citizens of the united states of stepford, that it only emboldens them and to them the end always justifies the means. it is not out of the realm of possibility that this happened to re-agitate the nationalistic rage of americans.

[hang a left]

29. Only 33 % Accepting the "Official Version" n/t

[Generator]

31. I have questions

Our brains our the most excellent computer ever created. When my brain says, "Hey that's wierd" I pay attention.

IT doesn't mean I have the answer, it just means something is telling that the whole story doesn't make sense. I don't automatically assume that it means it's CIA or evildoers or a fake or anything. It's just a light bulb moment and I don't dismiss that. I don't think you should ever dismiss that. It's a survival mechanism, this "feeling" but I don't use it to PROVE I'm right. But I don't like it used to PROVE I'm wrong because I have no proof. I never said I did.

[hang a left]

33. Now 29% of DUers accepting the 'Official Story"

kicking for the afternoon.

[hang a left]

34. Here we go into hour number 8 in my scientific experiment.

29% Of our posting DUers are accepting of the official versions and motivations put forth to us by our press outlets.

40% Of our members, haven't taken that leap yet. They are walking slowly and have some questions that they just can get answered to their satisfaction at this time.

3% Of our brothers and sisters think that the perpw were not Al Queda, but in fact militant Iraqis.

9% Of DUers think the incident was likely a stage event

13% Most certain it is an act of the CIA/Mossad with the intentions of enraging the Ameican public and shoring up the support for the waning war.

What conclusions do you draw from these statistics from us a whole unit. I would be interested to here from those of you that aren't already to burnt to discuss this one...more...time.

Also the evening posts might alter the percentages, as the happy hour crowd pulls up.

[Tinoire]

35. Berg may have had sensitive photos. Took photos of ABU GHRAIB

Boston Globe has already confirmed he worked on those towers http://www.boston.com/dailynews/133/world/Questions_sur... and here is an e-mail I found earlier


From: "oldtowerguy" <oldtowerguy@y...>
Date: Wed May 12, 2004 12:49 pm
Subject: About Nick Berg


John and group. I copied this message from another board. John, I
believe you know which one. I thought this was a great insight to the
young man and his dedication. It was written by Mark Humphry.

Gary

BEGIN:
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:35:16 -0400
From: "Mark Humphrey" <mark@y...>
Subject: Remembering Nick (was Why was Nick in Iraq?)

The tragic news about Nick Berg's murder hit very close to home, as I
had known him for about two years and we hired him for several
recent projects -- in fact, he installed an auxiliary antenna for WPLY in
February, just before heading back to Iraq. Perhaps I can shed some
light on this situation.

<snip>

Why did he go to Iraq?

He was aware that some towers were damaged last year during bombing
missions, and many more had been looted... copper lines removed,
diagonal members taken out, etc. Few obstruction lighting systems
were functional -- he mentioned an 800 foot tower two miles from an
airport (used by our military) that was totally dark. So he first went over
in December to see if he could help to assist in the reconstruction,
restore Iraq's broadcast services, and repair the serious structural
damage that endangered the lives of their citizens.

I received the following email message from Nick in early January:

>About Iraq-

>I am taking photos - where allowed. It's actually pretty sad - I just
>got off one of two 320 meter monster towers in Abu Gharib (also home
>to the main political prison) which use to support most of Baghdad
>area's VHF and UHF.
>Both have been badly looted, including 4000 feet or more of flexible
>6-1/8" heliax, two full 12X4 panel TV antennas, and even some
>structural members. I was also in the North as I mentioned, but here there
>wasn't as much damage. I'll definitely share some of these pix with
>you and others next time I'm in the area - I'd love to put together a
>little presentation for SBE or PAB in about six monthes after I've
>been on every site and fixed some of them.

He returned to Philadelphia in late January to catch up on some
domestic business -- then in early February, tackled an antenna
replacement job at our aux site, which he had quoted last summer.

<snip>

If you've been following all sides of this story, you may have read
that his parents did not receive much cooperation from OUR Federal
Government when trying to learn his whereabouts, which is very
disturbing. He had reportedly booked a March 30 flight back to New
York, but missed it because he had been detained by our military.
Today's "spin" on the story is that they told him to get out, but I'm
not buying that.

Let's keep his family in our thoughts and prayers. Our industry (and
humanity) has lost a very fine person.

Mark

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Tower-pro/message...

[hang a left]

36. My experiment has not been terminatied, I still have a grant.

Kicking to the after dinner crowd.

[hang a left]

37. Official Story 29% Suspicious with Questions 40%

This us give the poll a ride to the front page.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 10:39:55AM EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
3 days,
13 hours,
20 minutes, and
5 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[hang a left]

39. Let's see if we can get the numbers to change at all.

Pretty much holding steady with about 1/3 of DU clinging to the official story. With the remainder of our Members ranging from suspicious to outright doning tinfoil sarapes.

[hang a left]

40. We still have voting, just not posting

kick

[hang a left]

41. polls still open n/t

[hang a left]

42. Study is almost complete

There has been about 240 pollsters. I'd like to get a few more so that I can make the analysis.

[hang a left]

43. People are still voting.

[Djinn]

44. unsure

based on a few things I'm not sure the Berg murder happened the way we've been told, although even without a few "doesn't look right" moments I'd be suspiscious just because I rarely just unquestioning accept the official story of anything - it usually turns out to be atleast a bit more complex.

At the very least I'm positive that Berg was already dead when decapitated. He may well have been killed by either militant fundie muslims or just pissed off/greiving revenge seeking Iraqis, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this had intelligence/security fingerprints.

Someone asked about why bring in Mossad - my guess is the evidence that has been documented about the US getting help and training from Israeli secret service in detention/interogation (otherwise known as torture) techniques

[hang a left]

45. Kicking to complete my study

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Freepers asking questions too!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135234/posts

[friendofbenn]

47. i am not sure

i went with "i'm not sure" as it seemed like the only rational response

[Disturbed]

48. who benefits from this,

Bushco!

This execution has way too many inconsitencies to buy into what the CIA and Bushco wants to world to believe. Trusting Bushco and it's Terrorist org the CIA is one of the reasons that this country is so fucked up. Do some reading about the CIA and you will get a fresh insight of what they have done and are capable of.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

49. Occam's Razor

The theory that explains the phenomenon with the least number of assumptions is usually correct. Berg was likely an niave, unfortunate sap who got caught in the wrong place.

But I wouldn't necessarily rule out the CIA...

[hang a left]

50. Ok last run through the first page of GD and they I will do my

scientific analysis.

[hang a left]

51. WTHeck

you are still voting

[hang a left]

52. I know, I said it before, but I am going to get some pollsters

from the week end. Then I will write my synpopsis.