Advice on Watching Nicholas Berg Video - Rachel

[khermans]

You are correct in the assumption that the majority of our government wants to do good. It would be foolish not to admit that. We just need to stop waging wars. There is no reason anyone should kill or be killed in this world. It just doesn't make sense to me as a human being. Can't we all live happily, or am I being too wishful ? With that said, did you know that more innocent civilians in afghanistan/iraq have been killed than those in the WTC attacks as a result of US strikes against civilian targets - whether purposefully or not ? What this means is that we have killed more (multitudes more) innocent people now since 9/11 than were killed in the terrorist attack in NYC. The civilians in afghanistan/iraq surely see us (our government) as the "terrorists" for killing people who were not even involved in the attacks on the United States. I don't want people in other countries to lump me into that group of "terrorism" that the United States has placed me in, so it is our duty as a people to make changes to our government to ensure that this type of thing doesn't happen. The problem is that it takes a majority to rule, and the masses are asses...

 

[Brennen]

it's so hard to be subjective on this topic, trying to take everything into account and form an opinion without it being bias in anyway, is basically impossible. many people may think they are being subjective but it usually isn't the case. I've seen the video, but i understand both countries side of the story. i still don't think there is any excuse for what they've been doing to innocent people, but we've been killing innocent people too. it's just too hard to make a decision. i know the US was just trying to "disable" iraq to prevent future attacks, but i don't really agree with the way they did it, but i don't agree with iraq's retaliation. damn!

 

[russ_watters]

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".

Slightly OT, but this cliche' is a real big pet peve of mine. Words have definitions. Some are more subjective than others. "Freedom fighter" has a subjective definition which depends on which side of a conflict you are on. "Terrorist" has a specific definition. So whether or not someone is a freedom fighter may depend on which side of a conflict you are on, but whether or not they are a terrorist does not. So its possible to be both at the same time. Either way, someone who fits the definition of "terrorist" is a terrorist.

The phrase "one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'" is thrown around primarily as an attempt to justify terrorism.

I have similar issues with the media's recent use of the word "insurgents." "Insurgent" is similar to "freedom fighter." Trouble is, the "insurgents" aren't fighting for freedom, they are fighting against it. In addition (actually, to the same ends), the insurgents are primarily attacking civilians (such as the bombing yesterday), not the government, and not the US. That makes them terrorists.

With that said, did you know that more innocent civilians in afghanistan/iraq have been killed than those in the WTC attacks as a result of US strikes against civilian targets - whether purposefully or not ? What this means is that we have killed more (multitudes more) innocent people now since 9/11 than were killed in the terrorist attack in NYC. The civilians in afghanistan/iraq surely see us (our government) as the "terrorists" for killing people who were not even involved in the attacks on the United States.

Several issues with this:

-First, you are assumng the numbers we have heard are correct. Considering the source of the numbers, that's a big assumption. I'm not just talking about bias, but its difficult to get an accurate count by taking polls at hospitals in a war zone.

-Second, that doesn't take into account the fact that many (a rather large percentage) of the civilian deaths recorded on the US's tally were actually Saddam's and the Taliban's fault. And I don't mean "friendly fire" - surrounding your equipment with human shelds is a war crime.

-Third, it doesn't take into account the lives saved by the two conflicts. Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people over the last 10 years. That means in one year of occupation, even if we killed 10,000 we've still saved many times more than we killed.

it's so hard to be subjective on this topic, trying to take everything into account and form an opinion without it being bias in anyway, is basically impossible. many people may think they are being subjective but it usually isn't the case.

One of the toughest things for most people to accept is that everyone has a bias.

 

[Brennen]

everything is based on someone's opinion. history is told from a point of view. like when we are taught about previous wars, even from decades ago, we're always taught from the perspective of our side of the war. do u think it is possible to ever be truly subjective?

 

[russ_watters]

everything is based on someone's opinion. history is told from a point of view. like when we are taught about previous wars, even from decades ago, we're always taught from the perspective of our side of the war. do u think it is possible to ever be truly subjective?

I don't subscribe to that theory. History is based on facts. Opinions are judgements based on facts. In the past, information may have been recorded with a bias, and therefore facts could be manufactured, but not anymore. Photos and videos are unbiased observers.

The Nick Berg video is a perfect example: people can render different opinions on whether or not it was justified, but no one can say it didin't happen.

 

[Brennen]

actual human recording though, such as texts, do you think that can ever be comlpetely subjective? i wasn't bringing into account the truth of records such as videos and pictures. they are what they are, just the truth, recorded.

 

[russ_watters]

actual human recording though, such as texts, do you think that can ever be comlpetely subjective?

Certainly not, but very few important events these days are not recorded.

 

[khermans]

Slightly OT, but this cliche' is a real big pet peve of mine. Words have definitions. Some are more subjective than others. "Freedom fighter" has a subjective definition which depends on which side of a conflict you are on. "Terrorist" has a specific definition. So whether or not someone is a freedom fighter may depend on which side of a conflict you are on, but whether or not they are a terrorist does not. So its possible to be both at the same time. Either way, someone who fits the definition of "terrorist" is a terrorist.

The phrase "one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'" is thrown around primarily as an attempt to justify terrorism.

The definition of terror: "Intense, overpowering fear."
The definition of terrorize: " To fill or overpower with terror; terrify"
The definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
The definiton of terrorist: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism"

With that now said, the people (^organized group) who genuinely fought to "free" the new America from England's power (^government) for ideological/political reasons, should be considered "terrorists". That's why I used the quotes in my previous post. But these revolutionary men were NOT terrorists, but "freedom fighters". And at the time, I'm sure that they were considered "terrorists" in the eyes of England, and "freedom fighters" in the eyes of would-be new Americans.

Now think about the people in Iraq. Consider us to be England (not literally, but just for fun) and them the new America. They want "freedom" from US rule. That's what these "terrorists" are fighting for. Not for the freedom that we think of as stated in the constitution, but "freedom" from our governmental rule. Think about it...

Maybe it is time we took back the key to the city of Detroit from Saddam. Do you think he still has it? And by the way, everything we are doing now could have been done in the FIRST damn war we subjected these people too. They don't need to endure this torture again!

-First, you are assumng the numbers we have heard are correct. Considering the source of the numbers, that's a big assumption. I'm not just talking about bias, but its difficult to get an accurate count by taking polls at hospitals in a war zone.

Well, unless you actually go to Iraq and count them up - no you won't have accurate numbers. But these are the best we have to go by. You are correct though and I totally agree with you...

-Second, that doesn't take into account the fact that many (a rather large percentage) of the civilian deaths recorded on the US's tally were actually Saddam's and the Taliban's fault. And I don't mean "friendly fire" - surrounding your equipment with human shelds is a war crime.

The fact that US "blatently" disregards the civilians is evident in time of war. Take the fact that the human rights activists have repeatedly pushed for the US NOT to use cluster bombs near heavily populated civilian areas due to the fact that most of them do not detonate until children try to pick them up. The percentage of clusters not detonated is relatively high, something like 35%, and is maintained and not improved due to the simple fact that it is more economical to produce bad clusters that don't detonate instantly. The US has not changed this policy even with the constant pressure from these groups...

-Third, it doesn't take into account the lives saved by the two conflicts. Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people over the last 10 years. That means in one year of occupation, even if we killed 10,000 we've still saved many times more than we killed. One of the toughest things for most people to accept is that everyone has a bias.

Who have we saved? If you think for one minute that the USA actually cares about the Iraqi people and nothing else, you are dead wrong. There are numerous other countries that we could easily be "saving" right now that really need our help, why Iraq? Once we get what we want out of that country, we will set up a new dictator to keep the people in line and move on to exploit the next resource. It's history repeating itself. Take a look back in those books of yours...

 

[russ_watters]

With that now said, the people (^organized group) who genuinely fought to "free" the new America from England's power (^government) for ideological/political reasons, should be considered "terrorists". That's why I used the quotes in my previous post. But these revolutionary men were NOT terrorists, but "freedom fighters". And at the time, I'm sure that they were considered "terrorists" in the eyes of England, and "freedom fighters" in the eyes of would-be new Americans.

What you are missing is the usual, but not always explicit requirement that terrorists be targeting civilians. The American revolutionaries fought exclusively against the British military.

Now think about the people in Iraq. Consider us to be England (not literally, but just for fun) and them the new America. They want "freedom" from US rule. That's what these "terrorists" are fighting for. Not for the freedom that we think of as stated in the constitution, but "freedom" from our governmental rule. Think about it...

Sure - IF that were the scenario, then that would be valid. But it isn't. The terrorists are by and large targeting Iraqi civilians, not American military and the Iraqi government is sovereign.

The fact that US "blatently" disregards the civilians is evident in time of war. Take the fact that the human rights activists have repeatedly pushed for the US NOT to use cluster bombs near heavily populated civilian areas...

The US gets pressure because we're the US. Human rights activists are hypocrites for targeting the country that does as much if not more than any other to avoid civilian casualties in war while at the same time ignoring the actions of our enemies which are often specifically designed to get their civilians killed.

Who have we saved?

Mostly political prisoners, I think. I'm not sure what exactly the makeup of that half a million people Saddam reportedly killed over the past decade is.

If you think for one minute that the USA actually cares about the Iraqi people and nothing else, you are dead wrong.

I never said that. By the same token though, you can't ignore the fact.

Once we get what we want out of that country, we will set up a new dictator to keep the people in line and move on to exploit the next resource. It's history repeating itself. Take a look back in those books of yours...

Well, my history book includes bits on Japan, Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia and others. US nation building has produce (in very short order) some of the most successful countries in the world.

In fact, I'd like you to name one country that we set up a puppet dictator while we sucked some natural resource dry. Its never happend.

 

[khermans]

What you are missing is the usual, but not always explicit requirement that terrorists be targeting civilians. The American revolutionaries fought exclusively against the British military.

"The American Revolution started out as terrorist acts against England. The Boston Tea Party is a prime example of terrorism. Colonial revolutionaries sneaked aboard an English Tea Merchant Ships, where they threw hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of tea into the Atlantic Ocean. Americans today think of that incident as a stride to freedom, but the English look at it as the beginning of countless terrorist acts."

BTW - There were also terrorist acts against specific civilian targets...but that probably wasn't in your grade school books ;-)

Mostly political prisoners, I think. I'm not sure what exactly the makeup of that half a million people Saddam reportedly killed over the past decade is.

I agree with you completely that Saddam is not a nice guy. And that is why I suggested we reclaim that key to the City of Detroit that we gave him a while back!

Well, my history book includes bits on Japan, Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia and others. US nation building has produce (in very short order) some of the most successful countries in the world.

In fact, I'd like you to name one country that we set up a puppet dictator while we sucked some natural resource dry. Its never happend.

I agree with you that those nations above are industrialized nations now, but I also remember them attacking us first We didn't say "Hey, seems like a good time to 'free' the german people!"

About setting up dictators: I said AFTER we take their resources (not during), so that the people don't get out of hand. Anyways, on another note, I don't remember us doing much about Pol Pot...

 

[phlud]

Wow khermans, many strong opinions there, which most of them are. Not that russ didnt have some also, but if my brain is any good at all, I believe most of what he said to be fact, however recorded ... which of course, my statement can be considered my opinion. Some opinions can be closer to fact than fiction I guess too. Anyways here's mine.

"The American Revolution started out as terrorist acts against England. The Boston Tea Party is a prime example of terrorism. Colonial revolutionaries sneaked aboard an English Tea Merchant Ships, where they threw hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of tea into the Atlantic Ocean. Americans today think of that incident as a stride to freedom, but the English look at it as the beginning of countless terrorist acts."

BTW - There were also terrorist acts against specific civilian targets...but that probably wasn't in your grade school books ;-)

Throwing tea into the ocean hardly instills fear into anyone, I have trouble seeing that as terror. Maybe more of a spiteful act. I'd be interested in knowing these "civilian targets", something I'm not familar with and would like to read some of your books. ;) As for grade school, I'm quite sure they're many things they don't teach you, probably with good reason I guess.

I agree with you completely that Saddam is not a nice guy. And that is why I suggested we reclaim that key to the City of Detroit that we gave him a while back!

Oh man, why didn't we think of that? Let's take his useless key back! That'll teach'em! Woohoo! :rofl:

I agree with you that those nations above are industrialized nations now, but I also remember them attacking us first We didn't say "Hey, seems like a good time to 'free' the german people!"

About setting up dictators: I said AFTER we take their resources (not during), so that the people don't get out of hand. Anyways, on another note, I don't remember us doing much about Pol Pot...

Wellll... if one made the stretch, the WTC could be the first attack, even though it was Osama's plan. The same group had major terror training camps in Iraq that Saddam allowed to take place. Also since the camps in Afghanistan were out of commission, Iraq was the next most logical place to go. Again, I would love to see some of these golden facts you have in which you base most of your arguments on. I'd be intrqued. Thank you.

 

[khermans]

The *LIE* that has been fed to you about Saddam "harbouring terrorists" has been nicely swallowed by yourself I can see. Please do some research to find out that this was a lie. If you believe Richard Clarke, he was *INSTRUCTED* by top oficials to create a link between Saddam and Bin Laden although there never was one. Please research this also. I am surprised at the number of people who just believe what they hear on the TV/radio and never check up for themselves on the actual facts or other sides of the story. As a concerned citizen of this wonderful country of ours I try my best to keep up with politics so that I may be informed. I would hope that others do the same. My favorite line from a friend's band named KLONE sum's it all up:

"Let's go shopping at the mall, while cities are crushed and governments fall"

Don't be a sheep, that's all I can say to you...

 

[phlud]

pardon?

The *LIE* that has been fed to you about Saddam "harbouring terrorists" has been nicely swallowed by yourself I can see. Please do some research to find out that this was a lie. If you believe Richard Clarke, he was *INSTRUCTED* by top oficials to create a link between Saddam and Bin Laden although there never was one. Please research this also. I am surprised at the number of people who just believe what they hear on the TV/radio and never check up for themselves on the actual facts or other sides of the story. As a concerned citizen of this wonderful country of ours I try my best to keep up with politics so that I may be informed. I would hope that others do the same. My favorite line from a friend's band named KLONE sum's it all up:

"Let's go shopping at the mall, while cities are crushed and governments fall"

Don't be a sheep, that's all I can say to you...

Ugh. I think you completely spun what I said. I hate spinners (or maybe that was a half spin). I may not have been too clear, but I said nothing of a link between Saddam and laden. I just said that he allowed camps to operate in his country unchallenged. So either he didn't give a s@*t, or he supported them. Let's not even get into the terror he spread on his own people. This is undisputed fact.

Oh BTW, I hardly watch TV and I NEVER listen to the radio. I don't trust the media much and definitely not what politicians have to say, most of them are probably frauds that spit 90% BS. Not to mention my military contacts, and I'm not talking about some low-level grunt, so believe whatever you like. I'm also an avid computer hacker... so my mentality is far from that of being a sheep. I'm no patriot... I'm dark and underground and pretty much fed the h3ll up with this crappy system, but that doesn't make me a total hater of all U.S. policies. I like your buddies quote, but not sure on its deeper meaning if there's one. Does it mean we should stop living our lives over our governments poor choices? Not sure on its perspective being removed from the context. Is there somowhere I can go to listen to Klone?

PS. Its clear we're from alternate walks of life, and will probably never see eye-to-eye, but it's still fun to try. Healthy debate helps people understand one another better, or in most cases just confuse even more :tongue: but don't judge me without personally knowing me, and don't assume you have me all figured out (which could be an assumption on my part). You still haven't told me from who or where you get your information, which casts some suspicion... though you could easily say the same about me so I'll just beat you to the punch. If you get it from your friends, the information is already distorted.

PPS. About my post being so late... I haven't had much time to check up on things, life has been hard on me lately. Getting screwed from every direction it seems. :grumpy: And polictically, I'm not really on anyone side. No one makes sense to me anymore. So my stance always seems to be changing as I sort from fact and fiction. Always open-minded, trying to see the greater good in people.

 

[khermans]

Dude, I think we are totally from the same viewpoint. I agree with almost everything you said. I am also an avid computer fanatic and technical consultant. I fscking [sic] hate TV and most radio is crap. PBS and NPR are the only good things, respectively. I get most of my information from leftist comedic political books such as Franken, Moore, and the like. I also have tried to bare listening to Bill O'Reilley and Sean Hannity, but I almost threw up once and I don't do that anymore. There are some definite things wrong with our society these days, and getting worse. Are we returning to a hippie-inspired vietnam era again? No I don't think so. Look at the kids! They still wear the latest trendy clothing and subscribe to the mainstream appeal. TV can be thanked for that ;-) Who cares about Iraq anyway? Tell me who won on Survivor, American Idol (that title says it all), etc...

edit for content -hypnagogue

 

[Leon]

There is a dangerous illusion which could be potentially fostered from watching it, and the truth of the matter is perfectly summed up in a cartoon by the Australian cartoonist Leunig: They cut our heads off - we blow their heads off.
I don't think the actual numbers of casualties are important, but it is very important to realize that barbarity is of course going on on both sides. And exposing yourself to this footage could have the effect of pushing you away from that realisation.

Also the question remains - what do you hope to gain from seeing it? A deeper insight? It's obvious the barbarity of the act, why see it? The family of the victim I'm sure would rather that their relative's death were oggled by voyeuristic/curious multitudes.

 

[phlud]

Yeah, I listen to Al Franken here and there as well as Moore, though I didn't like him much at first impression. I used to listen/watch Bill O'Reilley also, but now the only time I hear from him is if I'm clicking past and hear something interesting. I also enjoy Dennis Miller from time to time, and always look forward to his appearances on Jay Leno. I often relate to his views (most of the time) but mostly just get a kick from his jokes. I know what you mean by the kids today, to the extent that when I bring it up with people they have that "say no more" look on their faces. There are so many under educated, arrogant, selfish kids that care little for the world around them unless it impacts on their petty lifestyles or vices. It's not all hopeless I guess, I've met 8 year olds with more common sense than a 16 year old.

 

[GlassDraggon]

I have JUST watched the video for the first time. The two things I noticed: I am almost entirely desensitized to violence and death and that I am sickened by my own anticipation and excitement at his death. To my senses, it could have almost been perceived as entertainment. I am sickened by both realizations.

Being desensitized seems to serve the purposes of a war mongering nation. But what I would like to know is why exactly Americans suddenly became so sensitive to 911? We have been performing brutal acts of violence against our own people as well as others for generations and most of our violent atrocities exceeded those committed on 911. So why suddenly where our morals or our feelings changed?

It certainly wasn't because of the innocent people involved. We have already established that Americans killing innocent Americans is commonplace. It wasn't because of the suffering caused to their families. Was it because of the publicity and the scripted nationalistic ideologies that were enacted immediately following? Or was it a sudden sense of impending doom all of Americans felt at that moment?

I guess my first question is: Was it selfish or was the sudden outburst of emotion for others?

 

[Hat_Man]

Being desensitized seems to serve the purposes of a war mongering nation. But what I would like to know is why exactly Americans suddenly became so sensitive to 911? We have been performing brutal acts of violence against our own people as well as others for generations and most of our violent atrocities exceeded those committed on 911. So why suddenly where our morals or our feelings changed?

I find it hard to believe what you are saying. What acts of brutality has the US commited against its own people, and don't say the death penalty or anything else like that. You can't compare the slaughter of three thousand innocent people to the execution of convited murderers.
Even if that wasn't what you were talking about, and I don't assume it was, I can't think of anything you can point to that equals 911. I simply don't understand why you insist on dragging America in the mud! To compare us to the Muslim Extremists is not only ludicrous and laughable, I find it insulting, outragous and entirly unacceptable.
There were no change of morals in our part. Never before in the history of this country have we been attacked ON OUR OWN SHORES in such a vast manner. We, America, had an act of war passed on us, greater then that of Pearl Harbor. Maybe you would like to talk to the people you burned to death that day, 911, and see what they thought about it.
You know how I stand, and that words are not suffecient to express my thoughts on people who comapre us to the barbaric, inexcusable, and evil Mulsim Fascists who wish to destroy all freedom in the world, both here in America, Russia, and everywhere else!

 

[GlassDraggon]

I almost envy your convictions. But the acts of brutality committed against our own people range far further than the death penalty (although the execution of possibly thousands of innocent people is in no way acceptable).

The brutality which I am recognizing is that of mental brutality. When I (a high school student) am desensitized to the point that I am nearly entertained by such brutality, that in and of itself is a horrendous achievement on a government's or society's part.

I do not believe that the death sof 911 were anything less than a tradgedy, but I am sickened by how American's fail to realize that such tradegedies occur daily on much larger scales. We fail to realize the implecations of drinking cheap columbian coffee or wearing inexpensive shoe's from Wal-Mart. We hide the brutality which we inflict every day upon those "below" us. Buddhists seem to put it best when they explain the philosophy of Kharma. 911 was in a sense, Kharma and should be seen as that. It could not have been a mistake that it was the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which was bombed. These are the two largest establishments of brutality against 3rd world countries on the face of the earth.

I am sincerely sorry if you do not see this brutality, because if you are a representative of the majority of America...we are doomed.



Now I believe it is also important to address the issue of these "evil Muslim Fascists who wish to destroy all freedom in the world". First off, what freedom? The freedom to be tied down by a looming mortage bill? The freedom to worry about breaking minimum wage? The freedom to fear that your children will not receive quality education? The freedom to obey mandatory societal laws which discourage individuality? I'm not unpatriotic, I'm just unAmerican because American has come to stand for tyranny and oppression.

I am not making this statement as a high school student without any significant background. I am making this statement as an individual who has travel a great deal of the world (meaning third world countries) and has seen real suffering. What those Americans suffered on 911 cannot even compare to the suffering I have seen in places like northern Thailand and in the streets of poor Bolivian cities.

I suggest you get out of American and see the world for yourself.

 

[khermans]

I couldn't have said it better myself. You touched on every aspect that no one else in America seems to realize. We do hurt others so that we can be "free". If you know physics (why you're here), you can relate happiness to the law of conservation of energy. If we are very happy to have nice, cheap shoes (walmart example), the slave laborers in third world nations are NOT happy about it. If one person is happy, andother is unhappy. If you have $1,000,000 - someone else DOESN'T have that same $1,000,000. Americans should think about these things when evaluating "worth" in the 21st century. Material things should not be more important to you than the survival of some "lower" class (economically infeasible) individual...think long and hard about this