|
man once again. I'm surprised that Michael Berg cooperated, but they may have bushwhacked him--led him to believe that it would be a different kind of article than it is.
His most important statements are shoved to the bottom of page 3:
"But there is also a belief, shared by Berg, that the US has used Zarqawi as the bogyman to instill terror into the American people and to justify its military involvement in Iraq.
"'He is the No.1 symbol of what Americans should fear and because we fear him, we should turn over all our rights and support the war,' says Berg, who blames George Bush as much as anyone for the death of his son because he started and perpetuated the war. But he has, he says, forgiven Bush too.
"'To the average American, he is a convenient basket to say: 'Let's not take any chances that we may be unsafe. Let's do whatever we have to do to ensure our safety and if he says we have to do it, let's do it.''"
------
The Sydney Morning Herald is really not much better than the NYT or WaPo. The only value of it is that it gives a bit of the Aussie perspective and political news. I'm not sure who owns it, but its coverage echoes the "war profiteering corporate news monopolies" over here.
------
After the beheading video (May '04), Michael make some statements in news articles about Nick's email password and account having been found in Zacharias Moussaoui's computer, after 9/11--the very computer that Colleen Rowley had tried to get access to, prior to 9/11 (denied by FBI bosses in DC). Michael said that the FBI had interviewed Nicholas, when they had finally gotten into the computer, after 9/11, that Nicholas had told the FBI that he had met Moussaoui, a stranger, on a bus (pre-9/11), and had loaned Moussaoui his computer. The FBI apparently was satisfied with this story. (If I recall correctly, it was Michael Berg stating these things, that his son had told him.)
Two years later, Nicholas Berg was permitted to enter and re-enter Iraq--the most dangerous place on earth--after the invasion, the last entry in the midst of the Fallujah uprising, and was allowed to wander around Iraq looking for business for his small telecommunications firm (his father Michael was the business partner, but Nicholas went alone to Iraq). Shortly before he was killed, he was picked up and detained by U.S. forces for ten days. His frantic parents petitioned Donald Rumsfeld to release him. If this narrative can be believed, he was offered passage to Jordan (I believe) which he refused, was dumped onto the streets of Baghdad, and was from there picked up by Zarqawi's group and beheaded, on video. (--so the story goes.)
These are the facts, as related by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. What the real facts are, in this highly puzzling and fishy story, remain to be discovered, I think.
One other detail--Nicholas had converted to orthodox Judaism at some point prior to his going to Iraq--not sure at what point. But if that conversion--or his belief in any kind Judaism--had occurred before he met Moussaoui, would an orthodox or any kind of Jew have so easily and guilelessly loaned his computer to Moussaoui--a strange Arab on a bus--even if Moussaoui had not been, then, quite the wild-eyed, half-mad "terrorist" that he seems to be now? It's not as if jihad terrorism was unknown back when that occurred (2000? --I can't recall for sure--maybe 1998-99). And he didn't just loan M his computer, he let him have it long enough to transfer important information. Others have commented that wireless internet was not possible at that time, in those circumstances. So, how did Nicholas Berg's email account and password get into Moussaoui's computer?
I sometimes wonder if Michael Berg knows who his son really was, or all of what he might have been doing. And I can't help but think how convenient it was to the Bushites, in May '04, six months before the election, to have that horrid beheading video become public, as a counter to the release of the Abu Ghraib torture photos, which had just occurred.
I sense immense and evil manipulations behind this entire tale. I feel that Michael Berg is an innocent in it--as bewildered as the rest of us--and I don't want to contribute to his pain. But something is very amiss--that he may not be aware of--and needs investigation. Why was Nicholas permitted into Iraq, if the FBI had information linking him to Zacharias Moussaoui? That, in itself, is highly suspicious. Why was Colleen Rowley denied a routine request to looking to M's computer, prior to 9/11? After 9/11, when the FBI interviewed Nicholas, how could they have been satisfied with such a lame story (meeting M. on a bus, by chance)? Why did the Pentagon have Nicholas picked up in Iraq? What occurred during his detention? Why was he not flown out of Iraq, instead of dumped on the street? Is the beheader in the video really Zarqawi? Etc. Etc. I'm not making ANY presumptions about Nicholas. I DON'T KNOW what he was doing. (He could have been a very good guy, trying to document something in Iraq, for all we know. I think I picked up somewhere that he was involved in wiring communications in Abu Ghraib--the prison where US forces held him for ten days.) All I'm saying is that what we know of this story--the corporate news monopoly narrative--smells to high heaven, and its most curious aspects--such as the story about M's computer--were never followed up.
My prayers and love to Michael Berg and his family! Michael's public committment to forgiveness and peacefulness has been an inspiration to me, and to many others. May we all one day know the truth, and may the truth help make us free!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
