Brendan Hughes

Jasey - does that make it three times now, or was the last one just a repeat of the second?

Herts T555 Bird

I'd just like to say well done to the Daily Mirror for causing all the hassle they have over these 'genuine' pictures.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...089820,00.html

The Government has confirmed they are infact fake, and in turn someone was beheaded because of it.

I'm sure the editor will sleep well tonight.......

gsm1

Just saw this post. These same people are now targetting British troops??

Steve PPP

And seven people were killed in Saudi Arabia because of his pictures, 2 English, 3 American, 1 Australian and 1 Saudi.

I hope he realises what he has done.

Steve W

unclebuck

Actually AFAIK they said that Nick Berg was beheaded because of *American* abuse photos. Any excuse will do though for the terrorist henchmen. What ever suits them at the time to cause maximum fall out.

However, this does not change the fact that Piers Morgan has done irrepairable damage to the British forces in Iraq, and does indeed have blood on his hands.

He should resign immediately (and be put on trial for treason IMO - then have his head chopped off)

UB

Kyl3cook

Back to the point.

Nick Berg was an INNOCENT CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR. You can barely justify the execution of a POW, but to execute a Civil Servant is truly monstrous...anybody who thinks that his killing is any way justifiable (seems like some of you one here) isn't worthy of the air we breath!!!

Brendan Hughes

OK, this will probably lose me any friends I might have had on scoobynet, but feckit.

And PLEASE read this as part of a debate, NOT an accusation to any of you.

If I put up a link saying "warning, this is a genuine home video of a sixty year old man raping an eight-year-old girl, do not view unless you really want to", how many would click on the link? If your mate at work told you he'd watched such a video clip in order to prove how disgusting it was, and it should be shown to everyone, what would you think of him?

I propose that most people here wouldn't even look, as they'd be too disgusted. And I think you wouldn't look too kindly on a work colleague who said he'd watched it.

In my view, I don't understand both groups of viewers - they knowingly watched the film of a repugnant act. I am sure that in some of your views, you see a distinction between the two. Why? What's the difference? I'm guessing, as said before, that your interest takes over your sense of revulsion in one case but not the other. (Please leave aside any discussion of paying for the video, supporting paedophile networks etc)

Herts T555 Bird

UncleBuck - Totally agree with you regarding Piers Morgan. The amount of damage he had caused is irrepairable, just hope he realises how much damage he has caused the army. Lets just hope that the Iraqs wont feel that anymore 'pay back' is due.

Kyl3cook

because Brendan...I wanted to cement my ideas that these fundamenalists are worthless animals! I watched it not because I enjoyed it, in fact it made me feel sick!. I believe other people should watch it also, to make them realsie that there is absolutely no way that these people should be considered human...and, shoudl hopefully mean the demise of all this excessive political correctness!

MarkO

LOL. You lot crack me up. Do you really think that the extremists who killed Nick Berg would have not done so if the Mirror (or the US equivalent) hadn't published these pictures?

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners is just a shallow justification for these people to commit these atrocities. It's exactly the same as the pathetic tit-for-tat killings in the Gaza strip and N.I. The fact is, if one vauge excuse wasn't available, they'd use another.

Frankly, whilst I think Piers Moron is a complete and utter tw*t, the fact is that he will have published the pictures in good faith. Sure, he could possibly have investigated them more, but can anyone be sure they're fakes? More importantly, does it matter? What the Mirror (and the US 'abuse' photos too) have achieved is to put the subject onto the debating programme - meaning that any potential abuses by UK/US troops will now be investigated. Whether the pictures are fake or not, the Red Cross/Amnesty reports have details of various other allegations which, thanks to the Mirror, will now be investigated properly instead of just being brushed under the carpet.

And besides, as I've mentioned before, can anyone actually be certain that the Nick Berg video is 100% genuine?

gsm1

Brendan, some may have viewed it just because they wanted to see whether it was genuine or not. Obviously plenty have watched it because of some sick fascination. I don't want to see it just because I don't feel the need to. I think it's somewhat harsh to claim anyone who saw the video, in any case, was as sick as those in it.

gsm1

I think if you look at the video again you'll find they are human.

Kyl3cook

you know what I mean...

plus I won't watch the video again! it's well and truly deleted from my computer....unfortunately it is in my head for the rest of my life!

Brendan Hughes

"You remember the defining moment of the Gulf war? When the bomb when down the chimney? The most famous shot of the war. It never happened, we staged that in Philadelphia using 1/10th scale models."

"Yeah, is that true?"

"How the **** should I know?"

One of my all-time favourite films. But I'm going to assume this one is true. When I was working in Russia four guys in Chechnya, telecoms engineers, ISTR Brit and Kiwi, were kidnapped and decapitated. The act is well within the capacity of those people, and they are starting to realise how to use TV as power to shock.

gsm1

MarkO, but will these abuses REALLY be investigated? If there is a cover-up at Deepcut what chance is there that the Iraqis will get any justice? More investigation has been done into whether the pictures are fake than anything else.

The American investigation seems more like a PR exercise. There is more and more evidence that these abuses were authorised by those at the top.

unclebuck

LOL - you have a lot of faith in the gutter press. They looked fake to me as soon as I saw them (and I'm no expert), and I said so at the time... http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...hlight=soldier

You have to ask yourself why none of the 'media experts' that work the Mirror failed to pick up on the obvious clues. I believe it was a case of print first, ask questions later. As it turns out this was a serious error of judgement by Morgan and he should pay the price. But, hey, in true gutter press fashion, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Think how many copies we'll sell.

jasey

You know who you are !!!!

Steve PPP

Totally agree

Brit_in_Japan

I think that the what Piers Morgan has said recently is that the abuses carried out by British soldiers are indeed real, there are witness statements from 4 separate soldiers to confirm it I believe. However the inference is that maybe the photos are not contemperaneous, i.e. they were setup sometime later to show what happened, but are not in fact of the actual incidents. Piers will no doubt have to stick to his guns and say that The Mirror thought the photos were as genuine as the statements. But in todays society, would anyone really have paid much attention to the story if there weren't graphic photos to back it up ?

jasey

Brit in Japan - there are those that don't seem to believe that Nick Berg is dead - or that he ever exsisted .


I have it on good authority that the person "Playing" Nick Berg was in fact Lord Lucan and the guys pretending to cut his head off were JFK, Elvis & Shergar. If you look closely you can also see out of the window and the flag is waving - flags don't wave in space !!!

Brendan Hughes

<Colonel's voice>Too silly, too silly. Can't have this thread getting too silly... </Colonel's voice>

gsm1

There seems to be an attitude of ..okay..stuff happened but you don't have real photgraphs of it so **** you...ha ha.

Faire D'Income

For a number of reasons I suppose. Firstly, there is so much bull**** flying around at the moment regarding various allegations that I partly wanted to convince myself that it was for real - and I'm reasonably convinced about that although without going into too much detail there is a slightly surreal nature to the video which combined with the poor quality does make for some doubt. Secondly, as I said earlier I hadn't heard about it on the news or from any other medium so my natural curiousity got the better of me wanting more information. Thirdly, on reflection there was an element of doubt in my mind that the whole thing would actually be shown, which I sincerely wish it hadn't.

The difference is quite simple and I'll give you one analogy to demonstrate the difference:-

The classic rubber necking that goes on at the scene of an accident, which can be very extreme in countries such as Spain where there tend to be bodies lying around sometimes without any covering. Are the rubber neckers celebrating their death by watching as they drive past? No, but they are being curious. If they had the ability to help avoid the accident but chose not to, then from a moral standpoint they are wrong but if they could not change the sequence of events then they are not condoning it.

The difference with the above situations is that by watching the activity you are not condoning it as you cannot influence it in any way. If you are physically at the scene and are in a position to stop the action in front of you but choose not too, then I'd suggest that you're as morally repugnant as the individual doing the actual slaughter or the rubberneckers. However, if you're merely watching the video and cannot influence proceedings in any way plus your reaction is a positive one, and by positive I mean that you are appalled/disgusted or however you want to describe it - then that is fine. If you want to celebrate it in any way or get a kick out of repeated viewings then morally you do have problems but I don't see anyone with that attitude on here.

gsm1

Look, whatever our differences on here, I'm sure we all want to help stop terrorism. You can start by signing up here:

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp

Mitchy260

The video was actually edited down from a complete 5 1/2 minute video that was filmed. In the unedited version Berg can clearly be heard saying his name, saying his family members names and where he comes from. Then the terrorists begin to read something for the next 2-3 minutes and that is where the edited version starts. The original video is not actually poor quality, the videos we have seen are. The News have the video in crystal clear vieving. They showed a clip last night on the 6 oclock news and the images were crystal clear. This is no fake!

Brendan Hughes

Journalist: "Could the B3 bomber be linked to the instability in the Middle East?"

<sotto voce> "See? There you go... "


Edit - gsm1 - that is quite a website...

Jye

Brendan, unless you are prepared to answer all those posts made in reply to your own 'inflamatory' post, then bog off m8. Dont come out with comments like 'people who watched the video are bad as the perpetrators' and then try and wriggle out of it with purile crap.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my post on why I watched it and why some other 'head in the sand' people should watch it.

Jerome

Yes. The text below taken from here



"An aide to al-Sadr in the southern city of Basra also offered rewards for the capture or killing of British soldiers or U.S.-allied Iraqi leaders.

Waving an assault rifle as he delivered his Friday sermon at a Basra mosque, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli said anyone who captures a British soldier would get $350 US - or $150 for killing one. Al-Bahadli also told worshippers that anyone who captures a female British soldier could keep her as a slave, and showed off what he claimed were documents and photos of three female Iraqi prisoners being raped in a British-run prison."