On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:42:07 -0400, Michael wrote:>
> Btw, what do you think really happened with the nickberg thing?

the answer, my friend, is blowing in the windpipe.

couldnt resist. i really dont have a clue what happened - theres so much disinformation - but as i said the other day - i think they we could learn a whole lot about what is 'really' going on (wrt to the war) if we could work out the whole sunberg story.

it seems there are 2 main possibilities re the video a) he was deheaded by zarq on video b) he was already dead and the vid was done by the cia/mossad/isi as a cover - and to that id add a c) possibility - he's been reheaded and is on a beach somewhere.

i wont go into option a) for obvious reasons. wrt b) (prolly the most likely) - the logic seems to be that he was being interrogated at abug for some reason, and was accidentally killed, and cos of the abug scandal that was exploding, they decided to use sunberg to show that the errorists are 'even worse than we are' - hows that for making lemonade outta lemons! the logic here is that the first part of the bergvid is actually legit interview/interrogation vid - hence the orange suit et al - cept they later killed him and had to make up the rest of the video. they couldnt just throw him out the car door somewhere cos the statedept had already told his parents that they had him, and dadberg had started legal proceedings to get him released - so they needed another cover story. the abug thing was already going bad for them - and they were only torturing bad darkies at that point. why they had him at all - and why they tortured/killed him - i really dont have a clue. given the apparent fakeness of the vid - it seems we can presume that they were in a real hurry to have an alternate story. in fact, the vid was so poor that im not even sure about this - perhaps they decided that they needed a video, and then rushed it out, despite the obvious flaws. if they were thinking rationally, they may have tried to make the vid, realise it didnt work, and then ditched the whole idea completely, and just released an audio or a statement 'on an islamic website' or something. perhaps they got groupthunked and were irrationally committed to the video idea, even though the execution (sic) was so poor. remember, this was the first beheading video (since pearl)- its not like they *needed* a video - especially one that would be worse than nothing. its all very confusing. im tempted to think (at least consider) that it was intentionally a redherring (for some completely unknown reason). which just opens up a whole new can of pandoras. or praps they were just desperate - but we've seen from this latest sf faux unheading that it only takes a couple of hours to put something (apparently) believable together.

and of course, it just gets weirder from there. the whole 'tower guy' thing was so extreme that i can only assume that they were trying to cover up his real profession - presumably he was a spy - altho i cant even guess how that helps us understand the situation. one very apparent msg in all this is how easy it is to silence even the 'critics' - the entire sunberg conspiracy theories apparently disappeared as soon as nonbergs were beheaded in orange jumpsuits. the logic seems to be that the cia et al (who started a war which killed 40000 peeps) praps werent involved in the sunberg vid cos there were a couple of others who were murdered wearing the same outfits - thus apparently undermining the possibility that the cia (or whoever) could have possibly killed berg. well - how bout this for a hypothesis - the people who had no qualms about killing sunberg might also not hesitate in undertaking other murders in the hope that they might cover their asses. and boy - its pretty effective. whats a few men?

id love to know how moore was involved - i think thats the key (not to just to sunberg - but to the much larger story). i havent the slightest clue where this fits in - but i struggle to accept that the bergf911 vid actually exists. and yet i havent got a clue why they would contrive such a story. nor why moore is involved. ive mentioned before some of the reasons i dont believe it exists - not the least of which is that moore stuffed it under the carpet - the only time in the geological record where he has chosen to be silent rather than publicity-seeking - and for very little apparent reason. i speculated at the time that moore may have done a deal whereby f911 got extra screens or whatever in return for telling the lie - and i wondered that moore was maybe guaranteed that thered be regime change in nov04 - but watching fox and cnn dig their heels in for 42.5 seems to have put paid to that idea. and i admit that i havent a clue why they would bring out such a big cannon - and for what reason? appaerntly to either 'prove' that sunberg was still alive in december, or that he was at a towerguy conference? one thing is for sure - despite the medias apparent trashing of f911, they sure give it a lot of publicity. every little 'controversy' about the movie gets front page billing - if they were serious, they'd just shut the fark up. the only thing that was hushed (both by the media, and by moore) was the sunberg video. odd.incongruous.odd.

i also considered whether, as part of the (presumed) 'deal', moore agreed to change parts of the movie - i know that the current release version is different to the cannes version - although i havent been able to identify a list of the changes (but they are different - incl an ashcroft reference (apparently for legal reasons)). ftr - if u control the world, the coolest thing is not so much in being able to define your side of the argument, but in defining 'both' sides of the argument (eg 43 vs kerry) - faux choice and all that. f911 reinforces the 19 muslim hijackers story - the only choice is whether 43 or kerry is the best way to conduct the war against ayrabs. unilateral war or war with friends - how bout dem apples and oranges? we got rid of saddam - wasnt that a good thing? he was a bad man. best not to ask why we still have 150k grunts in iraq killing and being killed. we got rid of a dangerous man. end of story. for some.

and back to berg - michael berg has disappeared - apparently he is being censored "Ironically, "the opportunities given to me since my son was murdered have grown tremendously. I feel an obligation to take advantage of them. I don't feel at all ashamed for doing it," he said. But Mr Berg complained that the US media "won't let me give my story". (june30) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3853607.stm which must suck for him - but i cant find a website where he tells his side of the story - and the beeb doesnt actually let him tell his side of the story apart from 'he is being censored' - nice. in fact - if my memory serves, this story originally said that the interview was conducted via email - but they dont offer the transcript (and it seems theyve changed the original story). remember that i was trying to chase down that doyle interview on cn8 - the only thing i can find is that the interview 'will be' occuring. thnx comcast.

one wonders what has happened to the opportunity/obligation that mberg was so keen to take advantage of - specially given that we have an election on our hands and all that. or did the grief get too much? to make matters worse - his apparently latest public speech was for http://stopwar.org.uk - i read lots of articles saying that he was gonna be speaking at an event for them - but they dont even carry his speech there - despite them advertising on their homepage a msg of support from him for them a month earlier. its all a bit spooky.

and then theres the whol zachmass thing, and the laurie mylorie connection which is beyond my reach. i guess thats the point.