Talk:Michael Berg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Michael Berg is part of WikiProject Delaware, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Delaware. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
This article isn't neutral, I don't think. It says that "Michael Berg blames Bush instead of the people who did the killing". The fact that it has that subordinate clause, "instead of the people who did the killing", suggests that the author feels that Bush should be absolved of responsibility--in any case, this isn't neutral.
I am saying the Micheal Berg is blaming Bush directly for killing his son, not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who did the actual killing, and i think it wrong not to show the truth about what he saying, as he his claiming that since his son was arrested by the iraq police and question before being let go american, is some how to blame for what happened.--Crt101 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
(Crt101; we overlapped!) I believe the original poster meant to imply that he thinks it bizarre that Mr. Berg has such an animosity for the right-wing in general and the present US presidential administration specifically, his adherence to his own political beliefs has precluded a natural reaction of a father of a brutally murdered son: to blame the actual murderer. Personally, I think this bespeaks a mental imbalance on the part of Mr. Berg. I could not imagine the unfathomable grief this poor man must feel, but his tragedy does not automatically give credence to his political views. In fact, I would be wary of having a politician in any office who appeared to disregard, or hadn't the capacity to feel a righteous anger for those directly responsible for his son's globally-televised slaughter. I suggest you view his NY Times interview where he was asked about the death of Zarqawi; he says that Zarqawi's death was tragic, and the product of revenge, just as his son's was. He then goes on to imply that a better resolution would have been for he and the late Mr. (I use that honorific loosely) Zarqawi to sit down and agree to resolve their differences, and to break this chain of violence. He also becomes emotionally overburdened...but only for a few seconds…when describing how Zarqawi actually held his son's head, and probably felt his breath as he sliced Nick Berg's head off. I agree, and would add that he definitely heard Nick’s piteous screams which were only silenced after he felt the sudden heat of Nick’s blood as it gushed onto his hands. Inappropriately, this then segues into his lambasting George Bush as being the "real big terror" for “sitting glassy eyed behind his desk” while ordering "air-strikes...AIR-strikes!" which he says are killing people indiscriminately. The only implication that I could logically interpret from this tirade was “I respect Mr. Zarqawi over Mr. Bush because at least he has the moral fortitude to personally kill those he deems deserving.”. Sounds utterly ridiculous, doesn’t it? Well, it is, and in his own words Mr. Berg implies just this. I believe this digresses into a spurious argument as far as “respectability” is concerned. I actually pondered on just this while watching the fighter-jet monitoring video of Zarqawi’s demise. I thought of how easy it is for our military to press a button and watch the desired destruction on a monitor from a safe, remote location. I thought this somewhat lazy, and after being exposed to enough action-hero movies where our enemies are ingeniously vanquished in close-quarter combat by patriotic American boys, I’d hoped for something a bit more … exciting? That’s when I had to smack myself: we are a nation of laws and the closest you’ll ever get to a Democracy. Our military machine is the product of years of intelligent (no flames please) development under these laws and Democracy; it has also quickly evolved under the stresses of many wars. It at the very least strives to be as efficient and effective as possible. Our military’s primary purpose is to protect our homeland, and to smash our enemies. If this requires that we use preemptive tactics, so be it. The fact that our military has the most advanced weapons-systems available and (surprise) that we actually use them does not make Mr. Zarqawi and his ilk as “heroic” as Mr. Berg might have you believe. If you think for one minute that the militant organization that Zarqawi belonged to does NOT use whatever weapons they have available to them, you’d be much mistaken. I believe that if these militants had the ability to press a button and wipe-out a major American city, they would out of principal…out of their twisted principals. There are no innocent Infidels, Mr. Berg. I think your son’s brutal slaughter proves this. I would suggest that if he decides to have a reconciliatory meeting with representatives of al-Qaeda, that he seriously considers the less “heroic” option of a teleconference over a tête-à-tête. All debating aside; I would never wish the mental turmoil that Mr. Berg is probably experiencing on even his son’s departed murderer…it’s something that will haunt him and his family for their entire lives. I hope they find peace. As for the argued lack of accountability of the Bush Administration; I think this is a topic best debated elsewhere. --KihOshk 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, you are WAY too needlessly graphic about what happened to Nick. Try to steer clear of the torture-porn novels. This isn't Hostel. Nbstowerangel 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (SE)
-
- SE, I believe that my description of what happened to Michael Berg’s son was necessary, appropriate, and germane to my argument. What happened to Nick was absolutely horrifying; I have seen the video once, and refuse to watch it again. My point is that Mr. Berg appears to have understated the horror; partly to bolster his good-intentioned desire of a “reconciliation” with the late Zarqawi, and certainly to avoid facing the reality of what I’d described. Please reread the passage in question and I think you’ll find that I haven’t exaggerated; I’ve only expanded on Mr. Berg’s own softened words. Now, if my accurate description of Nick Berg’s slaughter caused you to become sexually aroused, I suggest that you seek professional help; I don’t find your implications that what I wrote was for titillation purposes humorous at all. --KihOshk 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- You should not have viewed the video in the first place, as you knew exactly what you were getting into when you watched it. But I'm sure you were just "curious", like Pete Townsend was. What kind of sick bastard are you? You watched it anyway. What, do you want a cookie for refusing to watch it again? I have not watched it at all, and neither has Mr. Berg, the one you feel the need to attack. We would prefer to remember Nick for who he was - a genuine, innovative and brilliant human being, not as "la homme a décapité".
My implication was not MEANT to be humorous. What reason do you have to describe things in the manner in which you did. What is this, The Passion of the Nick? And I am sure Mr. Berg understands the horror of what happened to his son, but it's not going to change views he's had since, as far as I can see, he was born. I am a proud Republican and Bush/Cheney '04 volunteer, and I fully respect Mr. Berg even if I don't necessarily agree with all of his views. He's had an experience I never want to go through in my life, ever, and he's managed to keep his soul intact. He should not be regarded as a person with a "mental imbalance" simply for wishing to believe Zarqawi had second thoughts, a family, and a soul. Maybe he did. I doubt it, but I suppose anything is possible. Nbstowerangel 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (S.E.) 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, S.E., I too thought that the overly descriptive comments were extremely disgusting and disrespectful to Michael. I think we know well enough what a decapitation entails without the play by play. Especially for those of us, excluding myself and I assume excluding you, S.E., that have seen the video. Oh, and by the way, I guess watching the video didn't teach the poster before S.E. "Hooked on Phonics." ~ Rocket McGuinn
i have got to agree with your comments about the mental turmoial and his ideas, but the more i've read about what he been saying, is that he going far more than Bush invasion killed his son, he saying the his was killed by the american's to make the iraq's look bad. I am getting the notion that there is a darker element to his story, with my common sense tells me that behind Micheal Berg are people who are using his grief has a weapon against's Bush, the same way Cindy Sheehan is being used. I have come to this conclussion based on the amount of money his campagin would cost him, and the fact that he was employed as teacher, which beg's the question where is the money coming from to back him. And in my option those people are trully sick to use a father grief over the death of his son, for their own gain.--Crt101 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Words like "...instead of those who REALLY killed his son" and such, are unneccessary to convey the information about the man Michael Berg and what he believes. Furthermore, it is unquestionably unbiased to not write it - whereas writing it is considered by some to be biased. Therefore, the option of not writing it should be chosen.
- Adding the controversial statement adds nothing important, and when something controversial serves no purpose - there's no reason to do it.
- So, I've taken it away, and I hope that it won't be put back. This is a dictionary, not a debate about whether Berg is an angel or a demon.
[edit] Confusion with Daniel Pearl?
The article identifies Berg's son Nick as a Wall Street Journal reporter. Is someone confusing the younger Berg with Daniel Pearl?Steed70118 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
