PS, I didn't call Berg's captor's "noble". You really ought to read more closely.
We don't know for sure that Berg was alive when the decapitation took place. There is credible speculation that Berg was killed in a more conventional manner, then beheaded for the camera. I guess I've lost the thread of what we're supposed to be arguing about. We agree that the Berg murder was violent, reprehensible and wrong, and that the occupation itself was wrong to begin with. You seem to want to tar me with the "pro-terrorist" brush but I reject that. I'm just pointing out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I don't think Berg's killing was justified on any grounds. I can understand it, however, in a larger context and recognize that the normal rules of "humanity" are out the window in this situation. I can confidently say that, if a foreign army bombed my house and killed my children tonight, I'd be putting on a hood tomorrow morning and terrorizing the occupying army any way I could. That includes actions that would otherwise considered murder, I suppose -- I could not see myself feeling much sympathy at that point for foreign contractors wandering around trying to fix my phone, etc. I'd see my actions as justifed by the larger crime commited by the occupying force. But that's just me, I guess. On Fri, 28 May 2004 04:25:54 +0000, KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Despite your claim that ** I'm not defending the actions of Berg's captors > in any way...**, your choice of words and comparisons reveal the opposite. > I have never disputed the fact that war is horrific, however, as I said, > some things go beyond all sense of humanity. > > >how does anyone justify the deliberate, conscious decision to cut > >someone's head off? > >I don't know, you tell me. Does simply taking a picture of the dead body > >make a difference in >this argument? > > Actually the body wasn't dead when they began filming. But somehow, they > seemed to know how it was going to turn out. > > >One photograph of a mutilated body was taken for the purposes of > >documenting the evils of war >and the events that took place at American > >hands. The other photograph was taken, in my opinion, >to shock the > >occupying army (and it's civilians at home) into stopping their aggression. > >Which purpose is more noble? Can a comparison be made? > > Absolutely. No one ever accused the photographers present at the liberation > of the Nazi concentration camps of causing the atrocities they documented. > No one ever accused Abraham Zapruder of causing President Kennedy's > assassination just so he could take a motion picture of it. Similarly, no > one is accusing the photographers of Iraqi war dead in the example you > cited as causing the deaths being documented. The same cannot be said of > your **noble** individuals who photographed themselves in the act of > butchering Mr. Berg. > > What those individuals did was evil. The fact that I believe that what > George Bush is doing in Iraq is wrong will never make me believe that what > those men did was right. > Karen Allen > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
