   Michael Berg ( Father of Zarqawi beadhee ) Speaks out
Here is the interview. This is really unusual. I was expecting the typical "Justice has been served. I am sure my son will rest easier today.". Instead you find:Quote:Of course. When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously. ....Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back? That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?This doesn't exactly seem like the kind of press the US was looking for after eliminating Zarqawi.   
  Strong words. I came into this thread expecting a rah-rah puff piece from the cowardly US press. I wouldn't wish the kind of pain he's had to go through on my worst enemy.Quote:BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy....BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror.I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son. ;  1st, George Bush doesn't run Iraq.  Second, his views are irrelevant.  Let the Iraqi people tell us what situation they liked better.  I would be surprised if more than 10% said Saddam, even though there are more terrorist acts in Iraq now.Why do we blame George Bush for terrorism? Like he is the sole cause of terrorists.  If we didn't attack Iraq, it's not like these people wouldn't have existed, or wouldn't have tried to kill people. This guy blames George Bush because some psycho beheaded his son.  I fail to see the logic behind that.  I'm willing to be flamed on this issue because I have always been pro-war in Iraq.  Not because of WMD's or terrorists.  But because more than 300,000 people were tortured, raped, and starved to death under one of the most ruthless dictators in the world.  To me the Iraqi people deserve a chance at freedom, and I'm glad they've been given it.  And I'm glad that they are stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for the fate of their country.  There is no doubt in my mind that they will be a fountain of prosperity in the years to come.  That kind of change isn't easy, and everyone knew sacrifices would be made.  All the people that voted to go to war in Iraq knew people would lose their lives, yet we pressed on because we knew it was the right thing.  Giving freedom to oppressed people is never the wrong thing, no matter how many lives are lost.  My only regret is that I haven't stood next to the men and women (Iraqi, US, Canadian, Mongolian, etc.) who are there fighting to give that freedom.  But I certainly won't keep my mouth shut when people say that it was better when Saddam was around.  That is like keeping a kid in an abusive home because if you take the parents away they will end up on the streets.  Yeah some may end up on the streets, but some will be spared abuse, and end up a senator, or rock star, or mathematician. At least give them the chance to be great.   ;Quote:BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.all government is ultimately enforced at the end of a gun. Even something as simple as a speeding ticket comes with the understanding that, if you don't pay it, cops will come and take you away, forcefully if necessary.   ;Quote:Original post by ChurchSkiz...All the people that voted to go to war in Iraq knew people would lose their lives, yet we pressed on because we knew it was the right thing.  im sorry, but i distinctly remember vague reasons like 'doing the right thing' and 'freeing the iraqis' only came up well AFTER the invasion had taken place, and the bullshittiness of the original arguments became more and more undenyable.   ;Quote:Original post by haroHere is the interview. This is really unusual. I was expecting the typical "Justice has been served. I am sure my son will rest easier today.". Instead you find:Quote:Of course. When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously. ....Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back? That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?This doesn't exactly seem like the kind of press the US was looking for after eliminating Zarqawi.Michael Berg is now my hero.;Quote:Original post by ChurchSkizAll the people that voted to go to war in Iraq knew people would lose their lives, yet we pressed on because we knew it was the right thing.Many people who are anti Iraq war that I know, myself included would have been more than supportive of a war to remove Sadam in order to give freedom to the people of Iraq. However cast your mind back and you'll remember that it wasn't to do with helping the people of Iraq whatsoever, it was about looking for WMD's on the off chance that they could be used against the west somehow (magic pixie delivery system maybe, who knows?), all of this "we must do it for the people of Iraq" sentiment happened later once it was apparent there were no WMDs. So lets not kid ourselves we are the good guys, yes eventually it will work out better for them, but that was not our intention. Unless of course you believe that Blair/Bush lied about WMD's so they could start a war to free the people of Iraq because they would never get any support if they had given that as a reason. Which is fair enough I guess.;  Good for him.  :)  I can't imagine how much courage it must have taken for him to come to this understanding...For many, it would've been much easier to harbor vengeful feelings instead.   ;  While stating Bush was no different than Saddam (although I'm tempted to agree) will likely get some people calling him irrational, I applaud him for speaking his heart out and exposing some things I (and many others) personally feel don't get enough coverage in mainstream media. Bravo!   ;Quote:Original post by DrazgalQuote:Original post by ChurchSkizAll the people that voted to go to war in Iraq knew people would lose their lives, yet we pressed on because we knew it was the right thing.Many people who are anti Iraq war that I know, myself included would have been more than supportive of a war to remove Sadam in order to give freedom to the people of Iraq. However cast your mind back and you'll remember that it wasn't to do with helping the people of Iraq whatsoever, it was about looking for WMD's on the off chance that they could be used against the west somehow (magic pixie delivery system maybe, who knows?), all of this "we must do it for the people of Iraq" sentiment happened later once it was apparent there were no WMDs. So lets not kid ourselves we are the good guys, yes eventually it will work out better for them, but that was not our intention. Unless of course you believe that Blair/Bush lied about WMD's so they could start a war to free the people of Iraq because they would never get any support if they had given that as a reason. Which is fair enough I guess.I do remember actually. I had been hoping that we would go to war long before 9/11.  I remember that the argument was that he was in violation of his previously signed treaty in almost every aspect for about 10 years.  Unfortunately I was in the extreme minority.  We had been talking about it for years, and it was only after 9/11 that people started to think about going in there for security reasons.  The WMD/terrorist debate started to become the major reason, but it was not the only reason.I would also like to recall to people's memory that this was the man who used mustard and nerve gas against Iranians, and launched chemical scuds against Israel and Kuwait, then offered rewards to the families of suicide bombers. People turn it around like he wasn't a threat at all, but this was a pre-emptive war.  He was GOING to do something stupid again, it was just a matter of time.