Author: Mohamed Marwen Meddah

So, obviously some people think that the Nick Berg decapitation video is a fake.

Here are some of the questions some raised about the video:

• The timing of the video’s release – guaranteed to divert attention from the outrage over US abuse of Iraqis.
• Why Nick Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit
  

As everyone already knows from the news yesterday, a video posted on an al Qaeda-linked Web site showed the beheading of Nicholas Berg, a freelance communications worker from Pennsylvania, USA.

The Web site said the killing was carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top ally of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

I didn’t post about this yesterday even though it’s the first thing I read in the news, simply because I wanted it to move around in my head for a while before I do.

I think it’s very disturbing and wrong.

They’re painting this as an act of revenge for what was and is still being done to Iraqis, and that’s one cause that a lot of people will relate to, but still I don’t think they’ll agree with the manner it was done.

Islam is against such acts and strictly forbids them even in times of war, no matter what the circumstances are.
Islam teaches people to treat hostages and prisoners of war humanely and with dignity and respect, and that’s a long time before the Geneva conventions ever existed.

I think that the anger and resistance are justified but that acts of beheading and mutilation are so wrong and unjustified no matter what.

I just found this interesting article by Howard Fineman for Newsweek called “Running Against Osama bin Laden”.

He writes:

George W. Bush’s political handlers are obsessed with a date on the calendar. It’s not Sept. 11 or Nov. 2. It is June 30 — the day of the “handover,” when America’s role in Iraq is supposed to begin winding down. Swing voters who have been withholding judgment about the war want to see if the “transition” produces stability in Iraq and a reduction in American casualties, a key Bush adviser told me. “That’s a critical time,” he said. “It could set the tone for the rest of the race.”

[…]

This is the sound of wishful thinking… They are not in control of events, and neither are our few allies on the ground in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is in charge. He’s the other “candidate” in this presidential race.
And he’s winning.

[…]

Bin Laden’s bet was, and is, that the United States is too weak-willed and economically vulnerable to last for long in a war against jihadis motivated by centuries of hatred for the West.

I think he’s overdoing it a bit and oversizing Osama Bin Laden’s actual weight, but still it’s interesting to explore this line of thought and see how much power certain people or groups can have over elections.

My son Arik was murdered when he was a soldier by Palestinian fighters. He was not murdered because he was Jewish, but because he is part of the nation that occupies the territory of another.

I know these are concepts that are unpalatable, but I must voice them loud and clear, because they come from my heart – the heart of a father whose son did not get to live because his people were blinded with power.

— Yitzhak Frankenthal, I Would Have Done The Same.

[Via Lawrence of Cyberia]

I just stumbled upon an interesting article called “The Price of Arrogance” by Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek.

He writes:

“America is ushering in a new responsibility era,” says President Bush as part of his standard stump speech, “where each of us understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make in life.”

“I take full responsibility,” said Donald Rumsfeld in his congressional testimony last week. But what does this mean? Secretary Rumsfeld hastened to add that he did not plan to resign and was not going to ask anyone else who might have been “responsible” to resign. As far as I can tell, taking responsibility these days means nothing more than saying the magic words “I take responsibility.”

Zakaria goes on to talk about the stance the Bush administration is taking regarding the Geneva conventions. He writes:

Within weeks after September 11, senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House began the drive to maximize American freedom of action. They attacked specifically the Geneva Conventions, which govern behavior during wartime. Donald Rumsfeld explained that the conventions did not apply to today’s “set of facts.”
Last week he said again that the Geneva Conventions did not “precisely apply” and were simply basic rules.

The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been “We’re at war; all these niceties will have to wait.” As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure.

A great read. I suggest you check it out: The Price of Arrogance.