Look a little closer at the news stories and you'll see anomalies. Little things that just don't add up.
For example, this line in a St. Peterburg Times article popped out at me:
Berg was last in contact with U.S. officials in Baghdad on April 10, and his body was found Saturday in Baghdad. Staff members at the $30-a-night Fanar Hotel in Baghdad told the AP that Berg stayed there for several days until April 10.Four days, we are told, separated Berg's release from American custody and his second capture by Al Zarqawi's terrorists. Why, then, was he still in an American orange prison jumpsuit?
Come to think of it, why did an earlier report hold that Berg had but one conversation with his family after his release? During that conversation, he said he would travel home via Jordan, Kuwait or Turkey. Why didn't he call them on April 9 to confirm flight plans?
The St. Petersburg Times piece and other news reports claim that Berg refused a flight home offered by "U.S. officials." According to the New York Daily News: "Michael Berg...said his son feared he might he killed on the treacherous route to the airport and decided to make his own way." Andy Duke, a friend of Berg's who saw him at the hotel on the night of April 9, says that Berg intended to fly home from the Baghdad airport the next day. Can we assemble these statements into some sort of sensible order? It seems odd that Berg thought he could get to the airport more easily without official U.S help; soldiers are rotated out of Iraq all the time.
It is said that Berg told a friend (Duke?) that the Iraqi police had considered him (Berg) suspicious because he had an Israeli stamp in his passport. Nearly all Islamic countries refuse entry to anyone whose passport indicates a previous trip to Israel; that is why travelers to that nation are given a second passport. It's a matter of routine.
Berg must have known about all this -- he had visited the Middle East before, including a previous trip to Iraq. He had entered Iraq via Jordan. As noted, he planned to visit Jordan, Kuwait and/or Turkey on his return journey. It is fair to presume that he possessed more than one passport; he could not have passed through Jordan otherwise. But if he did have a "Israel-free" passport, why did he flash the stamped-in-Israel passport in Iraq? Why would he even carry it?
The most stunning news comes by way of this site. Audio from the execution video includes a Western voice (not Berg's) saying the words "Thy will be done." We would expect that wording from a Christian, not from a Muslim.
This site notes that the same stackable plastic chair appearing in the Berg video also appears in the Lyndiee England Photographs from Abu Ghraib prison. Granted, such chairs are common: My family used to own one much like it, many years ago. Still, this find adds a touch more credibility to the theory that the entire execution was staged in Abu Ghraib.
Also worth noting: The walls of Abu Ghraib and the walls visible in the execution video are painted (roughly) the same color. According to one account: "The hollow audio quality of the tape also suggests the room was large and empty." Although one can easily imagine a room of this sort in Abu Ghraib, one wonders if terrorists in hiding would have access to a large, unfurnished facility.
I have no problem with speculation as long as it is clearly labelled as such, and as long we separate speculation and established fact. In that light, let us take a closer look at the unusual Mr. Berg.
This young man was, by all accounts, something of an adventurer. He was smart, well-traveled, gifted at languages, politically conservative, and a risk-taker -- precisely the sort of person an intelligence agency would want to recruit. He may have volunteered to take part in a fake video of his own death. Alternatively, American authorities could have deceived or forced him into partipation in a theatrical venture of this sort. He may not have foreseen that the video would subsequently be offered to the world as genuine, or that he would have to be killed "for real" to prevent the spillage of beans. Conversely, he might have chosen to disappear into a new life.
Do those notions seem a tad too Ian Fleming-esque? Perhaps they are. But now let us take a close look at Berg's alleged killer, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. The anomalies keep piling up.
Many news accounts inform us that Al Zarqawi has, or had, an amputated leg. (As noted earlier, one report holds that he was killed in 2002.) Did his leg grow back for his video debut? The Sun reports that the amputation was below the knee. While below-the-knee amputees can walk fairly normally, they usually (in my experience) cannot completely hide their missing limb, especially when engaging in a difficult job like decapitation. In the video, "Zarqawi" also flashes a gold ring -- an affectation which, some aver, is forbidden to a devout Muslim.
You may want to read -- for whatever it is worth -- this anonmyous poster's analysis of the video. He or she claims that accents and body language reveal that the "terrorists" are not Arabs.
While the official U.S. translation includes a reference to Al Qaeda, an independent translation reveals that Bin Laden's terror network is never mentioned. The error may have been innocent, since one speaker does use the phrase "al qaed," meaning "the one sitting."
I am still on the fence when it comes to "fake video" allegations. But such theories no longer strike me as foolish.
No comments:
Post a Comment