Prompted by Jim’s response to my earlier post on Berg being in US custody, Ilyka and I have been engaged in a discussion in the comment section concerning one of the main inconsistencies in the video purporting to show Berg’s death. Specifically, the absence of blood. While some may think it gruesome – or even disrespectful to Nick Berg’s memory – to ponder these things, I disagree.
As I noted in the comments on that entry, my lawyer mind has a tendency to obsess over inconsistencies. In this case, I am extremely puzzled by al-Qaeda’s apparent efforts to appear as if they were murdering Berg on film when clearly they were not. According to the video’s time stamp 11 hours passed between the time the terrorists read their statement – at the conclusion of which Berg is heard screaming – and the time the video shows Berg’s beheading. Additionally, the fact that Berg did not scream again while they brutally cut his throat, and the absence of significant additional blood, is proof enough that he was already dead.
I do not intend that to mean that I’m disappointed in the amount of blood shed. How ghoulish and sick. On the contrary, I hope Nick Berg had a swift death and is now at peace. I am simply trying to understand why he died. Oh, I’m aware of the inane conjectures about his “ties to al-Qaeda”, etc. But if we are to honor Nick Berg properly, I suggest that the best way to do it is to understand why he was killed.*
That al-Qaeda used Nick Berg as a tool and a sacrifice to “send a message” to the U.S. is beyond dispute.** What I cannot comprehend is why they would try to pass of the video as the “slaughtering of an American” when, the evidence shows, he could not have been alive when he was beheaded.
Why is that important to me? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the fact that al-Qaeda, by all appearances, now consists of two factions that are at war with each other while simultaneously warring against the West: Osama bin Laden’s and al-Zarqawi’s. We, as a nation, have previously been focused on bin Laden as the primary power behind al-Qaeda and have directed our efforts toward locating and eliminating him. In fact, Colin Powell had once described al-Zarqawi as an “associate and collaborator” of bin Laden’s. Yet it was al-Zarqawi who committed the murder, as voice analysis has confirmed. In doing so, he read a statement denouncing Islamic scholars – the precise image that Osama bin Laden has studiously cultivated for himself.
Why?
The more I’ve thought about it, the more I’m convinced that the Berg video was not ultimately intended to be a message to the U.S about the Abu Ghirab prisoner abuse. Had that been the goal there were other, more dramatic ways to have made the point: by capturing groups of Americans and subjecting them to similar torture, for instance, which would’ve prompted the U.S. military to attempt a rescue operation and undoubtedly led to further loss of American lives.
No, I’m convinced that al-Zarqawi’s real message was directed toward Osama bin Laden’s faction of al-Qaeda and, more pointedly, toward the current and potential terrorist recruits who believe bin Laden is now powerless to strike against the West. In other words, it was a power play – an attempt by al-Zarqawi to separate himself and his faction from the impotent “Islamic scholars” like bin Laden. It was al-Zarqawi’s “spectacular” – different from bin Laden’s in that only one death ensued, but just as powerful in its psychic blow.
In that context, the fact that Nick Berg was already dead at the time of his beheading was actually part of the message and thus no effort was made to cover up the fact. Consider:
3. Prisoners of war should not be slain: “No prisoner should be put to the sword” – a very clear and unequivocal instruction given by the Prophet.
4. No-one should be tied to be killed: “The Prophet has prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied or is in captivity.”[...]
7. Sanctity of a dead body: Islam has categorically prohibited its followers from mutilating the corpses of their enemies, as was practised in Arabia before the advent of Islam. It is said in the Hadith: “The Prophet has prohibited us from mutilating the corpses of the enemies” (Bukhari, AbuDawood). The occasion on which this order was given is highly instructive. In the battle of Uhud the disbelievers mutilated the bodies of the Muslims who had fallen on the battlefield by cutting off their ears and noses and threading them together to put round their necks as trophies of war. The stomach of Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet, was ripped open by the Quraysh and his liver was taken out and chewed by Hinda, the wife of AbuSufyan, the leader of the Makkan army. The Muslims were naturally enraged by this horrible sight. But the Prophet asked his followers not to mete out similar treatment to the dead bodies of the enemies.
Thus, the point was not so much to portray the death of an American but, rather, the desecration of a body. In other words, the video intentionally showed the desecration of Nick Berg’s body, the defiling of his corpse serving as an expression of contempt for him as a proxy for all Americans, and contempt for the way bin Laden tries to portray himself as aligned with ancient authorities on Islam.
To put it another way, the video was yet another tool al-Zarqawi is using to create sectarian conflict between Muslims, the goal he declared in what is now called the “al-Zarqawi letter.”
Ultimately, I believe the purpose of the video – and al-Zarqawi’s rhetoric in the Berg video seems to confirm this – was to show that he has set himself against not only America and the Shi’a, but againt Osama bin Laden’s interpretation of their mutual jihad, as well. The video, then, delivers not only a message to the West, but also to bin Laden, and serves as a rallying call to all of the extremists who believe – like most of the US intelligence community – that bin Laden no longer has the power to advance their cause.
* As much as my heart goes out to Mr. Berg’s family in this time of grief and loss, I am unwilling to share their attitude that Nick Berg was murdered in connection with any acts or omissions by Bush or Rumsfeld.
** I’m not even going to entertain the baseless argument that the CIA, and not al-Qaeda, was behind this video. Don’t bother littering my comment section with such notions, either.
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 4:43 pm | 
Middle East Bites, War Bites | 
RSS feed
Comments and pings are currently closed.
May 14, 2004 at 4:51 pm
Saw the video for the first time today – I agree that something did not add up. Excellent deduction Matlock
May 14, 2004 at 5:04 pm
Okay, now that’s got my interest. That’s plausible. That’s a theory that doesn’t depend on black helicopters in the night.
al-Zarqawi should recall that a house divided cannot stand. But it’s better for us if he does not.
May 14, 2004 at 5:33 pm
I just put two and two together, Kate. Just for the record, I never meant to imply that you were a moonbat. Your post just had a large number of the questions I wanted to adress in one convenient location, that’s why I linked it.
Regarding the lack of blood, this can be explained by the killing stroke that was used. It was the same used to butcher goats and sheep (discussing this clinically is making my gorge rise right now). The spine is separated before the large blood vessels. It is considered more merciful and clean than letting (when the blood vessels are cut and death is from blood loss). As the heart has stopped pumping before the major blood vessels in the throat are cut there is very little blood.
May 14, 2004 at 5:38 pm
On the contrary, Jim. The video shows the knife aiming toward his neck, not toward his spine. See the comments under the Berg in US Custody post for the reason that’s significant.
May 14, 2004 at 6:06 pm
Probably the most thoughtful, insightful posting I’ve seen in a conservative blog about this subject. Aljazeera has some similar musings on the subject (no slight intended). While Instapundit wastes time building a meme for propaganda (See Steve Outing’s post at Poynter- Mexican UFO’s beat this in the blog world) you come up with a salient point. Congrats.
May 14, 2004 at 8:09 pm
Excellent, excellent post, Kate. My hat’s off to you regarding the theory about why Nick was killed.
And I agree about his Dad; perhaps it’s his grief/anger talking.
May 15, 2004 at 2:17 am
I honestly cannot watch that video again but from what I remember I could swear the knife was a straight shot into the spine through the side of the neck and then worked forward. His face also grew a rictus (hyperextended mouth, distorted features) during the beheading.
Here’s both sides of a couple things I saw:
I did notice how incredibly still Berg was in the video. The murderers were very fidgety and bouncy. I only noticed a movement from Berg twice. The quality of the video would have masked small involuntary movements and it’s fair to assume he was told not to move or bad things would be done to him.
Berg also looked “flat” while the murders had a more normal and rounded appearance. This is also attributable to the lousy quality of the recording. In addition he was in front of them so the focus on him was different.
May 15, 2004 at 8:17 am
Jim, there was a video floating around the net of a Russian soldier who was beheaded in the fashion you describe. It was the most sickening thing I had ever seen. But the blade cut the windpipe and jugular with the inserting stroke preventing the poor kid from making any more sound than a grunt. Considering all the yelling Berg made I doubt he was cut in that same fashion. As for the video’s lack of blood…..it was too dark to tell. I saw a larger one that made me think I was seeing more blood than I saw in the smaller version.
I had read a few years ago on a stock market bulletin board that these Islamic terrorists like to shoot videos of such acts for recruiting purposes. It is not new.
May 15, 2004 at 7:11 am
Kate, I am truly confused with the timestamp seeing that it reverted back to 2:46:17 later on. Strange.
May 15, 2004 at 12:52 pm
For those questioning the absence of blood or believing the body didn’t twitch or move as the slaying took place, watch this larger version of the video…. http://www.ogrish.com/ Personally, I have no doubt the murder took place in front of the camera.
May 15, 2004 at 11:29 am
There are also these quotes to be considered:
“When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.” Surat Mohammed:4 [via Healing Iraq]
“As for the captives , the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks ; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, ‘When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks’ (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4)” ….Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah.” [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.] [via Aaron's Rantblog]
May 15, 2004 at 12:10 pm
I’m unclear here… why does there need to be a theory of “why” to just question what went on in that video?
Like isn’t critical thinking enough to allow for questioning?
I’m not saying anything. I’m no doctor and no expert on violent killings or anything.
But I think attacking the theory behind as a means of discrediting the questioning of the video, is kind of like a straw man fallacy or whatnot.
That said, this theory here is the most seemingly logical one.
May 15, 2004 at 4:33 pm
I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND THE UNEDITED MOVIE OF NICK BERG’S DEATH.
[The URL to this site has been deleted. If you feel this deletion was in error, please feel free to contact "Commanche" at his IP address, via Charter.net, at 68.185.51.33. I'm already in the process of doing the very same thing, since he's the first idiot to have tested my $100 per advertising link policy. - VK]
May 15, 2004 at 5:04 pm
As with 99% of the other things that people preface with “clearly,” I don’t think this is clear at all. His neck was cut from the back. I don’t think 11 hours passed between the speech and the beheading; I think two cameras were used and their clocks weren’t synced up. Otherwise, it would be a very odd coincidence that half of the introductory segment just “happened” to take place 20-ish minutes before their prepared statement, while the other half just “happened” to occur 20-ish minutes before Berg was killed and then beheaded.
Also, don’t forget his headless corpse was found along the road before anyone learned about the video. If they had killed him some other way first, wouldn’t the body itself show evidence of that?
May 15, 2004 at 5:10 pm
I was thinking about the same thing – the two cameras – while driving home from the grocery store today. I suppose that’s indicative of not only how rare it is for me to get a chance to truly think, but also how much the Berg video’s inconsistencies are weighing on my mind.
However, I maintain that a forensic study of the stills from the Berg video compared with photos from similar murders will still show a discrepancy in the blood splatter and pooling evidence.
May 15, 2004 at 9:12 pm
I have a longish, but I think convincing explanation of the time stamps here. As for the blood, I haven’t checked these remarks given at Wizbang, but I suspect he’s right. I’m getting sick of watching it.
May 16, 2004 at 5:51 am
You can’t match the quality of the Berg video to forensic snapshots. The video is awful…there is very little color contrast if at all. If the flooring had been a white sheet and lacked a stain than I would agree….but to make any determination that there is a lack of blood from the video is specious. And anyway, Berg was obviously convulsing from the act, though his movements were constricted because his hands and ankles were tied and a thug’s knee was pressed on the small of Berg’s back while securing his arms. If Berg made no movements then I would give your “discrepancies” some weight. But that isn’t the case at all.
The Ogrish version of the video makes my point clear.
http://www.ogrish.com
May 16, 2004 at 12:57 pm
A million deaths are a statistic. One death is a tragedy.
May 16, 2004 at 6:57 pm
The back of the neck through, the top of the spinal cord strike is used by the Sneaky Pete outfits in the Armed Services to dispose of inconvenient sentries and the like. There’s no reason that the alQ assholes wouldn’t know it. The problem with Jim’s theory that this explains the lack of blood fountaining all over Hell’s half acre is that the reason it’s used, more important than avoiding a mess, is that it’s quiet. Everything shuts down instantly. If that strike was used there would not have been the screaming.
May 16, 2004 at 6:59 pm
Knowing your military background, Peter, I’ve been waiting for you to chime in. Thanks for confirming what I was thinking.
May 17, 2004 at 4:26 am
Well, if anyone had seen the video beheading of the poor Russian soldier by Chechen rebels they wouldn’t be speculating about this Hollywood conditioned expectation of blood fountaining all over the place. Yes there is a lot of blood but it wasn’t squirting all over everyone…it went directly into the ground…in the direction gravity takes it.
Let’s review…in order to believe he was already dead before beheading, you have to ignore his yell and then gurgling from all the blood going down his windpipe. You would have to ignore his body convulsing even under constraints a thug pinning him down while his hands and feet were tied. Then you will have to rely on a low quality video where all dark colors blend together–whether it’s terrorist shoes, the rug, or blood you can’t distinguish the difference.
This discussion is as idiotic as trying to convince kooks that an airplane actually did go into the Pentagon.
May 18, 2004 at 6:40 am
Claire’s quotes are important. I do not believe the quotes Hadith applies to non-Muslim captives. Just a thought.
May 19, 2004 at 12:11 am
I just wanted to comment that infact the spine does run through your next, therefor, when you cut through someones neck, you cut through their spine too.
May 19, 2004 at 12:51 am
I believe what Kate has shared with all of us is well written and thought about. However, I feel that perhaps much credit should not be given to any opinions untill real facts are known, and i am sure they will surface. There are professionals who are capable of coming to such conclussions with accuracy.
Trackbacks
May 14, 2004 at 8:22 pm
May 15, 2004 at 12:03 am
May 15, 2004 at 10:01 am
May 15, 2004 at 7:02 am
May 15, 2004 at 7:02 am
May 15, 2004 at 10:23 am
May 15, 2004 at 1:52 pm
May 15, 2004 at 7:34 pm
May 15, 2004 at 11:47 pm
May 16, 2004 at 5:04 am
May 16, 2004 at 8:35 pm
May 19, 2004 at 4:57 am
May 21, 2004 at 7:06 pm