Posted on 07/08/2004 12:07:48 AM PDT by kattracks
July 8, 2004 -- The kidnappers of U.S. businessman Nicholas Berg refused a ransom and beheaded him to avenge what American-led forces had done to Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a recording purportedly issued by militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The 60-minute recording, which was posted on Islamic Web sites Tuesday, said unidentified people had tried to persuade the kidnappers to spare Berg's life."They were ready to give us whatever sums of money we asked . . . to save this infidel's life," said the voice, purportedly that of Zarqawi, "But despite our desperate need of money to fund our jihad, we preferred to take revenge for our sisters and our nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This is a not a movement driven by a satisfaction of a material demands. This is a movement driven by the pure enjoyment of death as an end in itself. Death becomes the message.
Ping.
ping
Interesting. So who was offering the bribes to save Berg?
The only person that makes sense is Berg's father*. Presumably he might be able to finagle a contact through his extremist connections.
Michael Moore trying to save an employee?
"The Americans never asked for a ransom. Never. This is another Bush lie, like the one about the war never being fought for oil. Take my word on this, it is true."
ping
Yet another angle to this story!
Original "research" thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143602/posts
Thanks for the ping, kiddo!
You're welcome. Note above, however, in my state of sleepiness,
I confused you with backhoe, lol. Ooops. :-)
There's STILL more to this story IMO. Thanks for the ping.
Noted, thanks. I can't see why they would bother to say this now. What's the motive? Doesn't a kidnapper for example, lose his bargaining point once the victim is dead? Are the terrorists trying to say, look how dedicated, how devout we are; we behead people in spite of how much we are offered not to?
Islam has already proven for 1400 years what it is that islam does best.
This report sounds like they are now advertising the fact.
Thanks. Somewhere on the original thread, there was mention of a ransom offer. It was part of Daddy Berg's accusation that not enough had been done by the Bush Admin to save his son. However, who it was the terrorists were negotiating with - Michael Berg did not identify. He was large on accusation and very limited in details.
As I can't believe that anyone in authority would have had discussions with the terrorists or offered a ransom, the only person who might have, would be Michael Berg himself. Michael Moore's money could have come in very handy.
Or george soros's money also.
"Or george soros's money also."
I could add Heinz Ketchup's contributions to the Tides Foundation, to that one. It ocurs to me now, the ransom money may have been paid...and Nick was beheaded anyway. To the islamists, the 'donors' would have been seen as nothing but 'useful idiots' - a good description for every democRAT, come to think of it.
While the 'negotiations' were going on, Michael Berg would have been convinced his son would be released. It must have been an awful shock for a member of ANSWER to discover islamists can't be trusted. Thus, Michael Berg lashed out at the Admin. He could hardly blame himself or his anti-war friends.
Throws a little light on his statement 'they killed their best friend.'
This sure makes me go "hmmm...." So who was doing the offering, and if it was the dad, where did he get the money?
My suspicion: Michael Moore.
I've had this idea that women were used to lure these guys into areas where they would be alone. Nobody ever witnesses them being kidnapped.
Just gets stranger...BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.