Posted on 05/22/2004 3:28:44 PM PDT by Andy from Beaverton
Michael Berg Is Insane
Judson Cox, May 17, 2004
Few people take Michael Savage seriously when he claims "liberalism is a mental disease." But, how else would you describe a man who, after watching al Qaida cut off his son’s head, blames President Bush and describes his son’s murderers as "sick people" who have "some good in them"? How do liberals like Mr. Berg blame President Bush for al Qaida killing three thousand people on 9-11? Do the terrorists bear none of the blame -- are they also sick people with some good in them? How can liberals equate the deaths of over half a million Iraqis, tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein, to the deviant actions of 12 American prison guards? How can they continue to deny Saddam’s links to al Qaida?
U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks. His ruling was upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to Czech intelligence, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague just prior to the 9-11 attacks.
Papers found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters document Saddam's efforts to establish a relationship with al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden’s top aid visited Iraq in 1998 at Saddam’s request.
How can they say that military courts are insufficient to punish 12 prison guards, but too harsh for terrorists and enemy combatants? How is it that they always find excuses for the actions of our enemies, but always manage to condemn our soldiers? Why do they insist that every picture of every act of abuse committed by 12 American prison guards be made public to make America look as bad as possible, but do everything in their power to prevent everything from the 9-11 footage to the execution of Nick Berg from being shown? Why will they not admit that we are at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy us? How can they contend that the war in Iraq is a racist, imperialist "war for oil," when our dead lay piled in the streets, killed by terrorists loyal to, and funded by, Saddam Hussein?
Liberals insist that America is complicit in a "cycle of violence." They see America as the aggressor, much as do the al Qaida terrorists who beheaded Nick Berg, supposedly in retaliation for the Abu Grhaib prison abuses. What was the beheading of Daniel Pearl in retaliation for? How about the four American contractors who were burned, mutilated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah? What was the motivation for retaliation behind 9-11, the USS Cole bombing, the Marines killed in Yemen in 1992, the first World Trade Center attack, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania or any other example from a list of Islamic terrorist bloodshed too long to enumerate? Liberals, like Madeline Albright, agree with the terrorists that all of these attacks against innocent Americans are in retaliation for the Crusades at their root!
Let’s look at the Crusades:
Muslims invaded Europe , and imposed their religion upon Westerners by force. Christian armies drove them back. The Crusades lasted about 200 years, but freed Europe from Islamic rule for nearly 1,000 years. Islamic fascism has always been the aggressor.
It is gut check time for America . I urge each of you to watch the video of Nick Berg’s execution, and Daniel Pearl’s and 9-11. See the true face of our enemy. They have vowed to destroy us, and they are doing so one person and 3,000 at a time. They don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat, capitalist or socialist, Christian or an enlightened liberal atheist college professor. They will kill you even if you are a movie star or a politician. If liberalism means that you cannot recognize, condemn or fight your enemy (or support your own country), then liberalism is a mental disease -- it is suicidal not only for the individual, but it will kill us all if we allow it to undermine our will to fight and win. There is something very wrong with a man who would denounce the Patriot Act and condemn President Bush after watching terrorists behead his son. Michael Berg is either insane or he is a traitor!
Judson Cox is a political columnist from the mountains of North Carolina. He is quickly gaining recognition as one of the most popular and influential voices of his generation. As a college student, and a young entrepreneur, he has a unique perspective on matters of politics, economics and culture.
Often men with light colored hair will have darker facial hair, too.
I feel bad for Nick Berg's his sister and mother. Speaking of his Mother.....is she alive? There has been no comment from her. Yes, it is absolutely apalling what Michael Berg said. Makes you wonder what their relationship was like. I find it hard to believe that he really loved his son. He defiled his own son's memory by politicising his slaughter as surely as the IslamoFacists defiled Nick Berg's body by decapitation.
I'm afraid that Mr. Berg didn't only drank the Kool-aid, he asked for seconds. It sounds like he hates George Bush more than he loved his son.
Actually many other acquaintances have confirmed what Berg's father said and in addition, so did a FReeper's friend(one in good standing with many posts to his name)
Nick lost his head.
Michael lost is mind.
If you have any links to any of theses supportive references, I'd appreciate it.
I honestly don't bookmark those links. A search of my posts on the Berg threads will, at the least, take you to those articles, I think. That should be a start ?
I had a link to some of his emails, but now no web sites are working for me? Let's hope this post gets through.(seems to be)
Oh, get real.
I read tons of Berg threads, and all I ever saw was his father saying that Nick was a Bush fan. I'll try to get my memory working. It's not that I reject it, it's just that Berg Sr is such a repellent serpent-like character every word coming from his mouth is suspect.
I'm not sure if it helps his agenda to say his son was a Bush supporter. I mean, if anything, for his far-left cronies it makes him "part of the problem" or a "war profiteer" like the evil Haliburton and such.
But there is a ring of faint truth to his words about his son. He clearly is idealizing his son in the wake of his death, his crime is in using the memory of his son to further his own agenda, even though his son was opposed to him on this point.
Those Chinese will sell to anyone. < / s >
Eggs..I agree why bother to give him the press/air time. Time to move on..more important battles to take on then a grieving and misguided father.
Such men, when purged by Stalin and marched to a wall to be shot, called out with their last breaths "Long live the revolution! Long live Marxism-Leninism!"
It's not so rare, actually.
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to that ruling? I'd not heard that...
Note also that, although most of their arguments for the right to shred babies are couched in relativist language ("Who are YOU to make that decision for other people?") they have absolute certainty that anyone who opposes a woman's right to suck out her baby's brain is EEEVIL! There is no such thing as an honest relativist. Everyone believes that SOMETHING is true.
Take out overweight...and perhaps low-life...but sadly, I believe the rest applies.
Check that, IMHO, anyone who would make such an unabashed political staement over his dead son and give his true killers such a pass is low-life.
Exactly so. Their supposed "openmindedness" is a false front, hiding the worst kind of biased cultlike belief system. A belief system that denies it's a belief system and mastquerades as truth, while denying that truth exists. Liberalism is a mental illness.
Just trying to figure it out makes me crazy. And I know, I used to be one. Shudder.
I was looking on a page about George Washington last night; and I read something I hadn't read before. On this page, it went through his life story. At about the end of the French and Indian War, when GW and his forces were patrolling the colonial frontier; he started having his troops wear buckskin clothes like the Indians wore. (not the same style, just the material!)
He apparently felt it was more comfortable, and easier to move around in than the cumbersome uniforms they had to wear otherwise! I'm just wondering if he felt it disguised them better, as it did for the Indians!
I was looking on a page about George Washington last night; and I read something I hadn't read before. On this page, it went through his life story. At about the end of the French and Indian War, when GW and his forces were patrolling the colonial frontier; he started having his troops wear buckskin clothes like the Indians wore. (not the same style, just the material!)
He apparently felt it was more comfortable, and easier to move around in than the cumbersome uniforms they had to wear otherwise! I'm just wondering if he felt it disguised them better, as it did for the Indians!
Call a spade a spade. Micheal Berg is an insane kook fringe Liberal whackjob.
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.