Posted on 05/28/2004 8:42:49 PM PDT by Objective Reality
Please pardon the vanity, but I've not seen this theory posited elsewhere in any searches I've performed.
First the admission from Michael Moore that he interviewed Nick Berg prior to his trip to Iraq. Why, in God's name, if Berg was just some foolhardy "mercenary" (as Moore calls Americans in Iraq in general)?
Then, with the slightest amount of further investigation, this post from Moore himself, on his own website. Note, very well, the date.
Quoting:
"I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on."
Rather explains why Berg would have refused safe passage home from the military, doesn't it?
I therefore theorize that Michael Moore commissioned Nick Berg to act as his proxy / cameraman in Iraq with the stated goal of meeting and interviewing the "minutemen" of the "revolution," thereby directly leading Berg to his own murder, and making Moore himself more culpable than any member of the Bush administration in that murder.
If Moore has an interview with "pro-war-Bush-supporter" Berg, as is claimed, this should be very easy for him to deny.
Let him do so.
2) Berg was PRO-WAR. His dad is anti-war, but Nick Berg was PRO-WAR. He supported the liberation of the Iraqi people. If he granted an interview to Michael Moore, it was probably only to share his idealism with a camera.
Michael Moore, media whore...oops I mean hound, is getting alot of mileage out of this supposed interview video.
People entertaining ridiculous theories only adds fuel to the fire.
It's far more likely that Berg, being pro-war etc, thought himself a bit invincible and with his apparent love for derring-do and adventure, got himself too close to the belly of the beast in Iraq.
I am going to ad something like this on my running conspiracies at my blog. It does make total sense to me. Seeing as Michael berg was so adament about his son being a Bush supporter, almost to the point of it being a cover. Of course its been reported that Nick Berg's sister is "very skeptical" on Moore and the video. And she also was the one who removed the CANSWER signs from the yard, so I am torn between believing that Nick was a supporter, possibly along with his sister, and him being a plant of Moore and CANSWER.
The date of Moore's column is April 14th. For its significance, this site provides a very useful timeline:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread49809/pg1
It is after his release by Iraqi police / U.S. intelligence, which happened on April 6th. It is also four days after Berg refused safe passage out of the country, offered by an official at the U.S. consulate. He is known to have sent at least one email to his family on the 10th.
I believe, absent any evidence, and on pure speculation, that he also emailed his contacts at Moore's company, reporting that he had eluded discovery by U.S. intelligence and subsequent deportation, and would now be following up on a potential contact within the Iraqi "resistence." I believe Moore was so elated by this report that it motivated the over-the-top mocking tone of his April 14th column, as he was then expecting a scoop of galactic proportions: the first on-camera interview with a leader of the noble resistence against the hated, evil "occupying forces."
Berg was not heard from, alive, again.
Michael Moore said that they are not "the enemy". He also said in that same rant that "they will win". Michael Moore is a traitor to his country for saying these things in a time of war. He is today's Axis Sally (more Sally than he is Lord Haw Haw, she also interview the military under false pretense). Both of those broadcasters were convicted of treason. Lord Haw Haw was hanged in England while Axis Sally was jailed for a number of years.
The response he got at Cannes was a modern day Nueremberg rally (as chronicled in Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda film, Triumph Of The Will). Michael has said that he walked out to the lobby while they were still clapping. They were not applauding Michael; they were holding an AntiAmerica/AntiBush rally.
Goebbels would be proud of Michael Moore.
I felt, as soon as this thing broke, it stinks. It keeps getting more weird by the day.
Based on the facts so far, this is the only conclusion a rational person can come to. So many unanswered questions regarding Berg...the Moussaui connection...chance? Unlikely.
Always disliked Moore, but to see him happily go up in his tux to accept the Palme D'or, with the possibility of Berg's life on hiss hands...if true, he is a bigger bastard than one could imagine. Enterprising reporters should be investigating these connections.
I ask because I was trying to shoot down some claims made by his dad on another thread (an article from his dad).
It is an interesting theory.
It did not meet my smell test on a number of levels.
Its an interesting theory. I think that either way Moore should be explaining to whatever government agency is investigating it how he came by film of Berg no one else seems to have.
.
On March 23, 2003,
the Day Pvt. JESSICA LYNCH...
was captured in Iraq:
..T'was US -vs- THEM at the OSCARS = Results
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=883
(Shortly afterwards MEL GIBSON's ICON Productions withdrew its funding of MICHAEL MOORE's F-9/11 Propaganda Film)
.
The long version, almost 10 minutes, has the screaming while the camera shows him still looking at the camera, and the shouts of Allhu Akbar begin, but Berg is NOT the one screaming. He just sits there motionless. Sitting upright.
The theory Berg was working for Moore as an incountry spy/camerman is posted in this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143602/posts
Berg is the closest thing I've seen to Forrest Gump. This guy is in the middle of everything: Does work on a tower at Abu Prison, is detained by the US in Iraq, loans his computer to a 911 terrorist contact, and now allegedly has a link to Moore's movie. Too weird for words.
When I saw the photos from Cannes, with Tarantino, dressed in a sloppy T-shirt, with a raised fist salute, smiling like a hyper-geek when his jury selected Moore's propaganda film....I had the very same thought as you:
And that makes Miramax the "Department of Propaganda" for America.
A great analogy.
With all due respect;
you are citing what has been reported in the mainstream media, neither you nor I knows what Nick Berg's beliefs were.
BUT, he grew up listening to his daddy - and that's enough for me to doubt the "Pro-Bush" reports we have seen so often and seen without any means to confirm them.
As to mercenaries;
"Contractor" does not equal mercenary.
Contractors are the same today as for generations past: someone has a job to do in a backwater neighborhood and someone else is willing to risk his butt to do the job for big bucks and a kind of a buzz.
"Adventure" ain't "Mercenary".
Moore ain't much of a journalist;
more like Andy Kaufman on carbohydrates.
The real mercenaries today are the NGOs and the for-hire ex-military who infest the bureaucracy built up around reconstruction and all the in-fighting that might entail.
Makes you miss Mike Hoare and the good old Agency listening post days.
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.