I think that's the right choice. Maybe my caution wasn't strong enough. It's just awful, and I'm not sure anyone needs to see it.
I watched it because I figured, as with the Abu Ghraib pictures, enough of the rest of the world would see it, and see it as a noteworthy event in the war for good or for ill, that it was important to know just what we were talking about. The audio is indeed much, much worse than the video, which, to be honest, almost doesn't look real.
What I am seeing around the right wing web is a common cry that "the left" isn't linking to this and that somehow is a indicator of unreasonable bias. Or rather, that it's every American's duty somehow to witness it in order to know "who we are dealing with." This is usually followed shortly upon by very serious talk of a nuclear response. No, I'm not kidding.
The argument is, of course, nonsensical but I also have to wonder about the outrage. Yes, it's sickening and animalistic, and filming the slaughter of a defenseless person takes a truly special breed of sociopathy. However, beheading is at least a much faster death than, say, being shot in the stomach, or being burned to death, or systemic infection after a limb is blown off, or countless other ways people are dying every day in Iraq, both ours and theirs.
American outrage seems to have boiled over this and the four contractors at Fallujah, while many of the same people express astonishment that the average Iraqi, who has seen horrific deaths regularly for over a year now, seems hostile towards us. There have been thousands of deaths in Iraq more agonizing than Nicholas Berg's, as awful as it was, and I suspect the rest of the Middle East watches our reaction and thinks, "What a bunch of hypocritical pussies."
Also interesting to note that the only semi-major outlet to make the video available is the not-quite-right-wing Salon.
I'm not going to watch, but to anyone who has seen the unedited version - some say he must have been dead before the beheading, because there is not enough blood. Would you concur with that?
The video isn't of very high quality, so it's difficult to answer that question. One thing to note (stop reading now if you don't want to read gruesome details) is that there's clearly an edit between the time the first few cuts have been made and the time his head is finally severed. It's just not that easy to cut off a head, and it looks like they edited out some of the work it took. It's possible they also mopped up some blood during that time. Honestly, what apostropher says above about "it almost doesn't look real" is apt. After the edit, either because it seems to be in slow motion, or because blood's been cleaned, or whatever, it doesn't quite look natural. But there's no question, given Berg's screams, that at some point on the tape, he's being killed.
Oh, come on. The audio is obviously not synchronized with the video. Turn off the sound and watch the video again. Berg doesn't flinch when the knife is inserted. There is nothing like the kind of blood you'd get from severing major arteries. Berg was dead when the beheading was performed.
This isn't too surprising. It's easier to behead a dead person, I should think -- they would tend to object less strenously.
There are many more questions that can be raised about this video. For one thing, why is Berg wearing what appears to be a US military prison uniform?
This has to be the most macabre discussion I'll ever have. I'm no expert, Bryan, but I've seen one other beheading video, and there wasn't much flinching in that one either. With Berg, the knife man is holding Berg's head by the hair and someone else is holding him down pretty firmly (actually, if you look at how firmly he's being held, I think you can see that he's alive).
I still don't think you can tell from this grainy video just how much blood is spilled. Isn't the floor red?
As for the jumpsuit, I'd say weird, but hardly dispositive. Maybe a U.S. truck was attacked and someone nabbed some jumpsuits. Who knows?
Not to say that there might not be something odd going on here. Again, who the hell knows? But the points raised seem like they have answers.
Um, why do you think this is particularly gruesome? Saddam averaged killing over 10,000 Iraqis a year, many a LOT worse than what happened to poor Mr. Berg.
As for why "the right wingers" are surprised at Iraqi resentment, well, we're not killing and torturing them in anything like the quantities Saddam did, we allow them many freedoms he denied them, and the people we DO hurt / kill tend to be people who a: actually deserve it or b: we're weren't trying to kill them, but sometimes shit happens.
we're not killing and torturing them in anything like the quantities Saddam did
Wow. I thought moral relativism was the exclusive domain of fuzzy-headed liberals.
we allow them many freedoms he denied them
Sort of. We have *promised* such, but delivered precious little thus far. Then there's that whole plunging their country into barely-contained anarchy with rampant crime. It's a bit easier to take the long view from here, where women feel safe to leave the house at night and we don't have to guard our houses with machine guns or drive through checkpoints with heavily armed, nervous soldiers who don't speak our language.
the people we DO hurt / kill tend to be people who a: actually deserve it
I suspect this is less true than you imagine, particularly with a military wedded to high-altitude bombardment, now engaged in high-density urban combat.
we're weren't trying to kill them, but sometimes shit happens
See, Greg, if that "shit happens" involved my child or my wife, I wouldn't really have it in me to take the sanguine view of it. I doubt you'd take it either if the bombs were exploding on your street instead of your television.
The issue here is that Saddam and the United States don't comprise an either/or scenario. I would think that many if not most Iraqis felt like pawns in the middle of the endless pissing match between us and him, following our previous propping him up.