What our wonderful Israeli allies are doing!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Nah, they don't commit terrorism and murder, do they? Tell that to the family of the American student they intentionally ran over with a bulldozer!

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030317_134.html)

Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112840_protestor17.shtml)

L.A. Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-corrie18mar18,1,6749402.story)

Israeli news: Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273498&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

In every one of these listings, including the Israeli news, it was indicated that this was not an accidental killing, that the driver was fully aware of the protestor's presence and actually ran over her twice before stopping.

I also find it interesting that the Israelis give three conflicting reasons for why they were razing Palestinian homes to the ground:

1) Looking for bombs. (yeah, right)
2) Blocking smuggling from Egypt (uh huh, sure)
3) A deterent against violent uprisings. (where I come from, when someone uses terror tactics to deter uprisings, we call that "terrorism.")

Of course, I am now expecting the usual flood of deluded "oh no, you're wrong because Israel can do no wrong" arguments.

[Solly]

Of course, I am now expecting the usual flood of deluded "oh no, you're wrong because Israel can do no wrong" arguments


Worse than that, Eirann, you'll be nibbled to death by one hundred dispensational geese!! :lol:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:41 AM
Solly:




Worse than that, Eirann, you'll be nibbled to death by one hundred dispensational geese!! :lol:
Oh, no, not geese! Please, God, no, not the geese!

*At UMSL, we have a major geese problem. Several years ago, part of the campus was dedicated as a sanctuary to endangered geese, but now that they're off the endangered list and have greatly multiplied, they still consider the campus home. I've seen them chase a student all the way around the library! It was quite funny, actually!*

[Piebald]

Yeah, I always thought that *accidental* running over of that poor girl was a tad suspicious...

[Ryokan]

that is very sad, although it is not the worst I have heard the Israeli's have done, or that we have done. But, I still maintain, as a standard policy, they don't murder civilians, just special cases. The Palestinain people need to repudiate suicide bombing before the Israelis will believe that talks can buy security.

[Solly]

Ryo, since the Palestinians are cramped into camps (where latest reports say some are living on $2 a day) I think it requires a gesture from the Israelis to show that they want the palestinians around, and value them as neighbours, instead of smashing their shops, closing the airport, stopping representatives travelling overseas, kicking them out of Jerusalem (and their jobs) every holiday. The palestinians were there already, it's the Israelis who started mass immigration and took over their land (hence, "Occupied Territories" in the title). It's the Israelis who employ overwhelming force against them. Until the Israelis stop with this "It's our land, God gave it to us" nothing will change.

[Ryokan]

they did offer to give it up though, Solly. The Palestinains started this intifada to see if they couldn't get more.
The Israelis are up to all this because they have completely lost faith in the peace rocess, and unless the Palestinains do something to convince the Israelis they just don't want to push them into the sea, Israel will get more and more vicious and irrational. Someone has to do something to restore faith in the process, or it will never end.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:21 AM
Eireann:

Nah, they don't commit terrorism and murder, do they? Tell that to the family of the American student they intentionally ran over with a bulldozer!

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030317_134.html)

Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112840_protestor17.shtml)

L.A. Times (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112840_protestor17.shtml)

Israeli news: Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273498&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

In every one of these listings, including the Israeli news, it was indicated that this was not an accidental killing, that the driver was fully aware of the protestor's presence and actually ran over her twice before stopping.


I've read each account, and the reports do not indicate that it was an intentional killing. Rather, the accounts carry reports of those who claim that it was intentional.
Your presentation above seems unsuitably inaccurate, imo.



I also find it interesting that the Israelis give three conflicting reasons for why they were razing Palestinian homes to the ground:

1) Looking for bombs. (yeah, right)
2) Blocking smuggling from Egypt (uh huh, sure)
3) A deterent against violent uprisings. (where I come from, when someone uses terror tactics to deter uprisings, we call that "terrorism.")


How do those reasons "conflict"?



Of course, I am now expecting the usual flood of deluded "oh no, you're wrong because Israel can do no wrong" arguments.

"Israel can do no wrong."
Feel better, now?
It seems to me that you're putting spin on the story. Why is that?

[John Reece]

Until the Israelis stop with this "It's our land, God gave it to us" nothing will change.

Sad but so, Solly.

Zionism vs. Antisemitism

Two wrongs cannot produce a right.

Certainly not a "peace process" imposed by bullys with bribes upon two opposing parties who cannot/will not yield re the pathological positions at the heart of the problem: Zionism and Antisemitism.

It seems to me that Zionism is the root of the problem.

No false charge of antisemitism can change that fact.

The refusal on the part of the Jews to accept the One God sent to them as their Messiah has had, and will continue to have, terrible consequences.

Sad but so.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:36 PM
John Reece:



Sad but so, Solly.

Zionism vs. Antisemitism

Two wrongs cannot produce a right.

Certainly not a "peace process" imposed by bullys with bribes upon two opposing parties who cannot/will not yield re the pathological positions at the heart of the problem: Zionism and Antisemitism.

It seems to me that Zionism is the root of the problem.


Does the nation of Israel, as established in the wake of WW2, have a right to exist?
The nations surrounding Israel attacked them with the intention of wiping them off the map. Sorry, but I sympathize with their impulse to keep the land that they took from aggressor nations. That said, it is proper to use the land in bargaining for a peace settlement, and it is needlessly(?) antagonistic to continue placing settlers on the land if it's going to be given back.
Remember that the Arab nations wanted no independent Palestine when Israel was established as a modern nation.



No false charge of antisemitism can change that fact.


I tend to think that the Palestinians would be aided by a policy of not blowing up Israeli civilians. Every time somebody from the Palestinian region blows up an Israeli, this tends to reinforce the belief that somebody is making bombs in the area run the the PA.

[Pilgrim]

No real spin about it. I know you don't want to believe it but the sources I hear from in Israel tell me that it was indeed intentional.

I have never had reason to doubt their honesty before and so I have no reason to doubt it now.

[Captain Ochre]

BTW, if I understand correctly, the US has no formal alliance with Israel.
We do have one with Egypt, however (despite their treatment of the Coptics).

[spl_cadet]

According to the source I saw, she was standing right in front of the bulldozer as it was coming towards the building and then lost her footing and slipped beneath the bulldozer. Sounds more like she's a canidate for a Darwin Award than a victim of "Israeli violence."

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:46 PM
Pilgrim:

I know you don't want to believe it but the sources I hear from in Israel tell me that it was indeed intentional.


Whether or not I want to believe it is immaterial. Do you dispute the facts that I affirmed(?): The authors of the news stories do not place any blame. They simply report eyewitness accounts where opinions are given. Eireann's presentation seemed to go beyond that. Disagree? If so, why?



I have never had reason to doubt their honesty before and so I have no reason to doubt it now.

I have no basis for judging the anecdotal accounts delivered personally to you.
If you told me about the accounts, then maybe I'd give you my opinion on their reliability (based on content). Or, maybe not.

"No real spin about it."
That's spin.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:54 AM
spl_cadet:

According to the source I saw, she was standing right in front of the bulldozer as it was coming towards the building and then lost her footing and slipped beneath the bulldozer. Sounds more like she's a canidate for a Darwin Award than a victim of "Israeli violence."
Read the reports again. According to witnesses, she was standing in front of the bulldozer then climbed up onto the scoop shovel. She was leaning in toward the cab shouting at the driver through a bullhorn! The driver watched her, then lurched the bulldozer forward, shaking her loose from the blade, then the blade came down onto her. He then dragged her for several feet, all the while knowing she was under the thing, then proceeded to run over her, then back up over her again. That doesn't sound like someone who was standing on the ground and accidentally slipped, as you suggested. Eyewitnesses say otherwise.

[GrayPilgrim]

Sounds even more a candidate for the Darwin Awards! Jumping onto a piece of moving construction equipment with a bullhorn does not seem to be the most intelligent nor the most prudent of actions. BTW eye witnesses are generally considered to be unreliable when faced with traumatic scenes.

[Pilgrim]

Great, so now anyone who stands up for a cause is a candidate for the Darwin awards...I'll be sure to tell that to all the brave men and women who hit the front lines in the next few days.

Cap'n, I recieve daily emails from friends in Israel. And I also think that I have a unique perspective of what happens there because of what I have personally experienced in Israel. I have said this on TOL but I think I can say it about this site as well, I'm pretty sure I am the only person posting here who has been an eye witness to both suicide bombing in Israel and Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians. What I write about therefore may be tainted by personal experience and so bias, but it is better than being an arm chair politician and stratagist influenced by rhetoric and political spin.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:31 AM
GrayPilgrim:

Sounds even more a candidate for the Darwin Awards! Jumping onto a piece of moving construction equipment with a bullhorn does not seem to be the most intelligent nor the most prudent of actions. BTW eye witnesses are generally considered to be unreliable when faced with traumatic scenes.
Do these statements seem even remotely equal:

1) She was foolish with her in-your-face method of protesting.

2) She deserved to be murdered.

And yes, eyewitnesses are often unreliable in traumatic instances, due to "narrowing of focus" and suggestibility. But when the same testimony is given by several different eyewitnesses, it becomes more and more reliable.

By the way, from my interpretation, I think the dozer was stopped when she climbed on. According to some of the witnesses, she climbed on, the driver looked at her, then started moving the dozer forward.

[flipper]

Eireann:

Yes, but many people who post on this group would have believed Gandhi would have been a suitable candidate for the Darwin awards and would have laughed down their sleeves at him also. So I shouldn't worry about it.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 11:42 AM
Eireann:


Do these statements seem even remotely equal:

1) She was foolish with her in-your-face method of protesting.

2) She deserved to be murdered.

And yes, eyewitnesses are often unreliable in traumatic instances, due to "narrowing of focus" and suggestibility. But when the same testimony is given by several different eyewitnesses, it becomes more and more reliable.

By the way, from my interpretation, I think the dozer was stopped when she climbed on. According to some of the witnesses, she climbed on, the driver looked at her, then started moving the dozer forward.

I would say yes to one and no to two. Okay from my read of your intial post I thought she hopped on to a moving dozer, not a stationary one. If it was moving I say that she wsa foolish. But foolhardiness does not equal deserving of death and murder. If and I mean if that is the case than the dozer driver should be prosecuted.

[Solly]

Today @ 02:51 PM
Captain Ochre:

BTW, if I understand correctly, the US has no formal alliance with Israel.
We do have one with Egypt, however (despite their treatment of the Coptics).


I would consider bankrolling the nation a formal alliance

[Ryokan]

Solly has a point.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:23 PM
Eireann:


Read the reports again. According to witnesses, she was standing in front of the bulldozer then climbed up onto the scoop shovel.


Here's what appears to be a balanced account. This one omits some of the details presented in other accounts.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749747645.html



She was leaning in toward the cab shouting at the driver through a bullhorn!


How do you lean in toward a bulldozer cab from the blade of a bulldozer?
This is not the type of bulldozer used, I suspect, but it gives an idea of the type of spatial relationship we may be talking about.
http://www.usa-fepp.org/bulldozer.jpg

It was probably a bigger bulldozer, more like this one:
http://www.cactus48.com/images/bulldozer.jpg



The driver watched her, then lurched the bulldozer forward, shaking her loose from the blade, then the blade came down onto her.


What part of any of the articles you listed confirms that the driver "watched her"???? I saw "in full view"--but that doesn't mean the same thing, does it? That's why I say you're spinning, Eireann.



He then dragged her for several feet, all the while knowing she was under the thing, then proceeded to run over her, then back up over her again.


Eireann doesn't just read the news, he's inside the driver's head.
:no:



That doesn't sound like someone who was standing on the ground and accidentally slipped, as you suggested. Eyewitnesses say otherwise.

What you describe just above seems abundantly confirmed by eyewitnesses (albeit she apparently began by sitting in front of the bulldozer). The point at issue is whether or not the driver was particularly aware of her presence.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:40 PM
Pilgrim:
Cap'n, I recieve daily emails from friends in Israel.


That's nice. Like I said, I'm in no position to judge things that you were told that you aren't sharing with us.



And I also think that I have a unique perspective of what happens there because of what I have personally experienced in Israel. I have said this on TOL but I think I can say it about this site as well, I'm pretty sure I am the only person posting here who has been an eye witness to both suicide bombing in Israel and Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians. What I write about therefore may be tainted by personal experience and so bias, but it is better than being an arm chair politician and stratagist influenced by rhetoric and political spin.

That's also very nice. If I err on the facts, feel free to point it out. If you think that I'm wrong about Eireann applying spin to the news reports, likewise point it out and deal with the evidence I'm pointing to that indicates that he is spinning.
I'll concede that your personal contacts make you holier-than-me with respect to the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Does that have anything to do with something that I have actually written, btw?

[Epoetker]

GK Chesterton always believed that travel narrowed the mind. My view also. I prefer to come to logical conclusions in my armchair unhampered by the the clouds of war, thank you very much. And the logical conclusion of this is that the girl was foolish and irresponsible to do what she did, and until I can see an equal amount of foreign protestors standing in front of Israeli families under attack by Palestinians, I will continue to rhetorically savage them for their idiocy, sanctimony, and cowardice.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:08 PM
Solly:

I would consider bankrolling the nation a formal alliance

Great, then we're allies with North Korea, too.
Or is it only the top one or two recipients who qualfy as "allies"?

"North Korea received nearly $300 million in food aid from United States, South Korea, Japan, and the European Union in 2001. China and the United Nations have also given substantial assistance to North Korea."
http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwh20030128b7.html

Hey, I bet if we trace worldwide foreign aid programs it'll prove that we're one big happy family after all.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:13 PM
Epoetker:

GK Chesterton always believed that travel narrowed the mind. My view also. I prefer to come to logical conclusions in my armchair unhampered by the the clouds of war, thank you very much. And the logical conclusion of this is that the girl was foolish and irresponsible to do what she did, and until I can see an equal amount of foreign protestors standing in front of Israeli families under attack by Palestinians, I will continue to rhetorically savage them for their idiocy, sanctimony, and cowardice.
In other words, if the act is committed by Israelis, Zionists, or Christians, then it isn't murder because it's always the victim's fault, right? That's pathetic.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:50 AM
Captain Ochre:



Here's what appears to be a balanced account. This one omits some of the details presented in other accounts.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749747645.html
Interesting that you use the words "balanced account" and "omits details" in the same sentence. Have you ever heard the term "oxymoron?"


How do you lean in toward a bulldozer cab from the blade of a bulldozer?
Quite easily. I didn't say she stuck her head into the cab, I said the eyewitness say she was leaning toward the cab shouting at the driver through a bullhorn.


This is not the type of bulldozer used, I suspect, but it gives an idea of the type of spatial relationship we may be talking about.
http://www.usa-fepp.org/bulldozer.jpg

It was probably a bigger bulldozer, more like this one:
http://www.cactus48.com/images/bulldozer.jpg
Even in the largest of these, do you honestly think you're not going to see someone standing on top of your scoop? They aren't that far away!




What part of any of the articles you listed confirms that the driver "watched her"???? I saw "in full view"--but that doesn't mean the same thing, does it? That's why I say you're spinning, Eireann.

What you describe just above seems abundantly confirmed by eyewitnesses (albeit she apparently began by sitting in front of the bulldozer). The point at issue is whether or not the driver was particularly aware of her presence.
There are only two logical conclusions that can be drawn here:

1) The driver was aware of her and the numerous onlookers that were nearby shouting for him to stop.

2) Israel is in the practice of employing blind and deaf people to operate their heavy machinery.

I'm sure you would prefer to believe it is #2, but I don't think anyone on here is really dumb enough to believe that. But, I could be wrong about that.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

What I'm curious about, if the driver had been an Iraqi or a Palestinian, how many of you would be crying that it was the girl's own fault? Let me wager a guess -- none of you!

[flipper]

Captain Ochre:


http://www.usa-fepp.org/bulldozer.jpg

Yes, and what a happy image that is. I feel you've made your case that Israel are not sometimes agressive bullies quite admirably.

[Pilgrim]

That's for darn sure...it would then be called yet another example of palestinian terror tacktics.

[Wesley's son]

Today @ 03:21 AM
Eireann:

Nah, they don't commit terrorism and murder, do they? Tell that to the family of the American student they intentionally ran over with a bulldozer!

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030317_134.html)

Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112840_protestor17.shtml)

L.A. Times (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112840_protestor17.shtml)

Israeli news: Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273498&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

In every one of these listings, including the Israeli news, it was indicated that this was not an accidental killing, that the driver was fully aware of the protestor's presence and actually ran over her twice before stopping.

I also find it interesting that the Israelis give three conflicting reasons for why they were razing Palestinian homes to the ground:

1) Looking for bombs. (yeah, right)
2) Blocking smuggling from Egypt (uh huh, sure)
3) A deterent against violent uprisings. (where I come from, when someone uses terror tactics to deter uprisings, we call that "terrorism.")

Of course, I am now expecting the usual flood of deluded "oh no, you're wrong because Israel can do no wrong" arguments.

Do you believe that Israel can do no right? Were you up in arms when buses, restaurants, and discos are turned into bloodbaths?

What I mean is your moral indignation when Israelis are murdered also inflamed?

If so, good

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:41 PM
Eireann:


Interesting that you use the words "balanced account" and "omits details" in the same sentence. Have you ever heard the term "oxymoron?"


Sure, I'm familiar with the term. Why would the omission of detail automatically lead to the conclusion that an an account wasn't balanced? I can see claiming that the account is not exhaustive, but your conclusion doesn't appear to follow.

In fact, by your own measure, your own summaries of the articles is not balanced since you left out details, which would support my claim that you're spinning.



Quite easily.


Granted. I can lean toward the cab, too. (The Cap'n rises, leans toward Israel and the bulldozer, then resumes his seat).
That was easy.



I didn't say she stuck her head into the cab, I said the eyewitness say she was leaning toward the cab shouting at the driver through a bullhorn.


It is implied throughout that the driver could not have avoided seeing her. Probably saw me, too. :wink:
That's why I provided the bulldozer images.



Even in the largest of these, do you honestly think you're not going to see someone standing on top of your scoop? They aren't that far away!

According to the ISM activist, Corrie was wearing a bright jacket and climbed onto the bulldozer shovel-plow and began shouting at the driver.
The above detail is not included in 3/4 of the links you provided (two of which are actually the same article), btw. :wink: Can you say "oxymoron"?
I must have missed the part where she was leaning. Maybe Eireann picked that bit up from inside the driver's head?
The photo in one of the articles you provided shows the front of a bulldozer, quite possibly like the one involved in the fatal incident. There is not enough detail visible enough for me to visualize where or how she was standing, assuming that the eyewitness account is reliable.
What exactly did the driver actually, see, Eireann?



There are only two logical conclusions that can be drawn here:

1) The driver was aware of her and the numerous onlookers that were nearby shouting for him to stop.


Don't the activists routinely shout for the 'dozers to stop? Just curious--what language were they shouting in?



2) Israel is in the practice of employing blind and deaf people to operate their heavy machinery.


Or maybe they dare to employ people who don't speak English?
Your false dilemma is blatant.



I'm sure you would prefer to believe it is #2, but I don't think anyone on here is really dumb enough to believe that. But, I could be wrong about that.

If the driver killed her intentionally, then he killed her intentionally. Whether he did or not, you're spinning. That's what I object to.

[Wesley's son]

Today @ 02:15 PM
flipper:

Captain Ochre:



Yes, and what a happy image that is. I feel you've made your case that Israel are not sometimes agressive bullies quite admirably.

Shame on Israel for trying to quench the terrorist hellstorm by breaking down the command centers. Shame on the Israeli government for trying to prevent future murders of its people.

Arab people have more freedom in Isreal than in the countries of their ancestry. This is especially true of Arab women who can vote only in Israel.

Should this woman have been killed because of her stupidity. NO, of course not. But if you attempt to protect the sanctuary of terrorists, then you are somewhat complict with their crimes.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:15 PM
flipper:

Captain Ochre:
Yes, and what a happy image that is. I feel you've made your case that Israel are not sometimes agressive bullies quite admirably.

My case is that Eireann is spinning the story. If you can find me arguing apart from that end in this thread, then feel free to quote me in support of what you claim I'm claiming.

Straw man, afaics, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.
But I don't think so.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:44 PM
Eireann:

What I'm curious about, if the driver had been an Iraqi or a Palestinian, how many of you would be crying that it was the girl's own fault? Let me wager a guess -- none of you!

Speaking for myself, I'd just be looking for the spin you'd put on that story.

:bonk:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

What spin, Captain? The numerous eyewitness accounts speak for themselves. You can continue to be an Israeli apologist and spin the blame on the girl, or you can actually read the articles and the witness accounts and admit it is what it is. Murder. Either that, or the driver was blind, deaf, or had an IQ of 5.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:06 PM
Eireann:

What spin, Captain?


Let's use your latest post as our example, shall we?



The numerous eyewitness accounts speak for themselves.


Or they would if you could resist editorializing. :smile: *
*note: I don't consider this particular bit an example of Eireann's spin.



You can continue to be an Israeli apologist


Uh-huh. Where have I attempted to make excuses for the actions of the Israelis? Quote me.



and spin the blame on the girl,


Uh-huh. Where did I ever blame the lass? Quote me.
I may have said that it was reckless of her to climb up on the bulldozer, but that's it. Would you disagree with that assessment?



or you can actually read the articles and the witness accounts and admit it is what it is. Murder.


:rofl:
No spin there!
:rofl:



Either that, or the driver was blind, deaf, or had an IQ of 5.

Eireann just loves those false dilemmas (trilemmas, quadrilemmas, whatever).

[Ishmael]

I personally don't have a problem with Palestinian girls protesting, I have a problem with terrorists. Unfortuneatly Palestinian Leaders seem to think that their best course of action is homocide bombers who kill the defenseless with no descrimination of race, sex, or age.

One Bulldozer atrocity isn't going to make your anti-Israel/Anti-American case any better in light of Palestinian supported terrorism. But the point is noted: Isrealis aren't perfect in their repsonses to murdering thugs and those who support them.

Nevertheless, I am sure you will find many more "issues" to help you in your crusade to hate your country and her friends.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Captain, unless someone got the entire incident on video tape, then the eyewitness accounts are all we have to go on. And there are quite a few of them. You can discount them all you want in your feeble attempt to put Israel in the best possible light. But it is just that -- a feeble attempt.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:29 PM
Calvinist:

I personally don't have a problem with Palestinian girls protesting, I have a problem with terrorists.
It wasn't a Palestinian girl, it was an American college student.


Unfortuneatly Palestinian Leaders seem to think that their best course of action is homocide bombers who kill the defenseless with no descrimination of race, sex, or age.
And so you think it is just to raze Palestinian homes to the ground (whether they belong to terrorists or not) just because you're angry at a few people? Well, that doesn't surprise me. It does seem to be the Christian mentality of late.


One Bulldozer atrocity isn't going to make your anti-Israel/Anti-American case any better in light of Palestinian supported terrorism.
Still waiting for you to support this bit of pathetic ad hominem. I've challenged you several times to show where I said anything anti-American, and so far you've continued to drop the ball? Are you going to eventually rise to that challenge, or are you just flinging childish insults?


But the point is noted: Isrealis aren't perfect in their repsonses to murdering thugs and those who support them.
Nice try to twist the argument, but she wasn't supporting the Palestinian terrorists, she was supporting the common people of Palestine that are being forced out of their homes by continuous Israeli oppression.


Nevertheless, I am sure you will find many more "issues" to help you in your crusade to hate your country and her friends.
I'll admit, you are quite ready with the ad hominem, aren't you? Is that really the best you can do?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 09:01 PM
Eireann:

Captain, unless someone got the entire incident on video tape, then the eyewitness accounts are all we have to go on. And there are quite a few of them. You can discount them all you want in your feeble attempt to put Israel in the best possible light. But it is just that -- a feeble attempt.

You just can't bring yourself to admit that I'm not even attempting to make any case for placing Israel in "the best possible light"--can you?
Your straw man fallacy is just another fallacy.
Notice how you have established a pattern of not replying to my specific points? You either ignore them, or respond to them sideways.

The eyewitnesses cited by you say that the girl was in front of the 'dozer, and that she attempted to discourage the advancement of the 'dozer--apparently event to the point of climbing up on the vehicle while it was moving. Witnesses are sure that the driver must have seen her, but nobody (afaics) testifies to having witnessed the driver looking at her and/or acknowledging her presence. Apparently she fell from the vehicle and was crushed. No report as to how far the moving vehicle had proceeded after she fell, afaics. The witnesses report that the vehicle backed up. We know that it moved over her again, but we have no report (afaics) indicating that she became visible behind the 'dozer as it advanced.
What we seem to have is a person (Eireann) who connects dots the witnesses don't presume to connect.

You'd make a great judge.
:wink:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:32 PM
Captain Ochre:



You just can't bring yourself to admit that I'm not even attempting to make any case for placing Israel in "the best possible light"--can you?
Your straw man fallacy is just another fallacy.
Notice how you have established a pattern of not replying to my specific points? You either ignore them, or respond to them sideways.

The eyewitnesses cited by you say that the girl was in front of the 'dozer, and that she attempted to discourage the advancement of the 'dozer--apparently event to the point of climbing up on the vehicle while it was moving. Witnesses are sure that the driver must have seen her, but nobody (afaics) testifies to having witnessed the driver looking at her and/or acknowledging her presence. Apparently she fell from the vehicle and was crushed. No report as to how far the moving vehicle had proceeded after she fell, afaics. The witnesses report that the vehicle backed up. We know that it moved over her again, but we have no report (afaics) indicating that she became visible behind the 'dozer as it advanced.
What we seem to have is a person (Eireann) who connects dots the witnesses don't presume to connect.

You'd make a great judge.
:wink:
Did you actually read the reports? Or did you just spot check? If you had actually read them, you would find some of the witnesses saying exactly the things you said they didn't say, you would find them precisely connecting the dots you say they didn't connect. But if you can't look past your own zionist bias enough to see that, I can't help you.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:09 PM
Eireann:


Did you actually read the reports?


I read the reports, along with some you didn't link.
I challenge you to provide quotations of the witnesses that contradict my summary.
Why didn't you do so in your last reply? Addicted to argument by assertion? Aversion to evidence?



Or did you just spot check? If you had actually read them, you would find some of the witnesses saying exactly the things you said they didn't say, you would find them precisely connecting the dots you say they didn't connect. But if you can't look past your own zionist bias enough to see that, I can't help you.

:rofl:

You've been challenged. Put up, or shut up.
:smile:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

From the Ha'aretz article:

According to the ISM activist, Corrie was wearing a bright jacket and climbed onto the bulldozer shovel-plow and began shouting at the driver. "There's no way he didn't see her, since she was practically looking into the cabin. At one stage, he turned around toward the building. The bulldozer kept moving, and she slipped and fell off the plow. But the bulldozer kept moving, the shovel above her. I guess it was about 10 or 15 meters that it dragged her and for some reason didn't stop. We shouted like crazy to the driver through loudspeakers that he should stop, but he just kept going and didn't lift the shovel. Then it stopped and backed up. We ran to Rachel. She was still breathing."

There's a pretty good quote from a witness not saying that she was atop the shovel, not saying that she was practically looking into the cabin of the dozer, and not concluding that there was no way the soldier didn't see her. By the way, in case you didn't catch it, the "nots" were to emphasize your contention that no such witness statements were ever provided.

PS -- I just realized I accidentally pasted the wrong url to the LA Times article, so it was a repeat of the Seattle PI article. It has now been corrected.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

By the way, that quote was from the article in Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, the one least likely to slant the report against the Israelis.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:35 PM
Wesley's son:



Do you believe that Israel can do no right? Were you up in arms when buses, restaurants, and discos are turned into bloodbaths?

What I mean is your moral indignation when Israelis are murdered also inflamed?

If so, good
My moral indignation is certainly ruffled when the US speaks of going against all terrorist states but ignores Israel as one of those states, when it's quite clear that many of the activities Israel sponsors would certainly fall into the catagory of "terrorist."

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:31 PM
Eireann:

From the Ha'aretz article:

According to the ISM activist, Corrie was wearing a bright jacket and climbed onto the bulldozer shovel-plow and began shouting at the driver. "There's no way he didn't see her, since she was practically looking into the cabin. At one stage, he turned around toward the building. The bulldozer kept moving, and she slipped and fell off the plow. But the bulldozer kept moving, the shovel above her. I guess it was about 10 or 15 meters that it dragged her and for some reason didn't stop. We shouted like crazy to the driver through loudspeakers that he should stop, but he just kept going and didn't lift the shovel. Then it stopped and backed up. We ran to Rachel. She was still breathing."

There's a pretty good quote from a witness not saying that she was atop the shovel,


The shovel is part of the vehicle. You haven't contradicted my summary.



not saying that she was practically looking into the cabin of the dozer,


Where's the supposed contradiction with my summary? Omitted detail? Omission isn't contradiction.



and not concluding that there was no way the soldier didn't see her.


And the match is particularly close to my summary in this instance. Why would you imagine a contradiction?



By the way, in case you didn't catch it, the "nots" were to emphasize your contention that no such witness statements were ever provided.


Yes, a trio of straw men. I got that.



PS -- I just realized I accidentally pasted the wrong url to the LA Times article, so it was a repeat of the Seattle PI article. It has now been corrected.

Thanks, I'll check the new link just to see if one of your claims finds support there.
Here's my summary again, for comparison.

The eyewitnesses cited by you say that the girl was in front of the 'dozer, and that she attempted to discourage the advancement of the 'dozer--apparently event to the point of climbing up on the vehicle while it was moving. Witnesses are sure that the driver must have seen her, but nobody (afaics) testifies to having witnessed the driver looking at her and/or acknowledging her presence. Apparently she fell from the vehicle and was crushed. No report as to how far the moving vehicle had proceeded after she fell, afaics. The witnesses report that the vehicle backed up. We know that it moved over her again, but we have no report (afaics) indicating that she became visible behind the 'dozer as it advanced.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:49 PM
Captain Ochre:
Don't the activists routinely shout for the 'dozers to stop? Just curious--what language were they shouting in?

Or maybe they dare to employ people who don't speak English?
Your false dilemma is blatant.
Very unlikely, as English is a required language in Israeli schools, and the Israeli military requires a certain level of fluency in English. I waited to post this until after I got ahold of one of my chat buddies, Elad, who is an ex-soldier in Israel. I wanted to make sure my information was correct on that.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Captain, now you're merely arguing semantics. Talk about a straw man! Use your head! Based on her relative position to the driver, and the fact that she was wearing a very "loud" color, and carrying a bullhorn, and that the driver was being shouted at from several people to stop because she had fallen underneath, you would have to be extremely dense or extremely deluded to assume he wasn't aware of her. At the very least, you almost have assume he saw her fall from the shovel, even if he didn't see her go under the treads. Now if you were a driver and you saw someone fall off your shovel, and you actually cared whether they lived or died, wouldn't you at least climb down and make sure that she was out of the way before rolling on forward? When you put all the factors together, I don't see how any sane and reasonable person (short of a Zionist) could possibly think that the driver was unaware of her presence. That's just such an incredibly preposterous conclusion!

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 11:01 PM
Eireann:


Very unlikely, as English is a required language in Israeli schools, and the Israeli military requires a certain level of fluency in English.


Where was it reported that the bulldozer was driven by a member of the Israeli military?



I waited to post this until after I got ahold of one of my chat buddies, Elad, who is an ex-soldier in Israel. I wanted to make sure my information was correct on that.

Would that you could demonstrate such restraint more often.
:wink:

[$cirisme]

Today @ 01:21 AM
Eireann:

Nah, they don't commit terrorism and murder, do they? Tell that to the family of the American student they intentionally ran over with a bulldozer!

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030317_134.html)

Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112840_protestor17.shtml)

L.A. Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-corrie18mar18,1,6749402.story)

Israeli news: Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273498&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

In every one of these listings, including the Israeli news, it was indicated that this was not an accidental killing, that the driver was fully aware of the protestor's presence and actually ran over her twice before stopping.

I also find it interesting that the Israelis give three conflicting reasons for why they were razing Palestinian homes to the ground:

1) Looking for bombs. (yeah, right)
2) Blocking smuggling from Egypt (uh huh, sure)
3) A deterent against violent uprisings. (where I come from, when someone uses terror tactics to deter uprisings, we call that "terrorism.")

Of course, I am now expecting the usual flood of deluded "oh no, you're wrong because Israel can do no wrong" arguments.

Ha! That was pretty funny.

You walk up between a house and a bulldozer, what do you think is gonna happen?

:ahem:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 11:08 PM
Eireann:

Captain, now you're merely arguing semantics. Talk about a straw man!


Do, please. What is the alleged straw man?
There are conclusions which may reasonably drawn from certain sentences, and those which cannot. You tend toward the latter.



Use your head!


Take your own advice.



Based on her relative position to the driver, and the fact that she was wearing a very "loud" color, and carrying a bullhorn, and that the driver was being shouted at from several people to stop because she had fallen underneath, you would have to be extremely dense or extremely deluded to assume he wasn't aware of her.


There's our straw man! Knew you could do it, Kid.
I haven't assumed that he wasn't aware of her. I have been criticizing your assumption that he was, based on the evidence that you provided.



At the very least, you almost have assume he saw her fall from the shovel, even if he didn't see her go under the treads.


After looking at other reports, I do not believe that she was on top of the shovel. I believe that she was atop a mound of dirt which was even with the top of the shovel--at least for a time. This is conjecture, but it appears to agree with the reports of most of the witnesses. There are photos taken very near the time of the incident.



Now if you were a driver and you saw someone fall off your shovel, and you actually cared whether they lived or died, wouldn't you at least climb down and make sure that she was out of the way before rolling on forward?


Yes, I think that I would. I still don't know all the details of this case, however, so I won't be judging the driver without better evidence than what I've got so far.



When you put all the factors together, I don't see how any sane and reasonable person (short of a Zionist) could possibly think that the driver was unaware of her presence. That's just such an incredibly preposterous conclusion!

We already saw that straw man. At least give us some variety.

[flipper]

Wesley's son:



Shame on Israel for trying to quench the terrorist hellstorm by breaking down the command centers. Shame on the Israeli government for trying to prevent future murders of its people.

Command center? Or someone's house? Often, it's just someone's house.

[flipper]

Eireann:

By the way, that quote was from the article in Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, the one least likely to slant the report against the Israelis.

Well, Ha'aretz is a left leaning paper and an outspoken critic of the Likud, so I don't think you could say they were unbiased.

The major paper least likely to slant a report against the Israelis would be the Jerusalem Post.

However, I don't think that the question here is of the reliability of Ha'aretz (it's usually pretty good) but rather of the eyewitness they spoke to.

[spl_cadet]

Ok, here is the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/index.html

What I find interesting is that there are several glaring contradictions between it and what the anti-Israel people are whining. Seeing as how I find CNN more credibly, I'll stick with it.

"She was raising her hands and yelling at the bulldozer driver to stop," Arraf said. "The bulldozer driver paid no attention. ... He buried Rachel with dirt, which ended up, obviously, knocking her down. Then he ran over her, and then reversed and ran over her again."

Other witnesses, however, reported that Corrie had scaled a pile of dirt but then lost her footing and fell backward behind it, out of sight of the bulldozer operator. The bulldozer continued moving forward, covering Corrie with dirt and then crushing her. "

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 03:08 PM
Eireann:

Captain, now you're merely arguing semantics. Talk about a straw man! Use your head! Based on her relative position to the driver, and the fact that she was wearing a very "loud" color, and carrying a bullhorn, and that the driver was being shouted at from several people to stop because she had fallen underneath, you would have to be extremely dense or extremely deluded to assume he wasn't aware of her. At the very least, you almost have assume he saw her fall from the shovel, even if he didn't see her go under the treads. Now if you were a driver and you saw someone fall off your shovel, and you actually cared whether they lived or died, wouldn't you at least climb down and make sure that she was out of the way before rolling on forward?

That's of course assuming that the driver heard the people shouting or knew that she had fallen off (from the looks of it, there's not much visibility from the cab).

[Cherith]

75% of Palestinians Killed by Israeli Focres Were Civilians

March 17, 2003, 08:55 AM

A report released by the Israeli Forces last week presented inaccurate numbers as well as a misleading percentage of civilian deaths on the hands of the Israeli forces, Palestinian human rights groups said. The Israeli army has claimed it had only killed 365 innocent Palestinian civilians, 130 of whom were children under the age of 16, since the beginning of the Intifada or uprising against the Israeli occupation 29 months ago, the Israeli daily newspaper Haretz reported last week.

The Israeli armys report put the number of Palestinians killed at 1945, 39% or 441 were described as activists belonging to Fatah, Hamas, and al-Jihad factions.Haaretz said the Israeli armys report described 22% or 417 of those killed as persons that were thought to have relation with terror activities.

However, local groups, such as the Palestinian Initiative for Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, (MIFTAH), said that IOF is not a credible source of information and the numbers provided by them should not be irresponsibly quoted without offering alternative numbers from Palestinian, Israeli or international organizations, which monitor the facts and figures.

According to MIFTAH, the total number of deaths amongst Palestinians in the conflict since September 2000 has reached 2183. 1656 (more than 75%) of those killed by Israeli occupation forces are innocent civilians: 429 of them children and 114 women.

Only 300 armed Palestinian fighters and 119 suicide bombers make up 19% of the dead, MIFTAH said. In addition, 57 Palestinians died as a result of being burnt or denied medical attention.

51 were killed in unclear circumstances to make up 5% of total deaths in Palestine. The Israeli armys report also ignored the number of Palestinians killed by armed Israeli settlers, who Palestinians say has reached dozens.

The number of Palestinians killed by armed Israeli settlers, according to the Palestine Monitor, a leading Palestinian human rights group, reached 52 until March 9 2003.

A total of 32 Palestinians were killed by Israeli police or citizens, the Palestine Monitor added. The number of people, below the age of eighteen, who were killed by IOF totaled 521, while 144 of the Palestinian victims were above the age of 50, it added.

Many Palestinians, as the IDF itself confirms, have been killed or inured by mistake, Israeli prominent analyst Zeev Schiff said in Haaretz Sunday.

Even a high state of alert on account of reports of a terrorist infiltration cannot justify the aerial shooting of a lone figure in an open field, Schiff added.

Schiff was referring to an incident Thursday in which two Israeli security guards were killed by Israeli forces fire from the air and the ground.

Palestine Media Center

www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,379746,00.html

I saw on another site report that the first suicide attack did not occur until April 1994. So much for all those who say this has "always" gone on and ignore 60-100 yrs of illegal immigration and occupation! :argh:

--C

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:24 AM
Cherith:



www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,379746,00.html

I saw on another site report that the first suicide attack did not occur until April 1994. So much for all those who say this has "always" gone on and ignore 60-100 yrs of illegal immigration and occupation! :argh:

--C

Would it be consistent, iyo, for American Indians to don a few bombs and blow up Whitey?
How about illegal immigrants in the US? Should proposition 57 have made it okay for native Californians to strap it on and head for the barrio?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Where was it reported that the bulldozer was driven by a member of the Israeli military?
"This is a regrettable accident," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman. "We are dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger."

"The army said soldiers were looking for explosives and tunnels used to smuggle weapons."

"A 23-year-old American woman, Rachel Corrie, a college student from Olympia, Washington who belonged to the International Solidarity Movement in the territories, was killed yesterday by an IDF bulldozer during a house demolition in Rafah."

IDF stands for Israel Defense Force"

"According to ISM activists, at one stage the IDF forces left the area and took up positions near the border, a few hundred meters away.

But around 5 P.M., the force returned, and the activists assumed the bulldozers were on their way to other houses."

"forces" don't generally include civilians

"Fellow members of the International Solidarity Movement who joined Corrie in acting as "human shields" in Rafah said the soldier driving the bulldozer had intended to run her over."

I thought you said you read the articles?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:27 PM
spl_cadet:

Ok, here is the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/index.html

What I find interesting is that there are several glaring contradictions between it and what the anti-Israel people are whining. Seeing as how I find CNN more credibly, I'll stick with it.

"She was raising her hands and yelling at the bulldozer driver to stop," Arraf said. "The bulldozer driver paid no attention. ... He buried Rachel with dirt, which ended up, obviously, knocking her down. Then he ran over her, and then reversed and ran over her again."

Other witnesses, however, reported that Corrie had scaled a pile of dirt but then lost her footing and fell backward behind it, out of sight of the bulldozer operator. The bulldozer continued moving forward, covering Corrie with dirt and then crushing her. "
I love the way you guys like to quote CNN when it suits your fancy and condemn it as too liberal when it doesn't. Yes, there are some glaring contradictions. For one, the CNN article omitted some key details when it summarized the accounts of the witnesses, as opposed to the Ha'aretz article which directly quoted the witnesses. I'll take a direct quote over an editorial summary any day.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:35 PM
Captain Ochre:



Do, please. What is the alleged straw man?
There are conclusions which may reasonably drawn from certain sentences, and those which cannot. You tend toward the latter.
No, I tend toward the former. You just don't want to accept it, because it would fly in the face of your apparently pro-Zionist bias.


Take your own advice.
I have. I examined all the eyewitness accounts and testimony given from the articles I posted, and a few that I haven't. Then I did the math. Apparently, math wasn't your strong point.


I have been criticizing your assumption that he was, based on the evidence that you provided.
Well, the evidence is pretty darn strong. If you don't think so, perhaps you would care to explain that, since you've done a pretty paltry job of countering my assertions so far.


After looking at other reports, I do not believe that she was on top of the shovel. I believe that she was atop a mound of dirt which was even with the top of the shovel--at least for a time. This is conjecture, but it appears to agree with the reports of most of the witnesses. There are photos taken very near the time of the incident.
Whether she was directly on top of the shovel or on a mound of dirt even with the top of the shovel should have no bearing on her visibility to the driver.


We already saw that straw man. At least give us some variety.
You can keep up the attack on me all you want, but what you're really saying is that you would rather attack me and my conclusions than actually think about the evidence yourself, because if you thought about it yourself you wouldn't like the conclusion you would likely come to. That's weak.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:29 PM
cirisme:You walk up between a house and a bulldozer, what do you think is gonna happen?

:ahem:
I guess you haven't actually studied much activism, huh? The blockade method is tried and true. It is one of the most common practices of activists all over the world, and it almost never results in bodily injury to the protestors. Considering the track record for the method, "you would think" that she would have been safe and that the driver would have the common sense not to try to run over someone who he knew was right in front of him.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

What I find truly pathetic is that so many of you are actually trying to blame the girl for her own murder! I'll say it again, if the driver had been an Iraqi or a Palestinian, I'll bet none of you would be making the stupid, ignorant arguments you're making now. Or are you the same ones who like to sit in on rape cases and blame the victim?

[Alden]

I think that what happened is tragic, and avoidable. Although, I must say that I am not surprised that it happened. There is a huge group of people with the activist mentality where I live. The thing that I've noticed about them is that they don't seem to realize that bad things can still happen to you even though you are young and idealistic. She shouldn't have been run over, but it's not surprising when one opposes a gov't activity and stands in front a bulldozer. I hope that we don't see more of this in the headlines in the future.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:37 AM
Eireann:


"This is a regrettable accident," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman. "We are dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger."


Assumes that "we" includes the driver.



"The army said soldiers were looking for explosives and tunnels used to smuggle weapons."


Seems to me that bulldozing and looking for explosives/tunnels are different (yet complementary) tasks.



"A 23-year-old American woman, Rachel Corrie, a college student from Olympia, Washington who belonged to the International Solidarity Movement in the territories, was killed yesterday by an IDF bulldozer during a house demolition in Rafah."

IDF stands for Israel Defense Force"


And if a bulldozer is owned by the IDF, then it must be driven by trained military personnel?



"According to ISM activists, at one stage the IDF forces left the area and took up positions near the border, a few hundred meters away.

But around 5 P.M., the force returned, and the activists assumed the bulldozers were on their way to other houses."

"forces" don't generally include civilians


A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force



"Fellow members of the International Solidarity Movement who joined Corrie in acting as "human shields" in Rafah said the soldier driving the bulldozer had intended to run her over."


That'll do, albeit it's mixed pretty close with eyewitness report.



I thought you said you read the articles?

Then that's two things in which you were correct.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:52 AM
Eireann:


No, I tend toward the former. You just don't want to accept it, because it would fly in the face of your apparently pro-Zionist bias.


You tend toward the latter, as most recently illustrated by your judgement of me as "pro-Zionist" based on my criticism of your faulty reasoning.



I have. I examined all the eyewitness accounts and testimony given from the articles I posted, and a few that I haven't. Then I did the math. Apparently, math wasn't your strong point.


On the contrary, you appear to have been led by your own prejudices.



Well, the evidence is pretty darn strong. If you don't think so, perhaps you would care to explain that, since you've done a pretty paltry job of countering my assertions so far.


Wow! How many fallacies did you brush off with that handwave?



Whether she was directly on top of the shovel or on a mound of dirt even with the top of the shovel should have no bearing on her visibility to the driver.


Actually it very well could have bearing. Consider a bulldozer inclined uphill as is 'dozes. The driver is relatively lower compared to the blade of the vehicle (especially if the blade is aloft, as was apparently the case). Accordingly, his view of things nearer the ground is obscured.
How do you overlook the obvious with such ease?



You can keep up the attack on me all you want, but what you're really saying is that you would rather attack me and my conclusions than actually think about the evidence yourself, because if you thought about it yourself you wouldn't like the conclusion you would likely come to. That's weak.

Save your whining.
Your spinning of the story is separate from the event itself, so far as I'm concerned. I've already put myself on record as allowing the possibility that the run-down was deliberate.
My point is that you're rushing to judgement on scant evidence, and your reasoning is demonstrably faulty. Your whole apparent point in posting was to tar the nation of Israel based on the actions of a bulldozer driver.
You should know what "weak" is.

[Socrates]

Eireann:The blockade method is tried and true. It is one of the most common practices of activists all over the world, and it almost never results in bodily injury to the protestors.All over the world?? You mean the WESTERN world you despise? Who well did it work in Tiananmen Square, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Tibet? How do you think Saddam, whom you want to protect, would react to a blockade? They only work in countries where the rulers are also accountable under law.

But typical lefties -- one stupid girl who puts herself in danger and gets killed is a tragedy (and I bet the bulldozer driver will have to answer for that); the multitude of people killed by Saddam, the Communists and PLO terrorists is just a statistic.

[Woman]

I refuse to watch CNN as a matter of personal pride, for the same reason I refuce to watch Jerry Springer.

What was that young woman doing where she was, when she was doing it?

Americans are so conditioned to taking individual rights for granted while refusing to accept individual responsibility.

What happened is a tragedy. Odds are she didn't realize the very real and serious nature of the danger she was in or was inviting. And odds are that the equipment operator is not a beast with no conscience. It's very sad.

What it is not is a case for international indignation and conclusion jumping. Of course Israel is not innocent and without any blame in the continued unrest over there. But it's the only country modeled on a democracy with any stability in the region. They are our allies. Her citizens are educated, contributing members of the international community. They want peace. The same just cannot be said for those who would see them wiped off the face of the earth.

[kiwimac]

Today @ 08:26 PM
Socrates:

Eireann:The blockade method is tried and true. It is one of the most common practices of activists all over the world, and it almost never results in bodily injury to the protestors.All over the world?? You mean the WESTERN world you despise? Who well did it work in Tiananmen Square, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Tibet? How do you think Saddam, whom you want to protect, would react to a blockade? They only work in countries where the rulers are also accountable under law.

But typical lefties -- one stupid girl who puts herself in danger and gets killed is a tragedy (and I bet the bulldozer driver will have to answer for that); the multitude of people killed by Saddam, the Communists and PLO terrorists is just a statistic.

Typical Australian. Whats the matter Blue? the clinking of your chains interfering with your hearing? Or can't you hear anyone over the howls of pain from the "Abo" you're mistreating?

As my sainted father was wont to say, "Even the birds fly upside down in Australia. Why? because they know its not even worth Sh****ing on! "

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

KatipoMac spruiked:
Typical Australian. Whats the matter Blue? the clinking of your chains interfering with your hearing? Or can't you hear anyone over the howls of pain from the "Abo" you're mistreating?As Noel Pearson, leading "Abo" says, it's the white liberals who have destroyed his people by fostering a dependance mentality with endless handouts. Many would say the same about your Maoris.
As my sainted father was wont to say, "Even the birds fly upside down in Australia. Why? because they know its not even worth Sh****ing on! "Evidently 30,000 people per year (1% of your population) don't agree since they come to live in our land of sunshine, beaches and prosperity. And with an honest PM who doesn't support appeasement of despots.

PS; Good post, Woman :thumb:

[Wesley's son]

Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
flipper:

Wesley's son:



Command center? Or someone's house? Often, it's just someone's house.

Was the house in question the home of Joe Blow palestinian, or a known terrorist? This isn't sarcasm, I honestly don't know and was hoping you could fill me in.

[$cirisme]

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
Eireann:


I guess you haven't actually studied much activism, huh? The blockade method is tried and true. It is one of the most common practices of activists all over the world, and it almost never results in bodily injury to the protestors. Considering the track record for the method, "you would think" that she would have been safe and that the driver would have the common sense not to try to run over someone who he knew was right in front of him.

So is dancing with the bulls in Spain. Very rarely do people get hurt, but people still get hurt.

And there's a first for everything.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:59 AM
cirisme:



So is dancing with the bulls in Spain. Very rarely do people get hurt, but people still get hurt.

And there's a first for everything.
So basically, if a Christian risks his or her life for something Christians believe in, then that person is a martyr. But when someone risks their life for something they believe, but Christians don't -- such as protecting the innocent from undue persecution -- then they're stupid. Okay, now I get it.

Activists for Christian causes = martry
Activists for non-Christian causes = stupid

Did I get that right?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:00 AM
Woman:What it is not is a case for international indignation and conclusion jumping. Of course Israel is not innocent and without any blame in the continued unrest over there. But it's the only country modeled on a democracy with any stability in the region. They are our allies. Her citizens are educated, contributing members of the international community. They want peace. The same just cannot be said for those who would see them wiped off the face of the earth.
I find it very interesting that you say the Israelis want peace and the Palestinians do not, especially in light of the fact that it was the Palestinians who specifically asked the UN to step in and intervene in the conflict over there and help to end the aggressions, and it was the Israelis who asked the UN to keep their noses out of it. In short, it was the Palestinians who requested intervention for peace, and the Israelis who rejected it. Do you want to rethink that statement now?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:57 PM
Eireann:


I find it very interesting that you say the Israelis want peace and the Palestinians do not, especially in light of the fact that it was the Palestinians who specifically asked the UN to step in and intervene in the conflict over there and help to end the aggressions, and it was the Israelis who asked the UN to keep their noses out of it. In short, it was the Palestinians who requested intervention for peace, and the Israelis who rejected it. Do you want to rethink that statement now?

Here's the logic implicit in the above:

If a nation really wants peace, then they will appeal to the UN.


(because the UN does such a great job at promoting peace, I guess)

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:03 PM
Captain Ochre:



Here's the logic implicit in the above:

If a nation really wants peace, then they will appeal to the UN.


(because the UN does such a great job at promoting peace, I guess)

No, the logic implicit is this:

If a nation wants peace and has heretofore failed to achieve it on their own, they won't reject offers of intervention from the outside. There has been little or nothing in the behavior and actions of Israel to suggest they have any interest in peace, short of the complete domination of Gaza. But peaceful coexistence is not in their vocabulary. At least not in their government. Elad says there are a lot of Israeli citizens that want peace but they are very dissatisfied with Sharon and his crew because they are making no efforts at all to achieve peace.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:08 PM
Eireann:



No, the logic implicit is this:

If a nation wants peace and has heretofore failed to achieve it on their own, they won't reject offers of intervention from the outside.


Israel has accepted offers of intervention from the outside. Not this particular one (associated with the UN).



There has been little or nothing in the behavior and actions of Israel to suggest they have any interest in peace, short of the complete domination of Gaza. But peaceful coexistence is not in their vocabulary. At least not in their government. Elad says there are a lot of Israeli citizens that want peace but they are very dissatisfied with Sharon and his crew because they are making no efforts at all to achieve peace.

Sharon won't make any effort toward peace so long as the intifada thingy is underway. Prior to that Israel had offered substantial concessions (95% of the land sought by the Palestinians, for example). Arafat turned his nose up at the offer.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/168lewqp.asp

More stuff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weblog/special/0,10627,533512,00.html

[Ryokan]

after the collapse of the peace process in the late 90's, Israel has lost faith in outside interventions ability to obtain peace, because the Palestinians didn't want it.

[Epoetker]

Stuff they found in Arafat's compound last April:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0402/steyn040902.asp


Just to emphasize the point, here's some of the things the Israelis have found in Arafat's compound since the tanks rolled in last Friday: 40 pistols, 19 sniper rifles, 200 MK 47 Kalashnikovs....

Well, so far, nothing unusual. If I cleared out my basement in New Hampshire, I could probably muster a similar tally. But that's not all they turned up: 43 RPG missiles, four pipe bombs, an unspecified number of empty suicide-bomber belts, hundreds of thousands of counterfeit Israeli bills in denominations of 50, 100 and 200 shekels, printing plates for counterfeiting millions more, $100,000 in counterfeit US bills....

Hmm. Under the terms of that Oslo 'peace process' that the EU's so keen on, the 'Palestinian Authority' is meant to be not the West Bank mob concession but an internally autonomous embryo state. The Chairman is supposed to be busy with health, education, employment, international trade, public works ...oh, and tourism, if you're interested in a weekend break in Ramallah. He has more responsibilities than the first minister of Scotland or the governor of Texas, or the early prime ministers of Canada and Australia. Alas, the Chairman has no interest in governing - and, by 'governing', I don't mean in, say, the Al Gore sense but in the Robert Mugabe sense: all Arafat had to do was meet the minimal standards of the reformed-terrorist category of world leader. Instead, barely had the ink dried on those Oslo 'peace accords' than the ink was drying on the first of those 50-shekel bills.

So, after almost a decade under his administration, the big career opportunities in the Palestinian Authority lie in strapping on one of those Yasser souvenir belts, filling it with Semtex, wandering into a shopping mall and blowing the legs off Jews. That's the way to set your family up for life, especially now that Saddam has upped the martyr jackpot to 25,000 bucks per successful self-detonation. The 'plight of the Palestinian people' is that, after a quarter-century of living under Israeli occupation, they were transferred to living under Arafat occupation, and he wasn't up to the job.

That's not how the rest of the world sees it, of course, no matter how many suicide-bomber belts and printing plates in assorted currencies are stacked in the counterfeit king's corridors of power. The UN has long treated Arafat as the leader of a sovereign nation, as if to underline his inevitability: he's already a head of state; all he needs is for those 'intransigent' Israelis to give him a state to be head of. The Australians and Canadians still deplore the violence 'on both sides', but the EU has pretty much given up on Israel: the famously '****ty little country' is more trouble than it's worth. Even in America, the airwaves are clogged with experts urging a withdrawal by Israel, as that will encourage Arafat to get 'Oslo' back on track, not to mention 'Tenet' and 'Mitchell', as if this Beltway-speak means anything when you're all wired up and ready to blow.

It's very difficult to negotiate a 'two-state solution' when one side sees the two-state solution as an intermediate stage to a one-state solution: ending the 'Israeli occupation' of the West Bank is a tactical prelude to ending the Israeli occupation of Israel. The divide among the Palestinians isn't between those who want to make peace with Israel and those who want to destroy her, but between those who want to destroy Israel one suicide bomb at a time and those who want to destroy her through artful 'peace processes'. Ayat Mohammed al-Akhras, the straight-A high-school student who blew herself up in a supermarket last week, devoted her farewell video to castigating the Arab League big shots for pussying around with peace plans and leaving the real work to Palestinian schoolgirl bombers. Her view would appear, from the polls, to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority. It's useless to pretend there's anything to negotiate.

Miss al-Akhras, in her incendiary finale, underlined one curious aspect of this war. On 11 September, commentators warned us of the explosive nature of 'the Arab street'. Why? Because the collapse of the twin towers was greeted by delirious joy and dancing in the streets of ...Ramallah! The only thing the average American knows about Ramallah is that it's where Muslims celebrated the murder of thousands of New Yorkers. Otherwise, 'the Arab street' is as sleepy as a cul-de-sac in Pinner on a weekday afternoon. The patrons of terror - Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran - have figured out that the only block of the Arab street that's rousable is in the West Bank, and they're pouring their resources in accordingly.

That's why America needs to be equally focused. The stability junkies in the EU, UN and elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable. In Africa and Latin America and Eastern Europe, rare is the dictator who dies in harness. But, in the Arab world, they get to pass their fetid crowns on to their designated heirs: old Assad bequeathed Syria to his son, Saddam hopes to do the same with Iraq. There has been 'stability' for three decades, longer than anywhere else in the non-democratic world. Yet, when a dysfunctional regime stays in power, that's not stability, but a cesspit. Yasser Arafat and his PLO were anointed the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people' in 1974, and after 28 years he's anything but legit: he's printing up foreign currency in the basement.

[Alden]

Today @ 03:03 AM
kiwimac:

Typical Australian. Whats the matter Blue? the clinking of your chains interfering with your hearing? Or can't you hear anyone over the howls of pain from the "Abo" you're mistreating?

As my sainted father was wont to say, "Even the birds fly upside down in Australia. Why? because they know its not even worth Sh****ing on! "

Kiwimac

Please refrain from comments like these.

[Alden]

Woman-

Most excellent post

[$cirisme]

Today @ 11:54 AM
Eireann:


So basically, if a Christian risks his or her life for something Christians believe in, then that person is a martyr. But when someone risks their life for something they believe, but Christians don't -- such as protecting the innocent from undue persecution -- then they're stupid. Okay, now I get it.

Activists for Christian causes = martry
Activists for non-Christian causes = stupid

Did I get that right?


The smell of burning straw men is not my favorite odor.

:ahem:

If you want to make a list like that...

Protesting in front of a tractor for Christian causes = stupid

Protesting in front of a tractor for secular causes = stupid

I don't have a problem whatsoever with protesting of any kind(unless it involves violence) but if you're gonna be stupid, don't be surprised when something bad happens. :no:

And before you make any other stupid assumptions, I do NOT think that Israel is blameless, either.

You're reality check is over, and now we return you to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.... :teeth:

[Socrates]

Eireann continues his apologia for terrorists in his reply to Woman:I find it very interesting that you say the Israelis want peace and the Palestinians do not, especially in light of the fact that it was the Palestinians who specifically asked the UN to step in and intervene in the conflict over there and help to end the aggressions, and it was the Israelis who asked the UN to keep their noses out of it. In short, it was the Palestinians who requested intervention for peace, and the Israelis who rejected it. Do you want to rethink that statement now?If the Palestinians really want peace, all they need to do is halt the suicide/murder squads. And indeed Israel wants the UN to stay out, because all they want to do is give back even more land to the Palestinians (who already have Jordan, and the misguided pacifist Barak gave them 90% of what they demanded) and make its borders indefensible.

[Socrates]

Thanx Alden.

I should say that as a matter of Antipodean culture, of which Northerners may not be aware, Australians and New Zealanders have a semi-friendly rivalry. So we wouldn't be as offended by KatipoMac's comments as much as, say, the French or Americans would be by attacks on each others' countries. KatipoMac's comments in the Antipodean cultural context are not as bad as they might seem to outsiders. We don't tend to mind ribbing from New Zealanders so much, as long as the Kiwi involved can take it in return (usually liberals are happy to dish it out but can't take it).

[Cherith]

Capt Ochre: Would it be consistent, iyo, for American Indians to don a few bombs and blow up Whitey?

Cap't, I'm surprised at you - suprised that you could make such a blatant, anachronistic faux pas. The Indians didn't have the technology to make bombs much less strap them on. But yes, I suppose as an analogy it would be "consistent" to expect something like that from a people who have been deprived of their land, humanity, etc. for 46+ years (the difference between when the illegal Zionist immigrants declared themselves a sovereign nation on another people's land and the day the 1st Palestinian resorted to self-murder & homicide).

--C

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:19 AM
Cherith:



Cap't, I'm surprised at you - suprised that you could make such a blatant, anachronistic faux pas. The Indians didn't have the technology to make bombs much less strap them on.


What on Earth would have made you think that I was (facetiously) suggesting that the American Indians attempt such a thing prior to the availability of the technology??
:huh:



But yes, I suppose as an analogy it would be "consistent" to expect something like that from a people who have been deprived of their land, humanity, etc. for 46+ years (the difference between when the illegal Zionist immigrants declared themselves a sovereign nation on another people's land and the day the 1st Palestinian resorted to self-murder & homicide).

--C

Excellent. Now that we've got that established, we can start tracing and documenting all the peoples who have moved uninvited onto other people's land and get to business manufacturing all the millions of additional bombs we're going to need in order to ensure justice.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 07:19 PM
Socrates:
And indeed Israel wants the UN to stay out, because all they want to do is give back even more land to the Palestinians (who already have Jordan, and the misguided pacifist Barak gave them 90% of what they demanded) and make its borders indefensible.
You're referring, of course, to that land which the US and Britain stripped them of after WWII and then freely gave to immigrant Israelis after kicking the Palestinians out of their homes. Yeah, gosh, wanting to get your land and homes back. What an evil!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 05:18 PM
cirisme:Protesting in front of a tractor for Christian causes = stupid

Protesting in front of a tractor for secular causes = stupid
I would tend to agree on both accounts, although as I said earlier, it is a tried and true method worldwide, and very rarely does anyone get hurt.

Nevertheless, the point I was making is that I seriously doubt any of you (yeah, that includes you) would have been nearly so quick to call the protestor stupid, if:

a) they had been protesting for a Christian cause, or
b) that driver had been a Palestinian or an Iraqi

Of course, some of you will inevitably say that you would judge it the same way in those circumstances, but I'll wager it would be a lie.

[Solly]

Palestinians 'not given gas masks'

Gas masks have been distributed to Israelis free of charge
The Israeli army has not distributed gas masks to Palestinians in parts of the West Bank, despite a ruling by the Israeli High Court.
Around 60,000 Palestinians in the West Bank are under Israeli security and administrative control.

According to the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, Israel is obliged to give this equipment to people living in these areas.

The Israeli army says it is still assessing the situation and preparing to distribute protective kits, but is awaiting a final decision to go ahead.

Palestinians have criticised the decision, with cabinet minister Ghassan Khatib calling it racist and discriminatory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2866357.stm

[$cirisme]

I would tend to agree on both accounts, although as I said earlier, it is a tried and true method worldwide, and very rarely does anyone get hurt.

So what?

It is still stupid.


Nevertheless, the point I was making is that I seriously doubt any of you (yeah, that includes you) would have been nearly so quick to call the protestor stupid, if:

a) they had been protesting for a Christian cause, or
b) that driver had been a Palestinian or an Iraqi

Of course, some of you will inevitably say that you would judge it the same way in those circumstances, but I'll wager it would be a lie.

:ahem:

[Cherith]

Cap't, I have a moral/ethical question for you. In your humble opinion, is it ever right or wrong, just or unjust for one person to lay down his/her life for the sake of another (or his/her people)? And if yes, then under what circumstances

You see, I have a few people in the Bible in mind...

I'm even thinking of an ancient equivalent to modern suicide-bombers - i.e. where one man laid down his life to destroy the enemy, and that not only with Divine Sanction but with Divine Assistance as well.

(Please understand that I'm not making or even suggesting a moral equivalent only a formal/logical equivalence - but if you push me, I might! :brow: )

--C

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:26 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41829#post41829)
Cherith:

Cap't, I have a moral/ethical question for you. In your humble opinion, is it ever right or wrong, just or unjust for one person to lay down his/her life for the sake of another (or his/her people)? And if yes, then under what circumstances


Are you certain that this belongs in the current thread?
We'll assume absolute morals, since the question is so trivial from a relativistic perspective?
It's just for a person to lay down his own life if self-sacrifice is the best possible option, considering all of the moral dimensions (of which there may be many).



You see, I have a few people in the Bible in mind...

I'm even thinking of an ancient equivalent to modern suicide-bombers - i.e. where one man laid down his life to destroy the enemy, and that not only with Divine Sanction but with Divine Assistance as well.


Who, Samson?
Well, you pegged one of the criteria right there: Divine sanction. If the suicide bombers really are under divine sanction, then the matter is closed, isn't it?



(Please understand that I'm not making or even suggesting a moral equivalent only a formal/logical equivalence - but if you push me, I might! :brow: )
--C

So, does this mean that you won't be replying directly to my former reply to you in this thread?