Israeli Defence Forces

Captain Trips

I am still shcoked by the about0turn that Sharon has taken in the past 10 days (since the Bilderberg meeting? Coincidence?).

He has called what the IDF have been doing an "occupation". Yes he actually called it that. The current issue of the Economist has a good few choice quotes such as the above. Motion to go for the peace talks/treaty voted 12 for, 7 against, 4 upstain. His Likud party is generally not happy. I suppose it's because he has sold fear as his primary factor for being elected for so long.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
JC, was the 1st Character in your little script the Narn guy (can't remember his name - the one who really hated Londo)?

Yes (G'kar, as Occy pointed out). And he was referring to the Centauri Emperor of the day.

jc

RasTa

This Article tryin to defend the death of that woman really makes me sick.
Written by a Jew of course, just as bad as the Muslim propoganda.
To me anyway it is like that he is trying to put across the point with the last picture of her that she was a terrorist, digusting.

Sand

The difference is the terrorists are an illegal movement whereas Its the ELECTED government of Israel with the support of the US carrying out the atrocities.

A significant proportion of the suicide bomber "infrastructure" cant be described as flat out illegal in Palestine though can it?

Article tryin to defend the death of that woman really makes me sick.
Written by a Jew of course, just as bad as the Muslim propoganda.
To me anyway it is like that he is trying to put across the point with the last picture of her that she was a terrorist, digusting.

I actually thought it was a fairly well written article - no doubt with an angle, but to me anyway it corrected a lot of errors and selective reporting - the two photos for example of the bulldozer, the first to imply she was clearly visible when it wasnt even the same bulldozer so its not really useful in determining whether the driver could see her or not- fair point? According to eyewitness testimony he relays in the article she was trying to play chicken with the bulldozer as they apparently do all the time and she slipped/fell:|

As for whether the bulldozer was there to knock down a house of collapse a weapons smuggling tunnel as Cohen claims is up for debate - I dont know if hes telling the truth - he working of the claims of the Israeli government after all , do you? Lets leave it for now.

And the last paragraph? He attacked her credentials as a peace activist, and indeed if his quotes are accuarate she sounds more like a Palestinian sympathiser than a peace activist. Fair point?

Oh and if you look towards the bottom he corrects a related story which contained a a lie by the IDF - Are you bothered by the fact hes correcting errors and ommissons or that hes changing the story to something you dont want to hear?

vorbis

rasta, that article seems very well reasoned and thouight out. He clearly portrays both sides of the situation. Granted its pro jewish yet he still backs up his claims with relevant pictures and quotes.

Hobbes

Intresting that everyone keeps posting that link. When I click it I get thrown to a blog. After killing the redirect and looking at the source I see what people are talking about.

One of the things used most was to ‘prove’ that Rachel was intentionally murdered was a photo of her in front of a bulldozer with a megaphone

No the actual photo of the her being run over can be seen on the ISM website which looks a lot worse then the one shown to the public (which is always the case).

The bulldozer she was hit by is clearly a different one, as this photo reveals

Which is true. There were 2-3 bulldozers at the site for over three hours. Again this is confirmed on the ISM website.

he photo could not have been taken moments before she was hit,

ISM have pictures of her being hit as well as the after effects. It's not nice and not something that would of gone into a daily paper. The links to these pictures are at the ISM site.

Conflicting stories? Again check ISM. RC was sitting in front of one of the bulldozers until it got closer at which point she stood up and shouted over the bucket. She was there for over three hours, in a bright red jacket. They knew full well she was there. She was run over twice when backed over.

his photo show her burning a mock flag of the United States:

The writer fails to mention the part where she is interviewed at the time of the flag burning was offered to burn an israeli flag and US flag and said she couldn't burn an Israeli flag but she could burn an American one as she is American.

To some how say she deserved it because of that is sickening.

The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.

Which is odd because the house they were trying to bulldoze was a doctors who has nothing to do with terrorism (no tunnels!) and his familys only crime was to act as a place for ISM to stay.

It has now been established, a month after the fact, that the bulldozer was not being used to destroy a house at all, but rather to remove around the house that was being used to conceal an entrance to a smuggling tunnel for transporting guns and drugs,

ROFLMAO.. Did they see the pictures when they said that? RC is standing in front of the doctors house. There is no shubbery, and the IDF had already told the doctors family to vacate the house as they planned to demolish it.

But lets say that is true, and ignore the fact that RC and friends were standing there for over three hours. Any sane person would get the IDF to remove her either by detaining or with tear gas.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Captain Trips
I am still shcoked by the about0turn that Sharon has taken in the past 10 days (since the Bilderberg meeting? Coincidence?).

I'm not. Bush can just say 'Look we are stopping your funding' and they would fall into line. The US can stop it at any time without having to send an army in.

TBH I believe very little will come of it. Sharon already tried to get parts changed. Did they release all the people they were told to? All I've seen is one released, but I haven't checked the news this morning.

its sad how this topic always re-emerges and always goes around in circles.

but just to add a few points:

Eomer, Israel was created through the activity of the US/UK governments, true. However so was Palestine. Prior to this, there was NO PALESTINE or ISRAEL in a modern context. Supporters of BOTH camps can pont to ancient boundries and such, but it has no true meaning anymore. What does has meaning was that both the Palestinians and the Israelis agreed with the US on the agreement to bring their respective nations into existence.

Another point that will no doubt be forgotten again fairly quickly, is that it was Palestine that invaded Israeli borders originally. But hey, that doesn't really matter since its Israel that won the war and currently occupies.

(I'm not dending the occupation, however i don't like seeing everyone viewing the accopation as being illegal, since it is a result of a failed invasion)


In regards to the Rachel Corrie incident, i don't know what to believe. All accounts i've heard so far have ALL been either very pro-Israeli, or Pro-palestinian. My personal feelings are that she was acting out the activist and got caught in an accident. **** happens. No disparagment on her, but accidents do happen. I'm not going to go out of my way to see conspiracy theories about this woman. Israel/Palestine has too much grief going on already without considering abt her.

Hobbes

I could believe an accident if it wasn't for the fact that the bulldozers were there for so long, and made no move to remove the protesters except by the bucket of the bulldozers.

Remember there are numerous documented instances of bulldozers even pushing ISM supporters with thier buckets into the houses they plan to demolish (although not demolish them with them in it). Ms Corrie being one of them a few days before afaik.

The other point, had this exact thing happened in say Ireland. Ms Corrie would of been removed beforehand by the police or if she was run over someone would of been charged for at least criminal negligence. To this date no one has been charged, but more people have died since and houses are still being illegally bulldozed.

TBH I would be intrested to know of any incident where a Palistinian/ISM/UN has died and someone has been charged for killing them who was Israeli and/or IDF. I'm sure such a thing exists.

The crap that happened with Ms Corrie is typical of what goes on in Palistine. The only difference was she was an American and not a Palistinian, so it is harder to fob her off as being a terrorist (although god knows they tried).

The crap that happened with Ms Corrie is typical of what goes on in Palistine. The only difference was she was an American and not a Palistinian, so it is harder to fob her off as being a terrorist (although god knows they tried).

i never knew that Americans were exempted from being terrorists. strange that.

The point of this happening in Ireland is irrevelant, simply because Palestine is a warzone. Ireland is not.


Whether or not she was a terrorist, it was a terrible thing. However, from what i've heard both here, and on the various news articles, theres "evidence" of murder, and "evidence" that it was an accident. I dunno whether it is or not, but i'm going to count it as such until someone can prove otherwise.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Just to make the point- Flag-burning is not, repeat NOT illegal in the United States. Indeed, it's a right protected by the 2nd Ammendment.

As far as the incident goes- I'm not sure why people should be suprised- the Israeli government has a vested interest in seeing that Palestinians live in fear, unable to legitimize their right to self-determination.

In terms of terror, I think it's crucial to recognize that for there to be any substantive progress on either side- BOTH sides must cease violence. If the Palestinians make a genuine effort to fight terror and incitement then Israelis must stop targeted killings of elected officials and withdraw its heavy armor from the occupied territories. If a cooperative effort is made to fight terrorism then there is a chance of success. Does this place Mahmood Abbas at risk? Of course it does- but if Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat were willing to take such risks, then I don't see why Abbas wouldn't.

Lastly- it's crucial that Yasser Arafat be kept away from the proceedings. It was he, let us not forget, who authorized the assasination of Sadat, one of the bravest statesmen the Arab world has ever seen. As for those who purport that he is elected- that means little to me: if Hitler was elected (which he very likely would have been) it wouldn't make the idea of Lebensraum any more palatable. The best way forward in my opinion, is in the atmosphere of a BILATERAL cease-fire, the Israeli government makes concessions, long overdue ones. The dismantling of settlements and withdrawal from Palestinian towns. If that brings no halt to terror then the Palestinians will have squandered their chance, perhaps for a long time to come.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Just to make the point- Flag-burning is not, repeat NOT illegal in the United States. Indeed, it's a right protected by the 2nd Ammendment.

There's quite a good use of this fact in - of all things - An American President, IIRC.

As for those who purport that he is elected- that means little to me: if Hitler was elected (which he very likely would have been) it wouldn't make the idea of Lebensraum any more palatable.

Are you saying, then, that democracy is only the right way to go when the "right choices" are made by it? When you don't approve of someone, it doesnt matter whether they were democratically elected or not?

I'm not talking specifically about Arafat here, lest anyone come up with the factlets on just how elected he really is.

Would you, for example, agree with any nation refusing to deal with the US in some way while Bush remained in power, on the grounds that they believe he was a bad democratic choice, and their interpretation of his actions meant that they would have nothing to do with the nation because of the man?

What about within your own nation? Would you accept an American refusing to obey new laws of Bush's because he didnt approve of the man. If it doesnt matter that he's democratically elected then it doesnt matter who he is democratically elected by. More importantly than accepting it...would you say the American was right to defy his democratically elected government?

I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. If we are not willing to accept other people's choices, what good is lauding the "superiority" of giving people that choice (i.e. democracy) in the first place?

Ultimately, you seem to be saying that once you disagree enough with the actions of an individual, you are correct in ignoring any legal standing that individual has.

jc

Sparks

Bob,
Hitler was elected. But as the French elections showed recently, that lesson has stuck in the minds of europeans.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
i never knew that Americans were exempted from being terrorists. strange that.

I don't recall saying that. What I was saying is people seem to feel better when a palastinian dies because "All Palistinians are terrorists" (if you were to believe Israel in what it says and it's actions).

The point of this happening in Ireland is irrevelant, simply because Palestine is a warzone. Ireland is not.

It's not irrevelent. They were there do a job. Bulldoze a house. While you can argue the legality of if they should be there or not, you can't argue the total disregard for human life shown in bulldozing houses. That in my book is at the very least criminal negligence.

Anyway your only arguing one point. Rachael Corrie was not the first and last person to die in this fashion. How many times does it have to happen before it stops being a 'tragic accident'?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Would you, for example, agree with any nation refusing to deal with the US in some way while Bush remained in power, on the grounds that they believe he was a bad democratic choice, and their interpretation of his actions meant that they would have nothing to do with the nation because of the man?

Well if I wanted to be cynical I'd say that said nation is free to do as it pleases and is probably shooting itself in the foot, since trade and relations with the United States are prized commodities (prized by governments if not always by respective population groups). If a nation took that course of action then the normal diplomatic consequences would ensue, and might well be directly reciprocal. The more mischievous side of me however says that if Congress cafeterias rename a fast food snack and a breakfast dish because of disagreement over a point of foriegn policy- then I find it a lot less objectionable if a country wants nothing to do with us because we're ruled by a stuttering baboon.

What about within your own nation? Would you accept an American refusing to obey new laws of Bush's because he didnt approve of the man. If it doesnt matter that he's democratically elected then it doesnt matter who he is democratically elected by.

I wouldn't accept someone refusing to obey "new laws of Bush"- because for one thing, the President can't make law, he can only propose it. Passing and amending it is the job of Congress- both upper and lower Houses. Now if said American refusing to obey the law can demonstrate to me that all or at least the vast majority of senators and housemen were appointed in the manner Bush was- then I'd accept his stance. But merely disapproving of one voice in the policy-making process (albeit a very influential one) doesn't give an individual the right to ignore the rule of law. Bear in mind jc, that if a law proposed by the Bush administration passes and is an unjust law, then it will be tested in the courts and interpreted accordingly.

More importantly than accepting it...would you say the American was right to defy his democratically elected government?

He'd be right to do it if the laws were unjust- the right to peacefully protest is also an enshrined one. Now if there are sweeping constitutional changes proposed and passed (about as likely as a prime cut of pork rump soaring over my head as I type this) then he/she not only has the right to civil disobedience, but it would be wrong not to.

I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. If we are not willing to accept other people's choices, what good is lauding the "superiority" of giving people that choice (i.e. democracy) in the first place?

A very pertinent question- perhaps I worded it poorly. If there is both balance and seperation of powers in a democracy, this problem never should come about. Because the legislature, the executive and the judiciary- harmonious yet independent of each other can form the stable planks of a democratic government/institution. I include institution because of course groups desiring statehood are not yet governments- yet they should strive for the structural nature that is required of government.

If you look at Hitler, Arafat, or any democratically elected leader with real supreme executive power- the first thing you'll notice is that there is neither seperation nor independence of powers. The structures of German law and parliamentary democracy were basically binned by the national socialists- and the result was a unitary unchecked power. The same is true of Arafat- and in fact to a *far* lesser extent true of the current Sharon government. Ergo, Sharon has exempted any member of the IDF from appearing in personum before any judicial board. That is far less of a corruption of the concept of seperating powers- yet it is still crossing the line.

Ultimately, you seem to be saying that once you disagree enough with the actions of an individual, you are correct in ignoring any legal standing that individual has.

jc

There is an element of common sense to be displayed also jc- the South African apartheid regime had perfectly sound legal standing. Moreover, so did Hitler's Reich- because by definition- Jews, Gypsies and undesirables no longer had rights. Not to property, dignity or even life. The question we must put to ourselves: "Is legal standing alone enough to satisfy moral competance of governance?" Now you and I both know that it isn't at times- and that voices of conscience (albeit illegal under said unjust system)- should speak out. The difficulty is of course, the subjectivity of such judgements since they are all couched in moral or ideological positions. However, if the judicial and legislative branches of government are strong enough to meet the threat of a bullish executive (and in our case I'm sure they are)- then there should be no cause for open revolt just yet

PHB

Ultimately, you seem to be saying that once you disagree enough with the actions of an individual, you are correct in ignoring any legal standing that individual has.

I think it would be worse if you did not act, If you disagree with some that strongly. Most peoples own moral compass comes infront of the law when they make decisions, the law is just something to give you a nudge in the "right direction".

On the issue of the 'peace loving' rachael corrie, I have yet to see the media print this picture:

Sparks

klaz,
That's 'cos a protestor tearing up a US flag is such a commonplace thing that it's not really "news" anymore to the media...

That said, your post isn't the first place that I've seen that photo, I just can't remember which site I saw it on...

Sand

Ms Corrie would of been removed beforehand by the police or if she was run over someone would of been charged for at least criminal negligence.

Someone, but who? The ISM? The IDF? The Palestinian administration? The Israeli administration? Corrie herself?

And it would have been difficult to remove the protestors without interfering with their right to assemble and protest etc etc. You wouldnt be in favour of such silencing of opposition voices?

Sparks

And it would have been difficult to remove the protestors without interfering with their right to assemble and protest etc etc. You wouldnt be in favour of such silencing of opposition voices?

In the middle of trying to get them to sit down and talk, the IDF targets Hamas by firing anti-tank missiles from a helo at a car in a crowded street, killing several bystanders. This isn't a rare occourance. In fact, the current ration of palestinians killed to israelis killed is somewhere around 3:1. Israel's had several UN SC resolutions levelled against it for failing to comply with the Geneva Conventions in relation to the IDF's actions in various areas of Palestine.

Given their history, what the heck makes you think that they didn't move Corrie out of fear of violating her right to assemble (which she didn't have in Palestine, btw... ) ???

:rolleyes:

I'm curious but how does anyone get run over by a bulldoser? I mean they're bloody slow moving vehicles... Did she decide to play chicken with the bulldoser or what? (and if she did play chicken, then its her own stupidity that killed her)

Israel's had several UN SC resolutions levelled against it for failing to comply with the Geneva Conventions in relation to the IDF's actions in various areas of Palestine

Kinda hard to level similiar resolutions at an illegal terrorist group or "freedom fighter organisation". Israel is the only real organisation the area that could be targeted by the UN.

Sparks

I'm curious but how does anyone get run over by a bulldoser? I mean they're bloody slow moving vehicles...

She stood in front of it to prevent it knocking down the house behind her. It knocked the earth she was standing on from under her feet. Kinda hard to dodge when you're lying down.

(and if she did play chicken, then its her own stupidity that killed her)

Nope. The driver is responsible for not running her over. Full stop. End of story. If you run someone over when you can see where they are and you're not going too fast to stop - it's your fault. There's no wiggle room here, it's in the civil law of pretty much every country that has cars.

Kinda hard to level similiar resolutions at an illegal terrorist group or "freedom fighter organisation". Israel is the only real organisation the area that could be targeted by the UN.

So.... despite the fact that they were violating the Geneva convention, the Oslo agreements and pretty much every other law going, it doesn't count because the UN couldn't issue a resolution against Hamas, even though Hamas weren't violating all the relevant laws?
There are a number of words to describe that argument - "silly" is about the most civil I can think of...

See, here's how it works. You are responsible for your actions. No-one elses. Break the law and you break the law - it's that simple. For example, if I find some random stranger, hang him from a meathook and torture him to death, I cannot say "oh relax, Hussein killed way more than just one guy like that". Well, I could - but it wouldn't keep me from a lifetime in jail.
Same story here. You cannot use another's prior actions to justify breaking the law.

Kinda hard to dodge when you're lying down.

Kinda foolish to be lying down in front of a bulldoser, don't you think?

Nope. The driver is responsible for not running her over. Full stop.

She's not responsible for moving out of the way? Crap. If someone decides to commit suicide by jumping in front of your car, you're not responsible for their actions. Its not murder.

EXample: Know when you're a kid, and you play against a train. Jumping across the tracks when a train is coming. You know the train won't stop, and thats part of the thrill. If the train hit me while doing that, it would be my own fault. Not the drivers.

There's no wiggle room here, it's in the civil law of pretty much every country that has cars.

Actually theres plenty of wiggle room. The bulldozer was in a hostile area. A crowd was forming which would make anyone nervous. A bulldoser doesn't have a whole lot visual room of immediate objects. Theres very little you can do to prevent a person wanting to become a martyr.

TBH, i don't know the civil laws in Palestine under Israeli occupation. Hell, i don't know if the area was under military law. Do you?

So.... despite the fact that they were violating the Geneva convention, the Oslo agreements and pretty much every other law going, it doesn't count because the UN couldn't issue a resolution against Hamas, even though Hamas weren't violating all the relevant laws?

No. Thats not what i said. I said that its hard to issue the same resolutions against groups like Hamas. As it stands its a one sided judgement. Hamas and other other such groups, have performed actions that have been as bad or worse than Israel.

Basically i'm saying that its not exactly the fairist thing. Israel can be hit by reolutions. But if Hamas makes worse actions, nobody gets hit by resolutions. Any retalitory strikes (by Israel) would be though.

For example, if I find some random stranger, hang him from a meathook and torture him to death, I cannot say "oh relax, Hussein killed way more than just one guy like that". Well, I could - but it wouldn't keep me from a lifetime in jail.

Plead insanity. Obviously its applicable to most of the combatants in the middle east.

Same story here. You cannot use another's prior actions to justify breaking the law.

Same as you can't blame the driver of the bulldoser for the death of Rachel Corrie, when she put herself in the position. It was her actions that led to her death.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Kinda foolish to be lying down in front of a bulldoser, don't you think?

So it's her fault for falling down when the tractor drove up to her and pushed the ground away?

Is that what you are saying?

She's not responsible for moving out of the way?

She wasn't moving out of the way because she was trying to stop illegal bulldozing of someones home.

A bad anology but if someone stood in front of my drive way blocking me getting in with my car. That then doesn't give me the right to drive over them, or to get out of the car and smack them one. I call the cops to get them removed (this is all assuming it's legal)

She didn't throw herself in front of the bulldozer.

Actually theres plenty of wiggle room. The bulldozer was in a hostile area. A crowd was forming which would make anyone nervous.

Have you seen the bulldozers they use? They are armored against probably anything bar a missile attack. IDF have tanks and bulldozers and soliders. The people at the house may have guns but more often then not they throw stones.

But this is the first of the crowds you speak of. Do you have news citing this? or you just make it up? Only news report I saw of crowds was when people were laying flowers where she died. IDF then drove the bulldozer by and fired tear gas into the crowd.

Was that Rachels fault too?

A bulldoser doesn't have a whole lot visual room of immediate objects.

They were there for THREE HOURS they knew full well where Rachael was. Apart from being there all that time she was wearing a bright reconisable top and carrying a loud speaker.

TBH, i don't know the civil laws in Palestine under Israeli occupation. Hell, i don't know if the area was under military law. Do you?

If it was under military law then it would be a war crime. Just because your in a warzone doesn't give you the right to kill civilians.

Same as you can't blame the driver of the bulldoser for the death of Rachel Corrie, when she put herself in the position. It was her actions that led to her death.

So by trying to stop someone running over a home it is her fault she died? Lets ignore rachel for a second. What about the others who were pushed into homes that were to be bulldozed? Or how about the ones who died when thier house fell on them after the house near them was bulldozed?

Sand

Hobbes,

She was there for 3 hours so she should have known full well where the bulldozers were and where to stand to ensure her safety.

She didnt. She decided to play chicken with a bulldozer - that was why she turned up, if she stood in the way and tried to obstruct the bulldozers theyd stop. The bulldozers continued doing their job and corrie kept on trying to obstruct them.

She got run over because she slipped as the earth beneath her shifted - thats how close she was going to play chicken with the thing.

If anyone was negligent it was the ISM and corrie herself. They took risks with her life to try and make a point and they lost.

Should they have been removed by the IDF? Yeah, Id have gone for that becuase Id imagine they were a nusicance at the very least. But then people would have been hoping up and down about the Israelis quashing dissent and trying to hide the turth etc etc.

Also the fact that you seem to belive the IDF had a responsiblity to remove Corrie implies that Corrie is a child or mentally deficient so unable to understand where she is and what shes doing.

Corries death was a terrible accident but when you take risks with your life you *can* lose. She would absolutely not have been crushed by that bulldozer if she hadnt decided to play chikcen with it. Who put her out there in front of that bulldozer? The IDF or the ISM? Or maybe it was just her decision as an adult.

Hobbes

Sand contrary to what you believe. She was not playing Chicken with the Bulldozer. She was sat down in front of the house. The bulldozer drove up to her at which point she stood up and told the guy to stop through a loud speaker. It's about that time she got run over.

She is not the first incident of this happening, and the bulldozers have been known to purposely push protesters.

I know some people can't be assed to read through another forum for a link so here it is...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0303/S00331.htm

It even refutes some of the BS that was spouted to cast Corrie as a Terrorist loving psycho who was trained to throw herself under the Bulldozer.

I don't give a **** what you say, anyone operating heavy machinery should get the cops/soilders in to remove the protesters before doing thier job. That is assuming the job to begin with is legal.

Also the fact that you seem to belive the IDF had a responsiblity to remove Corrie implies that Corrie is a child or mentally deficient so unable to understand where she is and what shes doing.

No. While I believe the bulldozing of the home to be illegal I am trying to post it in that they were legally justified to do it.

If you find someone on a spot where your about to bulldoze who is protesting against you. You don't run them over or try to push them with the bucket. You get the police. At least the last time I checked that's what you do in a civilised country.

Hide the truth? What truth? It was public knowledge they planned the bulldoze the houses.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
She was there for 3 hours so she should have known full well where the bulldozers were and where to stand to ensure her safety.

She didnt. She decided to play chicken with a bulldozer - that was why she turned up, if she stood in the way and tried to obstruct the bulldozers theyd stop. The bulldozers continued doing their job and corrie kept on trying to obstruct them.

Suire...and thats why every time we see eco-protestors living in trees to block motorways, they are just left there while the bulldozers level all around them, and when they get killed we get told its their own bloody fault for giving us this tree-hugging hippy crap, and that they deserved it for being so stupid.

No...wait...we dont see that at all.

We see the bulldozer crews etc. bringing in local authorities at one level or another to demove the protestors before work can continue so as to minimise the threat of injury of loss of life.

If an analagous event happened on some motorway stretch in Ireland, the bulldozer driver would probably have been told that "following orders" was no excuse for reckless endangerment of human life, and would most likely be found guilty of manslaughter. The company behind the bulldozer would be found criminally negligent on similar grounds, and if there were security forces present they would also be fouind negligent and reprimanded at least.

If any of this didnt happen, it would generally be put down to "political expediency"...like protecting the police, or not wanting to sink the major project, or something.

And yet, because this happened in Palestine, we get little better than "she fscking deserved it, damn flag-burning, chicken-playing stupid-idiot American girl".

(Thats not aimed at Sand...thats my perception of most people's reaction who seem to think she was solely at fault).

Yeah. Right.

No-one deserves to die for peaceful protest. it doesnt matter how stupid they may or may not be....they do not deserve to die....and anyone who ignores the safety of others' lives in order to ignore their protest is culpable - morally, if not legally - for any unjury or loss of life which ensues.

jc

Sparks

Two news stories of relevance:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/06/13/story102493.html

Most Israelis oppose the latest round of air strikes against Palestinian militants, according to a poll published today.

and,

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/06/13/story102485.html

Israel has decided to target top Hamas leaders, including its founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, officials said today.

Makes you wonder what mandate Sharon is acting under, doesn't it?

No-one deserves to die for peaceful protest. it doesnt matter how stupid they may or may not be....they do not deserve to die....and anyone who ignores the safety of others' lives in order to ignore their protest is culpable - morally, if not legally - for any unjury or loss of life which ensues

I don't think theres many people out there that will say that she deserved to die. I certainly don't. However, i do say that it was her own stupidity that killed her. The blame rests with her, for choosing to protest in this way, when there are plenty of other methods that wouldn't have placed her life in danger. <Shrugs> Her choice.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
when there are plenty of other methods that wouldn't have placed her life in danger. <Shrugs> Her choice.

Like?