Israeli Defence Forces

Sand

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.

I see we disagree on what playing chicken involves. We could argue about it for another 3 pages but lets not and just say we did.

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

Wow do protestors get that close to them?

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.

Well despite your apparent disinterest in debate Ill try and counter.

Say you were to go to the top of a building and throw yourself off. Now if Superman didnt catch you before you hit the ground would it be your fault or his for your death?

Corrie went and took a risk with her life, she put herself in the path of a bulldozer. She slipped, she was crushed.

Should she have been removed? She shouldnt even have been there in the first place. And whatever about the evil IDF not arresting her or whatever, why didnt her friends in the ISM - who you would assume would have the highest regard for her life - intervene to call her back when things started getting close enough that one slip led to her death?

You get the police. At least the last time I checked that's what you do in a civilised country.

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.

Your views rely on Ireland being equivalent with flashpoints in the west bank and the gaza strip. Ive not seen too many suicide bombers, gangs of stone throwing kids, gun men attacking settlements or Israeli main battle tanks patrolling the streets with cobras launching missle strikes recently around Dublin. Mind you Ive not been to the northside recently.

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.

No one said Corrie deserved to die. A guy died in a traffic accident today, we say accident but he was either speeding and made a bad error, or someone else made a mistake/got impatient and he died. Did he deserve to die?

Your last point can be double edged bonkey, is anyone who ignores the safety of others lives in order to mount an impressive protest culpable -morally, if not legally for any resulting loss of life? Did the ISM ignore the risks to Corries life in order to mount the protest?

Hobbes

Wow do protestors get that close to them?

Yea so close that they actually walk backwards into the house that is about to be bulldozed so it looks like the bulldozer is pushing them.

And the houses, they fall by themselves too. :rolleyes:

Say you were to go to the top of a building and throw yourself off. Now if Superman didnt catch you before you hit the ground would it be your fault or his for your death?

I think if your going to pick an example, try to pick one based in fact, or even relevant.

Should she have been removed? She shouldnt even have been there in the first place.

So if she shouldn't of been there, then it is the job of the people bulldozing to remove her, by use of police/soliders.

who you would assume would have the highest regard for her life - intervene to call her back when things started getting close enough that one slip led to her death?

Probably because they assumed that the driver also had a high regard for life as well. But then I wasn't there, why don't you ask them.

No one said Corrie deserved to die.

You have. You said she shouldn't of been there and by being there it was her own fault. Or because it's in the west bank rather then a civilised country that she deserved it.

That somehow passive protesting gives people the right to run you over (twice I might add). But what about the other incidents Sand? They shouldn't be there either? Remember the bulldozing is illegal to begin with. Or how about after Corrie died when IDF fired tear gas into the memorial service, or how about when the refused to let Corries body to be flown home? That her fault too?

Sparks

who you would assume would have the highest regard for her life - intervene to call her back when things started getting close enough that one slip led to her death?

When they saw her fall, they ran at teh bulldozer shouting for it to stop. The driver ignored them. I suggest you read up on the actual incident and reevaluate your opinion.

A guy died in a traffic accident today, we say accident but he was either speeding and made a bad error, or someone else made a mistake/got impatient and he died.

As I understand it, he was knocked off his bicycle while cycling to the leaving cert. It wasn't a comparable incident to being deliberately bulldozed.

Sand

I think if your going to pick an example, try to pick one based in fact, or even relevant.

It is relevant - you just dont like the reality behind it. You want to blame people for not stopping other people for doing stupid things, totally exonerating the person or group which took the risks with their own lives. Because its not Corries fault she died or that her life was put at risk.Oh no no. She had absolutely nothing to do with it.

So if she shouldn't of been there, then it is the job of the people bulldozing to remove her, by use of police/soliders.

But its well known the IDF and co are plain evil, and that the Palestinian police ....well juristiction is still up for debate ...so that leaves the ISM who plainly didnt give a crap about their "friend" so long as she died a martyr for the cause:|

Probably because they assumed that the driver also had a high regard for life as well. But then I wasn't there, why don't you ask them.

She was their friend , one would assume they would have the highest regard for her life . Personally when Im crossing the road I dont trust *anyone* with my life - I dont take risks saying "Oh yeah, he wont hit me cos he has too high a regard for human life".

You have. You said she shouldn't of been there and by being there it was her own fault. Or because it's in the west bank rather then a civilised country that she deserved it.

No, I said she shouldnt have been there and Ive said the west bank isnt exactly Baggot Street so whilst your expectations of either may be the same, the situations are not. Because your so morally outraged by Corries death you translate this to "Yeah, **** her, stupid cow got what was coming to her". Thats your problem to deal with, not mine.

Remember the bulldozing is illegal to begin with.

You seem kind of confused on that point yourself, the action was illegal but they were legally justified to do it I think was your position only a post or two back.

Or how about after Corrie died when IDF fired tear gas into the memorial service, or how about when the refused to let Corries body to be flown home? That her fault too?

Well lets just put it on the big scoreboard of whose the most evil shall we. And lets remember that you expect these lads to have more regard for Corries life than her pals in the ISM should have had. Christ, the ISM must have done handstands when she died, full blown martyr right there for them. Personally, if she was any friend of mine and standing on a pile earth in front of an advancing bulldozer then Id have told her to get out of the way and if she didnt Id have dragged her away - but then I wouldnt have been there with a political agenda and like I said I wouldnt trust anyone else to have a higher regard for human life than me.

When they saw her fall, they ran at teh bulldozer shouting for it to stop. The driver ignored them. I suggest you read up on the actual incident and reevaluate your opinion.

Oh so after she had fallen behind the bucket where the driver couldnt see her, they shouted at him over the rather deafening noise of the engines to stop. My god, what absolute heroes. Looks like they did *everything* they could to keep Corrie alive. Barring the most obvious and effective.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
It is relevant - you just dont like the reality behind it. You want to blame people for not stopping other people for doing stupid things

The obvious point being missed here is that it does not matter if she did something stupid. It's not against the law to be stupid(regrettably, some who may read the CS boards would say), but them's the facts. Rachel had every right to stand next to a house, the bulldozer did not have every right to run her over. She didn't throw herself under the bulldozer she was run over- there is a clear difference in law between the two.

The fact that there might be violence in the region does not mean that the rule of law magically disappears Sand. Moreover I fail to see how "violence in the region" and the bulldozing of peoples' homes are at all even remotely connected. If someone is responsible for a crime they should be arrested, tried and brought to justice. Living in a house that once housed a militant is not a crime in Israeli law- there is therefore no legal basis for destroying those homes.

She was their friend , one would assume they would have the highest regard for her life . Personally when Im crossing the road I dont trust *anyone* with my life - I dont take risks saying "Oh yeah, he wont hit me cos he has too high a regard for human life".

When you cross a street you still make a basic assumption- at a pedestrian crossing when the lights are red you assume that the car won't run the red light and knock you over. If they do, there are legal consequences, and so there should be.

The value of human life is pretty well sarcosanct in law- saying it was "her fault" is meaningless when she had every right to stand where she did, and the bulldozer's driver was not within his legal rights to kill her. She wasn't threatening him in any way, he wasn't taking fire, there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances in law that exonerate that driver's actions.

Whether or not you feel it was "right" to do so is totally irrelevant in the context of this discussion. If you think it's a stupid law then you have every right to emmigrate and campaign for the law to be changed. But unless it is, there is a case to answer for manslaughter, and that no one with an ounce of legal knowledge can deny.

No, I said she shouldnt have been there and Ive said the west bank isnt exactly Baggot Street

Why shouldn't she have been there if she had every legal right to? The rule of law is what determines right & wrong in circumstances of injury such as this, and the rule of law Sand, is on Rachel Corrie's side. The fact that the rule of law isn't being applied should come as no great suprise- it wasn't in apartheid South Africa for exactly the same reason- the policing and prosecution authorities are directly answerable to the executive, not the judiciary. A feature of many oppressive regimes one might say.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
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.

Sand...are you implying that when local law enforcement / local councils in Ireland and England and other places around the world remove eco-protestors from tree's etc (where they are trying to stop the same manner of construction equipment from doing its job) that they do so because they believe the people are children or mentally deficient?

I mean...I can't understand what it is you are driving at. On one hand, you make these remarks that Corrie was stupid and/or irresponsible (and here were hinting at mentally deficient), while on the other hand tell us that removing her would be a denial of her right to protest so obviously she shouldnt have been removed.

So what you seem to be saying is that once someone exercises their right to object, their life is no longer anyone's responsibility then their own.

What next? Would you say that those who died in Tiannamen square were to blame for their own deaths, and the Chinese military who drove the tanks over them etc. were blameless? It was the protestors own fault for not getting out of the way???

As far as you are concerned, Corrie put herself in harms way, and therefore she carries the full responsibility and not anyone on the Israeli side. Apply the same logic to Tiannamen, and the Chinese officials and their military are blameless.

I agree fully that Corrie took a risk with her life, and that she does carry some responsibility in her own death - just as the students who let the tanks roll over them in Tiannamen square carry some responsibility in their own death.

However, none of this mitigates the responsibility on the part of the Israelis, or the Chinese. Just as you can argue that Corrie was taking a risk with her own life, those who killed her were negligent at best (assuming it was a genuine accident), and guilty of murder at worst (assuming there was any deliberateness in their actions).

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Hobbes
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).

Hobbes can you link to this because I can find no such photos on that site.

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.

They were not trying to demolish his house.

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.

Does anyone actually have any evidence that she was run over deliberately?

Sand

She didn't throw herself under the bulldozer she was run over- there is a clear difference in law between the two.

Agreed, but she wasnt run over - she slipped beneath the bucket as the earth beneath her shifted. Different again to being run over.

Moreover I fail to see how "violence in the region" and the bulldozing of peoples' homes are at all even remotely connected. If someone is responsible for a crime they should be arrested, tried and brought to justice. Living in a house that once housed a militant is not a crime in Israeli law- there is therefore no legal basis for destroying those homes.

A different topic I do not wish to get into. Lets just leave that both the Israelis and the Palestinians will agree theres a connection between palestinian terrorism and palestinian houses being knocked down.

When you cross a street you still make a basic assumption- at a pedestrian crossing when the lights are red you assume that the car won't run the red light and knock you over. If they do, there are legal consequences, and so there should be.

Agreed, but I dont know you, and I dont have any reason to trust you so Im not going to blindly walk out when the lights turn red safe in the knowledge that if I die at least my family can sue or the driver will go to jail. Yay for me!

The value of human life is pretty well sarcosanct in law- saying it was "her fault" is meaningless when she had every right to stand where she did, and the bulldozer's driver was not within his legal rights to kill her. She wasn't threatening him in any way, he wasn't taking fire, there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances in law that exonerate that driver's actions.

He could argue that he didnt intend to kill her, that her death was accidental/misadventure and in my opinion hed be right. Of course everytime a martyr is forged an evil villain is needed - step forward the cackling evil bulldozer driver. Reminds me of that episode of the simpsons where homer is accused of sexual assault - the tv reconstruction specifically.

Why shouldn't she have been there if she had every legal right to? The rule of law is what determines right & wrong in circumstances of injury such as this, and the rule of law Sand, is on Rachel Corrie's side. The fact that the rule of law isn't being applied should come as no great suprise- it wasn't in apartheid South Africa for exactly the same reason- the policing and prosecution authorities are directly answerable to the executive, not the judiciary. A feature of many oppressive regimes one might say.

Even hobbes admits the israelis were legally justified to do what they were doing - under Israeli law anyway. If anyone was attempting to usurp the law it was Corrie. And the law -again the Israeli law, clearly isnt on Corries side as Ive not heard of a case being brought against the driver or any other security leadership present.

Sand...are you implying that when local law enforcement / local councils in Ireland and England and other places around the world remove eco-protestors from tree's etc (where they are trying to stop the same manner of construction equipment from doing its job) that they do so because they believe the people are children or mentally deficient?

Children need to be saved from themselves, scolded when they endanger themselves etc etc. Now if there is an assumption that you can go and recklessly endanger your life and then if youre not rescued from the situation youve willingly and knowingly gone into that someone else is to blame then your acting like a child. Actually thats not such a good example as children at least can say theyre not aware of threats until warned of them. Corrie and her colleagues havent got that exscuse.

I mean...I can't understand what it is you are driving at. On one hand, you make these remarks that Corrie was stupid and/or irresponsible (and here were hinting at mentally deficient), while on the other hand tell us that removing her would be a denial of her right to protest so obviously she shouldnt have been removed.

Well its going to be lose lose for the Israelis - on the one hand they dont intervene and theyre then the ones who murdered corrie. They do intervene and then theyre the ones brutally silencing foreign monitors from saving a palestinian home - and then theres always the risk of some crazy palestinian sniping at their soldiers as they try to remove the protestors, naaaaaah actually thatd never happen. Whilst the choice might seem clearer with hindsight it probably wasnt at the time. Though Id have gone for getting them locked up and deported but then Im evil - and I cant stand earnest student types:|

So what you seem to be saying is that once someone exercises their right to object, their life is no longer anyone's responsibility then their own.

Well, one can object in non-stupid ways - If you decide to protest testing on animals by rubbing new types of shampoo into your eyes it sure isnt my fault when you go blind.

As far as you are concerned, Corrie put herself in harms way, and therefore she carries the full responsibility and not anyone on the Israeli side. Apply the same logic to Tiannamen, and the Chinese officials and their military are blameless.

Actually it wouldnt be that black and white ( The Chinese had different objectives from the IDF for one thing ). Currently the moral of the story is that brave valourous Corrie went to Palestine and was horribly murdered by the evil IDF thus in part validating her politics through her noble sacrifice in the face of oppression. Personally I believe that Corrie acted like an idiot whilst exercising her right to protest and died in an accident. I belive that her firends in the ISM failed her and Im unable to explain why her friends in the ISM felt so confident that the evil IDF - who they paint as totally unconcerned with non Israeli Jewisih life - would absolutely never harm Corrie.

Theres a paradox there and a cynical explanation - a little too cynical even I think but then again who knows.

However, none of this mitigates the responsibility on the part of the Israelis, or the Chinese. Just as you can argue that Corrie was taking a risk with her own life, those who killed her were negligent at best (assuming it was a genuine accident)

And we come full circle back to the original point - who was negligent? The IDF? Corrie herself? or her buddies?

Hobbes

Even hobbes admits the israelis were legally justified to do what they were doing - under Israeli law anyway. If anyone was attempting to usurp the law it was Corrie. And the law -again the Israeli law, clearly isnt on Corries side as Ive not heard of a case being brought against the driver or any other security leadership present.

No I never said what they were doing was legal. I was putting the point across from the standpoint that is was legal, as legal or not what happened shouldn't of. The fact Rachel shouldn't of been there is mute, as it is up to the people in the heavy machinery to remove her, not run her over.

Hobbes can you link to this because I can find no such photos on that site.

I'll wander through the ISM site again, in the meantime these pictures are the same that were up there (although they had others, including the famous flag burning one that people used as a reason to run her over).

They were not trying to demolish his house.

Yes they were. Dr. Samir Masri was the owner of the house and had been letting ISM stay at his house.

Does anyone actually have any evidence that she was run over deliberately?

Well the photos are pretty damming. Not to mention all the eye witness reports. But the point is no one was charged over it.

But this crap goes on a lot. IDF get caught doing something questionable and are let completly off the hook.

In fact the IDF claimed that she wasn't hit by a bulldozer at all (yet the picture clearly shows the tracks extend past her).

An IDF inquiry concluded that Ms Corrie "was not run over by an engineering vehicle but rather was struck by a hard object, most probably a slab of concrete which was moved or slid down while the mound of earth which she was standing behind was moved". -Shuli Davidovich, Press secretary, Embassy of Israel

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Hobbes
I'll wander through the ISM site again, in the meantime these pictures are the same that were up there (although they had others, including the famous flag burning one that people used as a reason to run her over).

None of those photos show her being run over.

Yes they were. Dr. Samir Masri was the owner of the house and had been letting ISM stay at his house.

They were clearing shrubbery used to conceal weapons-smuggling tunnels. WHo says they were trying to demolish a house?

Well the photos are pretty damming.

In what way?

Not to mention all the eye witness reports.

Which gave conflicting accounts of what happened.

But the point is no one was charged over it.

There is no evidence of a crime.

In fact the IDF claimed that she wasn't hit by a bulldozer at all (yet the picture clearly shows the tracks extend past her).

So why is she quite clearly in a completely different place in that photo from all the others? (in the page you linked to)

Hobbes

Look Biffa, I recommend you dig out the corrie thread, or better yet google for the stuff. Or read the ISM breakdown of all the BS that claimed that it never happened.

1. None of those photos show her being run over.

You know you could be right. She could of crushed herself and thrown herself into the bulldozers tracks which extend part her. Or maybe the ISM folks threw her in there, we all know how they love to lie.

2.They were clearing shrubbery used to conceal weapons-smuggling tunnels. WHo says they were trying to demolish a house?

The house in question beside that shubbery was the doctors house. Who was letting ISM stay and who had recieved written notice from the IDF who said he was getting his house knocked down for harboring terrorists. This is common undisputed knowledge.

3. In what way?

I can only guess your not even looking at the stuff.



Notice how the tracks extend past Rachel and is completly flat.



Notice the pile of rubble extends past Rachel. See any concrete blocks? I don't.

Btw, In case your going to start going off on it. The other pictures are of another bulldozer (that page isn't updated). But ISM already points it out that there was more then one bulldozer there for a long period of time, along with numerous other people.

4. Which gave conflicting accounts of what happened.

Actually all the eye witness reports were correct. They were all taken out of chronological context to reflect that some how Rachel was lying flat. Again this is mentioned in the ISM link (you did actually read the report right?).

Even though some blind headed ignorance we ignore Rachel Corries death. How do you explain all the others who have died in similar circumstances?

Or how do you explain the bulldozer coming back during the memorial service and trying to bulldoze the service (while IDF fired tear gas into the crowd at the memorial service).

It's nothing but a total disregard to human life.