Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slept2long · 06-22-2003, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Working in the Palestinian areas they must always expect enemy fire.

I agree. They weren't under fire though. If they had come under fire I'd be considering there actions differently. Why couldn't they just arrest her and her fellow protestors? Get out the zip ties and escort them to jail. Would that not be more reasonable, but still perhaps not legal, than running her over then making up a bogus account of what happened?.

Quote:

Attacking in non-lethal ways. There was nothing to make the soldiers fear for their lives, unlike in the Rachel case.

The IDF didn't know if the Israelis had weapons. Just like they didn't know if the people in the area of the ISM group had weapons. Yet they still showed more caution with the people ACTUALLY attacking them.

slept2long · 06-22-2003, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Yeah, the stuff posted recently on here shows she wasn't run down in the first place.

If your refering to my posting of the Israeli account here your wrong. The Israeli report says she was behind a mound and was struck by debris. Yet the photos of her in the dirt show her in the path a bulldozer had just cleared.

Quote:

No. Had it gone down as originally reported she would have been safe if she was sitting.

Jat · 06-22-2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The point is that you think that blocking one approach to doing something will stop them from doing that something. They'll just find another way.

The Israelis shouldn't have been there in the first place. Your blind spot prevents you from seeing this fact.

Loren Pechtel · 06-22-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron

it doesn't matter to your argument. You claimed that had she been sitting, then the driver would have seen her. Because someone sitting fell within the driver's scope of vision.

If that's true, then it also holds true for someone who fell. If she fell, she would have still been in the driver's field of vision, since that vision included someone low enough to the ground to be sitting.

The difference is that sitting the driver would *KNOW* where she was. Falling, the driver can easily be fooled into thinking she was scared into retreating.

Loren Pechtel · 06-22-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
Whether or not she was killed purposely being put aside, you still don't seem to get what Loren is saying.

If she was sitting down from the beginning as they approached the people would have seen her from a distance, the difference being that if you are standing and moving around a few feet in front of the machine and fall down all of sudden the person is out of view. An argument (although weak) could be made that the driver thought she had moved out of the way, but this argument certainly would have no weight in a situation where a bunch of people are sitting down in protest as the machines approached.

Since it amounted to a game of chicken it's quite reasonable the driver would think he had scared her back.

Loren Pechtel · 06-22-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
More info showing that the bulldozer drivers had engaged in dangerous acts before Rachel Corrie died:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...vist+bulldozer

In an e-mail earlier this month, Corrie described a Feb. 14 confrontation with another Israeli bulldozer in which she referred to herself and other activists as "internationals."

"The internationals stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house," Corrie wrote in the e-mail, distributed in a March 3 news release by the International Solidarity Movement.

"The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demolishing one side of the house with the internationals inside," she wrote.

Exactly--the drivers take a very confrontational attitude. Note, however, that when the driver knew what was going on they weren't killed or even seriously hurt. This is the sort of thing I would expect to see given the way Israel functions in the occupied territories.

In this case the driver obviously did *NOT* know what happened. Thus my point about sitting vs standing remains valid. If she was sitting the driver would have known where she was.

Loren Pechtel · 06-22-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by slept2long
I agree. They weren't under fire though. If they had come under fire I'd be considering there actions differently. Why couldn't they just arrest her and her fellow protestors? Get out the zip ties and escort them to jail. Would that not be more reasonable, but still perhaps not legal, than running her over then making up a bogus account of what happened?.

Note there aren't any soldier standing around in those shots. They don't want to expose themselves to Palestinian snipers!

The IDF didn't know if the Israelis had weapons. Just like they didn't know if the people in the area of the ISM group had weapons. Yet they still showed more caution with the people ACTUALLY attacking them.

But they *KNOW* the Palestinians have weapons. The settlers were acting like normal protestors using non-lethal attacks. Israel responded like police normally do.

Loren Pechtel · 06-22-2003, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jat
The Israelis shouldn't have been there in the first place. Your blind spot prevents you from seeing this fact.

And your blind spot is thinking that stopping them from doing something one way will stop them entirely.

Jat · 06-22-2003, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
And your blind spot is thinking that stopping them from doing something one way will stop them entirely.

And thus that is why they lack a moral authority to even be there in the first place. They are aggressors in this and the terrorists are in reality freedom fighters. The Israelis dragged the rest of the West into their little oppression and because of American policies in the area to protect them it made the USA pay for it on 9/11.

Evangelion · 06-22-2003, 10:30 AM

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2003, 08:43 AM	#47
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by slept2long I agree. They weren't under fire though. If they had come under fire I'd be considering there actions differently. Why couldn't they just arrest her and her fellow protestors? Get out the zip ties and escort them to jail. Would that not be more reasonable, but still perhaps not legal, than running her over then making up a bogus account of what happened?. Note there aren't any soldier standing around in those shots. They don't want to expose themselves to Palestinian snipers! The IDF didn't know if the Israelis had weapons. Just like they didn't know if the people in the area of the ISM group had weapons. Yet they still showed more caution with the people ACTUALLY attacking them. But they KNOW the Palestinians have weapons. The settlers were acting like normal protestors using non-lethal attacks. Israel responded like police normally do.

06-22-2003, 10:30 AM	#50
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.