Three Years Ago Today...

[Knife]

Since our resident gutless wonders can't or won't answer the question, I'll ask you: Out of the students killed and wounded at Kent State, which ones took part in burning the ROTC building?

I have no idea, however a more interesting question would be how many of those poor souls that were shot were part of the same student organizatgions/groups that did burn down the building?

[Edi]

Since our resident gutless wonders can't or won't answer the question, I'll ask you: Out of the students killed and wounded at Kent State, which ones took part in burning the ROTC building?

I have no idea, however a more interesting question would be how many of those poor souls that were shot were part of the same student organizatgions/groups that did burn down the building?

That's going to invite flaming, because it looks like you're invoking guilt by association even if you don't mean it. And if the distances Elfdart posted earlier are correct, then the rock-throwing accusation against the victims is on really shoddy grounds. In that light, it doesn't look good for the NG no matter how it's spun.

Edi

[Knife]

That's going to invite flaming, because it looks like you're invoking guilt by association even if you don't mean it. And if the distances Elfdart posted earlier are correct, then the rock-throwing accusation against the victims is on really shoddy grounds. In that light, it doesn't look good for the NG no matter how it's spun.

Edi

Not trying to spin anything. There was no excuse for the dipshits in the NG to open fire. However, just because there is no excuse, does not mean that there are factors that played into that night, or timeframe.

Even if those student that were shot were the actual people who did burn down the building and threw rocks after they banged the NG's mother, the troops should not have fired.

[Edi]

Not trying to spin anything. There was no excuse for the dipshits in the NG to open fire. However, just because there is no excuse, does not mean that there are factors that played into that night, or timeframe.

Not accusing you of trying to spin it. That comment was general. But with the way this thread has been going, the previous post looked like a burning fuse. Not any longer, with this clarification. I also happen to agree with you.

Edi

[Elfdart]

*sigh*

Risking your life for a cause crosses the line into stupidity when you REMOVE an active agent from the equation.

Example:

Kent State Riots - Hmm, man with gun, already nervous at lots of screaming angry young students. Let's throw rocks at him, too! The soldier, while lacking discpline and self-control(maybe) is no longer an active agent against the cause if he opens fire. He's acting in percieved self-defense. While makes that one stupid.

Riots? Nixon's own Justice Department said the demonstration was peaceful and orderly until the Guard showed up, fixed bayonets and started shooting tear gas at them. At that point, the students kicked or threw the tear gas cannisters back, most likely to get the gas away from themselves. Aside from catcalls and a few of these , the only mention of any violence or disorderly conduct on the part of the students is the usual baseless slander hurled at people who are injured or killed by the state.

MLK - Assassin is, obviously, an active agent, fully and deliberately choosing to strike against MLK's cause.

Funny how he and other civil right "idiots" are brought up. Any standard one wants to use to attack Rachel Corrie applies in spades to King, Parks, Evers and the other beaten, jailed and killed civil rights activists. It's no surprise that a neo-Nazi publication like National Review would piss on Corrie's grave on the grounds she was asking for it, since they did the same thing back when Martin Luther king was shot: He was asking for it, too.

Corrie - More complicated. But the driver, while negligible,

Negligent is more like it.

Think of it this way - if we, the Israeli goverment, ALLOW the protesters to delay our military actions in the area, that is actively allowing them to win. Not to mention it gives the terrorist elements time to run. We CANNOT allow foreign protestors to dictate our actions to such an extent.

The IDF has no business in the West Bank and Gaza, period. If Israel is worried about the safety of its soldiers and squatters, the easiest and simplest solution is to remove them immediately.

When your "military actions in the area" are clear violations of the Geneva Conventions and every other standard of civilized conduct, people should oppose them at every turn.

This is not an internal civil protest. This is a foreign element actively involving itself in the military workings of a war zone.

What part of Rafah did the bulldozer driver come from?

The people of Rafah -you know, the folks who live(d) there- had no problem with the foreigners and it's their country -not yours!

Which is not to say there was no negligence. The dozer driver could not, in good faith, obey the order to drive a hazardous vehicle into a zone full of innocents. This is known in Israeli law as a "patently illegal order"(as opposed to just an illegal one, which DOES have to be obeyed, just reported later), I think(though the big argument is whether it crossed that line, of course).

Is there anything in Israeli law against violating the Geneva Conventions? Or against committing other war crimes?

But to act as though Corrie was some sort of martyr for the cause is ridiculous. She was a well-meaning woman who chose to put herself in a stupid position. Her ascencion into sainthood seems to prove the power of cheap sensationalism over reality.

The same could be said for anyone who dies for a cause.

For example, Yitzhak Rabin. He should have known that pissing off Zionist fanatics and getting in the way of Greater Israel was going to antagonize Israeli ethnic cleansers to the point where one or more might want to kill him. By your standard, he put himself in a stupid position. I guess his ascension to sainthood is another victory for cheap sensationalism over reality.

[Darth Wong]

Corrie's only "stupidity" was in assuming that the driver of the bulldozer would be concerned about human life and would therefore act accordingly (and that means taking actual precautions to avoid fatalities, as I outlined earlier, not just taking a peek through the visor and saying "nope, I don't see nuthin'").

Interestingly enough, that particular brand of "stupidity" is shared by all of the Israel apologists who vehemently deny that an Israeli bulldozer operator would be callous toward human life.

[Faqa]

*rubs hands*

I always wondered what the Elfdart MO was like, to earn you the reputation you have.

*sigh*

Risking your life for a cause crosses the line into stupidity when you REMOVE an active agent from the equation.

Example:

Kent State Riots - Hmm, man with gun, already nervous at lots of screaming angry young students. Let's throw rocks at him, too! The soldier, while lacking discpline and self-control(maybe) is no longer an active agent against the cause if he opens fire. He's acting in percieved self-defense. While makes that one stupid.

Riots? Nixon's own Justice Department said the demonstration was peaceful and orderly until the Guard showed up, fixed bayonets and started shooting tear gas at them. At that point, the students kicked or threw the tear gas cannisters back, most likely to get the gas away from themselves. Aside from catcalls and a few of these , the only mention of any violence or disorderly conduct on the part of the students is the usual baseless slander hurled at people who are injured or killed by the state.

Funny, every account EXCEPT yours mentions rock-throwing.

Just before noon, the Guard ordered the crowd to disperse and fired tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect on dispersing the crowd, some of whom were now responding to the tear gas with rock-throwing and chants of "Pigs off campus!". Some students began to pick up the tear gas canisters and throw them back at the National Guardsmen.

On May 4th 1970, when rallies surfaced again in the commons area, tear gas was used to disperse the crowd. The conflict between students and the National Guard had begun to expand, and the cursing and rock throwing were increasing the tension in the air.

There WAS violence going on by the time the shooting started. And all instigators of it were morons. These people actively chose to piss off nervous armed men. You will forgive me for not having the highest opinion(regardless of the troops' own failings) here.

MLK - Assassin is, obviously, an active agent, fully and deliberately choosing to strike against MLK's cause.

Funny how he and other civil right "idiots" are brought up. Any standard one wants to use to attack Rachel Corrie applies in spades to King, Parks, Evers and the other beaten, jailed and killed civil rights activists. It's no surprise that a neo-Nazi publication like National Review would piss on Corrie's grave on the grounds she was asking for it, since they did the same thing back when Martin Luther king was shot: He was asking for it, too.

Is there a POINT to that unconnected drivel, or am I supposed to get pissed because you stuck in the word Nazi?

Funny how, if you'd READ my point, you'd see I draw a DISTINCTION between MLK and what Corrie did.

Corrie - More complicated. But the driver, while negligible,

Negligent is more like it.

Uh, yeah. Ooops.

Think of it this way - if we, the Israeli goverment, ALLOW the protesters to delay our military actions in the area, that is actively allowing them to win. Not to mention it gives the terrorist elements time to run. We CANNOT allow foreign protestors to dictate our actions to such an extent.

The IDF has no business in the West Bank and Gaza, period. If Israel is worried about the safety of its soldiers and squatters, the easiest and simplest solution is to remove them immediately.

When your "military actions in the area" are clear violations of the Geneva Conventions and every other standard of civilized conduct, people should oppose them at every turn.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were trying to drag this into IvP lockage ...

Riiiiiiiiight. Evacuating the Territories is "easy and simple". I LOVE the armchair dumbasses. If you'd paid half an ear to the news of the Gaza evacuation(WITH over a year of prep time, mind you)...

But, that aside - you're talking a high-level policy there. The point is, we're there, and we have to secure that area. What, we're supposed to let terrorists run around loose? The SAME ones who blow up innocent women and children, if you'll recall. And, BTW, considering terrorists use the Territories to launch attacks against us, and the locals lack of help, we'd be perfectly within our rights to conduct military operations there even it WAS another country.

Geneva Convention? Glad you brought that up:

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

Hamas or Jihad ringing any bells?

It gets VERY messy when one considers the vast majority of Palestinian resistance IS civilian-dressed terrorists.

The Occupied Territories are a long, messy tale, of pride, hate, nationalism and lack of reason. You can hardly brush aside the circumstances as " they shouldn't be there in the first place".

This is not an internal civil protest. This is a foreign element actively involving itself in the military workings of a war zone.

What part of Rafah did the bulldozer driver come from?

The people of Rafah -you know, the folks who live(d) there- had no problem with the foreigners and it's their country -not yours!

Jeez, AGAIN with this?!

THERE IS NO SUCH COUNTRY AS "PALESTINE".

"Palestine" was a British name for all the local territory, east and west of the Jordan. Anti-Jewish Arabs rallied around it a little pre-1948. It later became identified with Arab refugees from the War Of Independence who abandoned everything to get out of the way of the armies of their "Arab brothers". It's primarily an anti-term.

The first people to identify themselves as "Palestinian"? Jews.

NOBODY owned that territory then. Nobody owns it now. It's a disputed war zone we are OCCUPYING(not much longer, hopefully). It's nobody's country.

Which is not to say there was no negligence. The dozer driver could not, in good faith, obey the order to drive a hazardous vehicle into a zone full of innocents. This is known in Israeli law as a "patently illegal order"(as opposed to just an illegal one, which DOES have to be obeyed, just reported later), I think(though the big argument is whether it crossed that line, of course).

Is there anything in Israeli law against violating the Geneva Conventions? Or against committing other war crimes?

I believe that falls under "patently illegal".

But to act as though Corrie was some sort of martyr for the cause is ridiculous. She was a well-meaning woman who chose to put herself in a stupid position. Her ascencion into sainthood seems to prove the power of cheap sensationalism over reality.

The same could be said for anyone who dies for a cause.

For example, Yitzhak Rabin. He should have known that pissing off Zionist fanatics and getting in the way of Greater Israel was going to antagonize Israeli ethnic cleansers to the point where one or more might want to kill him. By your standard, he put himself in a stupid position. I guess his ascension to sainthood is another victory for cheap sensationalism over reality.

Report Card: Elfdart needs to work on his reading comprehension.

Dumbfuck, I specifically EXPLAINED the difference. The choice was Yigal Amir's - to ACTIVELY shoot and kill Rabin as an ACTIVE attack on the ideas Rabin stood for. Corrie died stupidly, getting ACCIDENTALLY run over and is elevated to sainthood for being a bloody face on the evening news.

This would be like Amir firing randomly and Rabin rushing into the area to get hit by a stray shot.

[Elfdart]

*rubs hands*

I always wondered what the Elfdart MO was like, to earn you the reputation you have.

Funny, every account EXCEPT yours mentions rock-throwing.

Here's what the FBI, headed by that infamous hippie-lover J. Edgar Hoover had to say about the alleged rock-throwing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Krause

An FBI study of the event noted, "...Many Guardsmen claim that they felt their lives were in danger from the students for a variety of reasons...because they were 'surrounded'...because a sniper fired at them...stones...the students 'advanced upon them in a threatening manner' [. . .] we have some reason to believe that the claim by the National Guard that their lives were endangered by the students was fabricated subsequent to the event..." The FBI report also noted that "...the Guardsmen were not surrounded ... they could easily have continued going in the direction in which they had been going" [instead of stopping and firing] and that "...no Guardsman claims he was hit with rocks immediately prior to the firing..." Further, "... a chaplain of Troop G spoke with many members of the National Guard and stated that they were unable to explain to him why they fired their weapons."

The "they were throwing rocks at us!" story is bullshit. Is it possible or probable that someone in the crowd chucked rocks at the soldiers? Sure, but since it's not the reason they opened fire, it's a big red herring. In any crowd of demonstrators (no matter how peaceful) there will be one or more troublemakers (usually Agents Provocateur from the police) who throw things at the police or soldiers, yet people seldom get gunned down for it (at least in the US).

Funny how, if you'd READ my point, you'd see I draw a DISTINCTION between MLK and what Corrie did.

Which is nonsensical.

Riiiiiiiiight. Evacuating the Territories is "easy and simple". I LOVE the armchair dumbasses. If you'd paid half an ear to the news of the Gaza evacuation(WITH over a year of prep time, mind you)...

The "prep time" was to avoid offending squatters with visions of Lebensraum dancing in their heads -and their supporters in the Knesset and in this country. I referred to an immediate pullout as the "easiest and simplest" solution, not "easy and simple". There's a difference, unless you were deliberately trying to twist my words.

But, that aside - you're talking a high-level policy there. The point is, we're there,

You shouldn't be.

and we have to secure that area.

The only way that area will be in any way secure is when the IDF gets out and stays out.

What, we're supposed to let terrorists run around loose? The SAME ones who blow up innocent women and children, if you'll recall. And, BTW, considering terrorists use the Territories to launch attacks against us, and the locals lack of help, we'd be perfectly within our rights to conduct military operations there even it WAS another country.

Why should the locals aid an invader that tortures, kills and ethnically cleanses them? If you're that worried about "terrorists", the first step would be to leave the West Bank and Gaza completely. Then build the Wall -as long as it's on Israeli territory- and most of your problem is solved. But if you keep up the piecemeal Lebensraum campaign and build a wall in such a way as to grab more Arab land, and occupy Palestinians while committing war crimes, you'll get more of the same. People have a nasty habit of not laying down like sheep.

(<snip quote about Geneva Conventions>)

Hamas or Jihad ringing any bells?

Since Rachel Corrie wasn't a member of either group and nobody claims she was a combatant, what's your point?

It gets VERY messy when one considers the vast majority of Palestinian resistance IS civilian-dressed terrorists.

Yeah, guerillas and terrorists tend to do that sort of thing. It still doesn't excuse war crimes performed in retaliation. It's been a long time since Spain ethnically cleansed Basques in retaliation for ETA bombings.

The Occupied Territories are a long, messy tale, of pride, hate, nationalism and lack of reason. You can hardly brush aside the circumstances as " they shouldn't be there in the first place".

Sure I can. Especially since the attempt to mystify what's going on there is just a dodge.

THERE IS NO SUCH COUNTRY AS "PALESTINE".

"Palestine" was a British name for all the local territory, east and west of the Jordan. Anti-Jewish Arabs rallied around it a little pre-1948. It later became identified with Arab refugees from the War Of Independence who abandoned everything to get out of the way of the armies of their "Arab brothers". It's primarily an anti-term.

There was no such country as Kosovo either. Looks like Milosevic died in jail for nothing by your standard.

NOBODY owned that territory then. Nobody owns it now.

Not even the people who live there? Nice. If "nobody" owns it, "nobody" would include Israel, right? If Israel doesn't own the territory, and Israelis aren't there at the invitation of the natives, they have no business there.

Is there anything in Israeli law against violating the Geneva Conventions? Or against committing other war crimes?

I believe that falls under "patently illegal".

The Fourth Geneva Convention states:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Art. 34. The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Art. 49. [scroll down] The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Israel has been shitting all over those articles and others for more than four decades. Looks like someone forgot the memo.

Report Card: Elfdart needs to work on his reading comprehension.

Dumbfuck, I specifically EXPLAINED the difference. The choice was Yigal Amir's - to ACTIVELY shoot and kill Rabin as an ACTIVE attack on the ideas Rabin stood for. Corrie died stupidly, getting ACCIDENTALLY run over and is elevated to sainthood for being a bloody face on the evening news.

This would be like Amir firing randomly and Rabin rushing into the area to get hit by a stray shot.

You're missing the points:

1) In one way or another, almost anyone who gets killed (accidentally or intentionally) takes actions that led to getting killed. This in no way excuses the killer or makes the person who gets killed a "retard", "dumbass" or "idiot". Someone who pissed off racist rednecks in the South back in the bad old days was playing with fire just like someone who gets between an Israeli bulldozer and a doctor's house in Gaza (actually moreso). But aside from a few hardcore white supremacists, nobody calls Martin Luther King an "idiot". Who was the "active" participant and who was the "passive" one is a matter of opinion and irrelevent anyway.

2) Rachel Corrie was trying to stop a war crime in progress. I know smearing the victim is a common tactic for thugs and their apologists, but she was in the right and paid for it with her life. When the assholes who gloat over her death come anywhere close to having her courage or come close to accomplishing...

...nah, they'll still be a bunch of shriveled little pricks.

[Elfdart]

In any location in the US the operator wouldn't be required to use an uparmored D7 or D9 for fear of explosives.

That's because the US stopped its campaign of ethnic cleansing and land grabbing against natives about 90 years ago.

[Beowulf]

In any location in the US the operator wouldn't be required to use an uparmored D7 or D9 for fear of explosives.

That's because the US stopped its campaign of ethnic cleansing and land grabbing against natives about 90 years ago.

Which is precisely why Israel is pulling all the settlers out of the West Bank. But we're dropping into IvP territory here.

[CmdrWilkens]

In any location in the US the operator wouldn't be required to use an uparmored D7 or D9 for fear of explosives.

That's because the US stopped its campaign of ethnic cleansing and land grabbing against natives about 90 years ago.

Which again has absolutely NO bearing on the safety requirements of using a vision limited military vehicle and the strictures it places on the operators ability. If you want to take something on in my comments a pointless sidebar about the US is pretty far off topic.

[CmdrWilkens]

Corrie's only "stupidity" was in assuming that the driver of the bulldozer would be concerned about human life and would therefore act accordingly (and that means taking actual precautions to avoid fatalities, as I outlined earlier, not just taking a peek through the visor and saying "nope, I don't see nuthin'").

Interestingly enough, that particular brand of "stupidity" is shared by all of the Israel apologists who vehemently deny that an Israeli bulldozer operator would be callous toward human life.

Here's the porblems I have with that:

1) By the suppossed closest eyewithness she was kneeling in front of the dozer at a distance of 10-20m. If you've ever been inside of a D7 or D9 uparmored bulldozer you would realize a person running into that position and kneeling is incredibly difficult to locate unless they happen to cross the field of vision in the bottom left or bottom right panes. There actually is a slightly greater likelyhood she might have been seen with the D9 as it relies more on bulletproof glass and less on armor.

2) The operating speed with dirt on the blade is such that a person could be on crutches and run circles around the vehicle. In 1st gear an unarmored D7 has a forward speed of less than 2 mph and that is without dirt on the blade. With the additional weight of the armor kit and dirt on the balde we're tlaking abotu a forward speed of 1 mph or less. Essentially were we to be talking about a liability case the oeprator would have a very good argument that Corrie had the last reasonable chance to avoid the incident and thus was contributoritly negligent. The point also here is that the operator, unless he was operating outside the normal manner, would be moving very slowly and constantly scanning his field of vision yet STILL carry the likelyhood of not seeing a person dart into position and kneel in front of the blade.

3) All of what I've just said is easily invalidated if there was in fact a radio link between the operator and other observers who could see Corrie and failed to inform the oeprator (or informed him to proceed anyway and he obeyed). Short of these personnel being present the oeprator could do everything in his power to avoid this incident and yet the likelyhood of it happening remains, it is also the reason why the concept of contributory negligence exists. Certainly the operator owes a duty of care to be cautious in the avoidance of civilian casualties and take all precautions possible with the strictures of the equipment provided to him by his command. Within that framework unless he had ground guides who failed to act the operator appears to have fufilled his duty of care and Corrie would be contributorily negligent for placing herself in a position of danger from which reasonable care on the operators part could still cause her harm.

Now this isn't to say the incdent is not tragic but was this a situation of gross negligence on the operator's part? Not unless he failed to heed warnings of ground guides available to him. I honestly would like to hear his side of the story because it could be damn revealing.

[Darth Wong]

Here's the porblems I have with that:

1) By the suppossed closest eyewithness she was kneeling in front of the dozer at a distance of 10-20m. If you've ever been inside of a D7 or D9 uparmored bulldozer you would realize a person running into that position and kneeling is incredibly difficult to locate unless they happen to cross the field of vision in the bottom left or bottom right panes. There actually is a slightly greater likelyhood she might have been seen with the D9 as it relies more on bulletproof glass and less on armor.

2) The operating speed with dirt on the blade is such that a person could be on crutches and run circles around the vehicle. In 1st gear an unarmored D7 has a forward speed of less than 2 mph and that is without dirt on the blade. With the additional weight of the armor kit and dirt on the balde we're tlaking abotu a forward speed of 1 mph or less. Essentially were we to be talking about a liability case the oeprator would have a very good argument that Corrie had the last reasonable chance to avoid the incident and thus was contributoritly negligent. The point also here is that the operator, unless he was operating outside the normal manner, would be moving very slowly and constantly scanning his field of vision yet STILL carry the likelyhood of not seeing a person dart into position and kneel in front of the blade.

None of which disproves or even vaguely addresses my argument which is NOT based on him being able to directly see Corrie. Pay some fucking attention.

3) All of what I've just said is easily invalidated if there was in fact a radio link between the operator and other observers who could see Corrie and failed to inform the oeprator (or informed him to proceed anyway and he obeyed). Short of these personnel being present the oeprator could do everything in his power to avoid this incident and yet the likelyhood of it happening remains, it is also the reason why the concept of contributory negligence exists. Certainly the operator owes a duty of care to be cautious in the avoidance of civilian casualties and take all precautions possible with the strictures of the equipment provided to him by his command. Within that framework unless he had ground guides who failed to act the operator appears to have fufilled his duty of care and Corrie would be contributorily negligent for placing herself in a position of danger from which reasonable care on the operators part could still cause her harm.

If there was no observer, then the bulldozer operator was negligent, plain and simple. If I'm backing a large vehicle out of a parking spot and I can't see shit, what do I do? I get someone to signal me. Don't tell me that someone in a potentially lethal situation has a reduced duty of care compared to some guy parking a vehicle.

Now this isn't to say the incdent is not tragic but was this a situation of gross negligence on the operator's part? Not unless he failed to heed warnings of ground guides available to him. I honestly would like to hear his side of the story because it could be damn revealing.

I honestly would like to hear where the fuck your idea of negligence came from.

[Surlethe]

Corrie's only "stupidity" was in assuming that the driver of the bulldozer would be concerned about human life and would therefore act accordingly (and that means taking actual precautions to avoid fatalities, as I outlined earlier, not just taking a peek through the visor and saying "nope, I don't see nuthin'").

Please pardon me if I'm incorrect, but isn't there some precedent for disregard of human life in Israeli operations in the occupied territories? And, if that is the case, wouldn't ignoring that make Corrie's decision stupid?

[Darth Wong]

Corrie's only "stupidity" was in assuming that the driver of the bulldozer would be concerned about human life and would therefore act accordingly (and that means taking actual precautions to avoid fatalities, as I outlined earlier, not just taking a peek through the visor and saying "nope, I don't see nuthin'").

Please pardon me if I'm incorrect, but isn't there some precedent for disregard of human life in Israeli operations in the occupied territories? And, if that is the case, wouldn't ignoring that make Corrie's decision stupid?

Sure, as long as you accept that all the Israelwankers in this thread are just as stupid for denying that an Israeli bulldozer operator could possibly be so callous toward human life that he would neglect his duty of care to protect it.

[Faqa]

*rubs hands*

I always wondered what the Elfdart MO was like, to earn you the reputation you have.

No, just realistic, judging even from this response.

[quote="Elfdart]"

Funny, every account EXCEPT yours mentions rock-throwing.

Here's what the FBI, headed by that infamous hippie-lover J. Edgar Hoover had to say about the alleged rock-throwing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Krause

An FBI study of the event noted, "...Many Guardsmen claim that they felt their lives were in danger from the students for a variety of reasons...because they were 'surrounded'...because a sniper fired at them...stones...the students 'advanced upon them in a threatening manner' [. . .] we have some reason to believe that the claim by the National Guard that their lives were endangered by the students was fabricated subsequent to the event..." The FBI report also noted that "...the Guardsmen were not surrounded ... they could easily have continued going in the direction in which they had been going" [instead of stopping and firing] and that "...no Guardsman claims he was hit with rocks immediately prior to the firing..." Further, "... a chaplain of Troop G spoke with many members of the National Guard and stated that they were unable to explain to him why they fired their weapons."

The "they were throwing rocks at us!" story is bullshit. Is it possible or probable that someone in the crowd chucked rocks at the soldiers? Sure, but since it's not the reason they opened fire, it's a big red herring. In any crowd of demonstrators (no matter how peaceful) there will be one or more troublemakers (usually Agents Provocateur from the police) who throw things at the police or soldiers, yet people seldom get gunned down for it (at least in the US). [/quote]

According to Allison's boyfriend, Barry Levine, her shooting was preceded by the pair "watching these men threaten us with their rifles. In response, we cursed them and threw rocks

[/quote]

Funny how, if you'd READ my point, you'd see I draw a DISTINCTION between MLK and what Corrie did.

Which is nonsensical.

Bullshit. You don't listen, do you? MLK's killer went out, created the situation, and carried out the action. The dozer driver acted out by mistake and negligence. Rachel Corrie PUT him in the position of killing her unawares. MLK simply existed. Do you see the difference?

Riiiiiiiiight. Evacuating the Territories is "easy and simple". I LOVE the armchair dumbasses. If you'd paid half an ear to the news of the Gaza evacuation(WITH over a year of prep time, mind you)...

The "prep time" was to avoid offending squatters with visions of Lebensraum dancing in their heads -and their supporters in the Knesset and in this country. I referred to an immediate pullout as the "easiest and simplest" solution, not "easy and simple". There's a difference, unless you were deliberately trying to twist my words.

Pot, meet Kettle. Message: You're black.

The "prep time" was to avoid a fucking bloodbath, dumbshit. AND to give time to set up alternate living arrangments.

Oh, yeah, AND to take into account your oh-so-innocent Palestinian activists attacking us WHILE we were doing it.

But, that aside - you're talking a high-level policy there. The point is, we're there,

You shouldn't be.

True enough. But this is like saying that because the U.S shouldn't have gone into Iraq, it shouldn't be attempting to protect it's soldiers while there.

and we have to secure that area.

The only way that area will be in any way secure is when the IDF gets out and stays out.

Correction - that's the only LONG TERM solution. UNTIL then, we can hardly allow fuckers to run around encouraging Shahids to blow themselves up on a street corner.

Elfdart, you are confused - the IDF has NO say in what policy is carried out. It just does it's best to execute it and protect Israel. So screeching that the IDF shouldn't be doing anything because it shouldn't be there is blaming soldiers and officers for the actions of politicians.

It swings both ways, as well - many a fundie soldier was in the front line of evacuation when it rolled around. Why? Because he WAS a soldier, and he didn't make policy.

What, we're supposed to let terrorists run around loose? The SAME ones who blow up innocent women and children, if you'll recall. And, BTW, considering terrorists use the Territories to launch attacks against us, and the locals lack of help, we'd be perfectly within our rights to conduct military operations there even it WAS another country.

Why should the locals aid an invader that tortures, kills and ethnically cleanses them? If you're that worried about "terrorists", the first step would be to leave the West Bank and Gaza completely. Then build the Wall -as long as it's on Israeli territory- and most of your problem is solved. But if you keep up the piecemeal Lebensraum campaign and build a wall in such a way as to grab more Arab land, and occupy Palestinians while committing war crimes, you'll get more of the same. People have a nasty habit of not laying down like sheep.

MORE blaming the IDF for political decisions. Joy.

Oh, we "torture, kill and ethnically cleanse" them? DO tell. Here I thought we were after the terrorists. You're thinking of Deir Yassin - an IDF black mark, to be sure. Oh, wait - that wasn't the IDF. That was the right-wing nutsos, Etzel and Lehi. They were fucking pariahs in the IDF when it was formed.

People ALSO have a nasty habit of not leaving you alone when you harbr terrorists that attack their CIVILIANS - including FIRING FUCKING MISSILES AT CIVILIAN TARGETS.

(<snip quote about Geneva Conventions>)

Hamas or Jihad ringing any bells?

Since Rachel Corrie wasn't a member of either group and nobody claims she was a combatant, what's your point?

Since I never attempted to claim a connection, what's YOUR point?

MINE was to show that the Geneva convention is not exactly working for either side. As the next quote points out.

It gets VERY messy when one considers the vast majority of Palestinian resistance IS civilian-dressed terrorists.

Yeah, guerillas and terrorists tend to do that sort of thing. It still doesn't excuse war crimes performed in retaliation. It's been a long time since Spain ethnically cleansed Basques in retaliation for ETA bombings.

Ethnically cleansing again. We don't do that.

The Occupied Territories are a long, messy tale, of pride, hate, nationalism and lack of reason. You can hardly brush aside the circumstances as " they shouldn't be there in the first place".

Sure I can. Especially since the attempt to mystify what's going on there is just a dodge.

With all due respect - no. That territory - yes it should have been held as a token for peace. But in the situation that existed - you cannot really grasp how high euphoria was running after the Six Day War was won. And the Arab countries refusing to so much as begin to negotiate peace DIDN'T help. There was no one to talk TO. So it was hardly unnatural to begin treating the territories as the spoils of war.

Locals? Same people who'd been hostile to their Israeli neighbors before fleeing in 1948? Same people who'd been constantly praying Syria would "line the road to Damascus with the skulls of Jewish children"(in Syrian radio's own words)? You will excuse the 1967 victors for not being overly concerned for them. Or, well, don't excuse them. But understand them - because that was, in short, their line of thought. You did ask for de-mystification. That's a start.

THERE IS NO SUCH COUNTRY AS "PALESTINE".

"Palestine" was a British name for all the local territory, east and west of the Jordan. Anti-Jewish Arabs rallied around it a little pre-1948. It later became identified with Arab refugees from the War Of Independence who abandoned everything to get out of the way of the armies of their "Arab brothers". It's primarily an anti-term.

There was no such country as Kosovo either. Looks like Milosevic died in jail for nothing by your standard.

NOBODY owned that territory then. Nobody owns it now.

Not even the people who live there? Nice. If "nobody" owns it, "nobody" would include Israel, right? If Israel doesn't own the territory, and Israelis aren't there at the invitation of the natives, they have no business there.

Again, you seem to assume I'm out to make us the Shining White Knights of the conflict. Real life doesn't work that way. But you seem to assume there was some sort of indepedent country in place there at some point. News flash - there wasn't. There were settlers and refugees and terrorists. We had to protect ourselves from that last.

Is there anything in Israeli law against violating the Geneva Conventions? Or against committing other war crimes?

I believe that falls under "patently illegal".

The Fourth Geneva Convention states:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Art. 34. The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Art. 49. [scroll down] The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Israel has been shitting all over those articles and others for more than four decades. Looks like someone forgot the memo.

Israeli court ruled act 34 as forbidden, as well. Believe it or not, IDF does it's utmost to make sure act 33 isn't violated. Considering it's situation, I can't think, offhand of who's got a better track record in similar circumstances.

Act 49, I'll admit we screwed up there.

Report Card: Elfdart needs to work on his reading comprehension.

Dumbfuck, I specifically EXPLAINED the difference. The choice was Yigal Amir's - to ACTIVELY shoot and kill Rabin as an ACTIVE attack on the ideas Rabin stood for. Corrie died stupidly, getting ACCIDENTALLY run over and is elevated to sainthood for being a bloody face on the evening news.

This would be like Amir firing randomly and Rabin rushing into the area to get hit by a stray shot.

You're missing the points:

1) In one way or another, almost anyone who gets killed (accidentally or intentionally) takes actions that led to getting killed. This in no way excuses the killer or makes the person who gets killed a "retard", "dumbass" or "idiot". Someone who pissed off racist rednecks in the South back in the bad old days was playing with fire just like someone who gets between an Israeli bulldozer and a doctor's house in Gaza (actually moreso). But aside from a few hardcore white supremacists, nobody calls Martin Luther King an "idiot". Who was the "active" participant and who was the "passive" one is a matter of opinion and irrelevent anyway.

2) Rachel Corrie was trying to stop a war crime in progress. I know smearing the victim is a common tactic for thugs and their apologists, but she was in the right and paid for it with her life. When the assholes who gloat over her death come anywhere close to having her courage or come close to accomplishing... [/code]

...nah, they'll still be a bunch of shriveled little pricks.

1. It is a matter of the utmost importance who was active and who was passive. If you're stupid enough to walk into a construction site and get killed by hammer falling off a high beam, that's one thing. If you scream "Workers SUCK!" and get that same hammer thrown at your head(which in your case might be an improvement), that's something else entirely.

2. Rachel Corrie was trying to put up a protest against a policy she considered unjust. She stupidly decided to do so by standing in front of a fucking bulldozer that could not fucking see her. To quote the famous officer watching the Light Brigade - "It's magnificent, but it isn't war. It's stupidity." She's a martyr to the shrilly screaming fanatics for dying in the right place at the right time. That's fucking it. Comparing her to MLK or Rabin is simply moronic. She's not in their league.

[Mobius]

A few years ago, a greenpeace activist attached himself on the rail to stop a nuclear waste transport, the train didn't had time to stop in time and crushed the guy.
link

We are talking about a protest in france with choppers to survey the railtrack, a shitload of CRS, cops and DST agents around the train, i have no problem to believe that what happened to Rachel Corrie was a tragic accident.

[Rogue 9]

It's a relevant point. What crime did Rachel Corrie commit?

The ISM is barred from entering the Palestinian territories by Israeli law. She was committing a crime by her mere presence. She would also have had to lie to police and border guards to cross the border, another crime. She would have racked up quite a spree before ever getting in front of that bulldozer.

Just to point out.

I see the Fourth Fapper has arrived.

One, Israeli law means dick in Palestine. The people who live there had no problem ISM being there (other than suspicion at first that they might be Israeli spies). Of course the West Bank and Gaza (until recently, though the IDF still tries to restrict entry and exit) are occupied in the name of Zionist Lebensraum, but there's nothing legal about any Israeli action there.

The only "crime" Rachel Corrie committed was to think of Palestinians as human beings with human rights, which is unforgivable and worthy of death, according to moral lepers like you.

I should think you would want more ISM people to go to the West Bank and Gaza, as well as other do-gooders travelling to the Middle East. Some of them might get killed and among the dead might be a few more blond women for you to beat off to like you've done with Marla Ruzicka and Rachel Corrie.

When you're through impugning my character, you might take the time to note that there is not, nor has there ever been a country called Palestine. The name "Palestine" derives from the Latin "Palaestina," which is what the Romans renamed Judea after... ethnically cleansing the Jews. As the territory is currently under Israeli jurisdiction, Israeli law means everything there. You asked what crime she committed, and I answered.

You may also wish to take note of Godwin's Law, and the fact that I did not at any point cheer Rachel Corrie's death. I don't even know who Marla Ruzicka is (or was). I do not, in fact, wish for the ISM to continue duping college students into outright aiding terrorists through actively interfering with IDF military operations, nor do I wish them to die. Feel free to continue your paranoid delusions, though. That's amusing, although tragic deaths are not.

[Darth Wong]

An FBI study of the event noted, "...Many Guardsmen claim that they felt their lives were in danger from the students for a variety of reasons...because they were 'surrounded'...because a sniper fired at them...stones...the students 'advanced upon them in a threatening manner' [. . .] we have some reason to believe that the claim by the National Guard that their lives were endangered by the students was fabricated subsequent to the event..." The FBI report also noted that "...the Guardsmen were not surrounded ... they could easily have continued going in the direction in which they had been going" [instead of stopping and firing] and that "...no Guardsman claims he was hit with rocks immediately prior to the firing..." Further, "... a chaplain of Troop G spoke with many members of the National Guard and stated that they were unable to explain to him why they fired their weapons."

The "they were throwing rocks at us!" story is bullshit. Is it possible or probable that someone in the crowd chucked rocks at the soldiers? Sure, but since it's not the reason they opened fire, it's a big red herring. In any crowd of demonstrators (no matter how peaceful) there will be one or more troublemakers (usually Agents Provocateur from the police) who throw things at the police or soldiers, yet people seldom get gunned down for it (at least in the US).

According to Allison's boyfriend, Barry Levine, her shooting was preceded by the pair "watching these men threaten us with their rifles. In response, we cursed them and threw rocks

You're a fucking retard, you know that? The fact that somebody in the crowd threw rocks does not mean that any of the NG were actually hit by them or that the rocks even flew as far as the NG troops were, so it does not contradict the claim. Jesus fuck, you don't even read what you're presuming to refute; you just skim it looking for "talking points" you can use and ignore the rest.

[Faqa]

The "they were throwing rocks at us!" story is bullshit. Is it possible or probable that someone in the crowd chucked rocks at the soldiers? Sure, but since it's not the reason they opened fire, it's a big red herring. In any crowd of demonstrators (no matter how peaceful) there will be one or more troublemakers (usually Agents Provocateur from the police) who throw things at the police or soldiers, yet people seldom get gunned down for it (at least in the US).

According to Allison's boyfriend, Barry Levine, her shooting was preceded by the pair "watching these men threaten us with their rifles. In response, we cursed them and threw rocks

You're a fucking retard, you know that? The fact that somebody in the crowd threw rocks does not mean that any of the NG were actually hit by them or that the rocks even flew as far as the NG troops were, so it does not contradict the claim. Jesus fuck, you don't even read what you're presuming to refute; you just skim it looking for "talking points" you can use and ignore the rest.

Which might have more relevance, IF I was attempting to clear the troops of wrongdoing. Which, y'know, I wasn't. I was merely attacking Elfdart's claim that the crowd wasn't attacking the troops. Not severely, not enough to justify the force used in turn - but, dammit, enough to count as stupidity.

I'm not fucking attempting to defend what happened there, Mike. I'm using one element from as an EXAMPLE of a situation I consider stupid.

[Elfdart]

Faqa, I'm not going to unravel those quote tags, nor do I want this to go into the IvP ditch. I'll answer as follows:

Here's the full paragraph about Allison Krause:

According to Allison's boyfriend, Barry Levine, her shooting was preceded by the pair "watching these men threaten us with their rifles. In response, we cursed them and threw rocks. When they left we followed, all the time screaming and yelling, and then they turned." Some Guardsmen also threw rocks. The rock-throwing, however, was ineffective because the two groups were hundreds of feet apart. Some students then drew closer and hurled rocks from within range of the Guard, who kneeled and aimed their weapons but did not fire. The Guardsmen then retreated to the top of a hill. Suddenly, a group of them simultaneously stopped, turned, took aim and began firing their rifles. Sixty-seven shots were fired in 13 seconds, although other reports say the shooting lasted much longer.

Now compare this to the distances listed for the dead and wounded, plus the FBI report and you'll see the story of beseiged National Guardsmen shooting in self defense is pure horseshit.

As far as evacuating Gaza, a much simpler way to do it would have been for the Israeli government to announce that the IDF will be withdrawing on X date and will not return. Any Israeli squatters in Gaza can either move out before that date or stay behind and answer to the Palestinian Authority, to whom control will be handed. No Israeli soldiers would be in danger from Palestinians in Gaza or fanatical squatters.

On the subject of the IDF not making policy: That's a fair enough point. The soldiers don't get to make the major decisions.

True enough. But this is like saying that because the U.S shouldn't have gone into Iraq, it shouldn't be attempting to protect it's soldiers while there.

Depends on the measures. Putting up barriers is one thing. War crimes are another.

The rest of your points are in the IvP zone, so I won't argue them here. However, this quote illustrates part of the problem:

Israeli court ruled act 34 as forbidden, as well. Believe it or not, IDF does it's utmost to make sure act 33 isn't violated. Considering it's situation, I can't think, offhand of who's got a better track record in similar circumstances.

Act 49, I'll admit we screwed up there.

Screwed up? The "settlers" didn't end up in Gaza and the West Bank because they took a wrong turn. It was a result of government policy. If the IDF did its best to prevent #33 from being violated, they wouldn't be bulldozing entire neighborhoods in territory they don't own. If they weren't bulldozing homes as a fort of collective punishment, Rachel Corrie wouldn't have been killed, would she?

[Faqa]

Now compare this to the distances listed for the dead and wounded, plus the FBI report and you'll see the story of beseiged National Guardsmen shooting in self defense is pure horseshit.

I never implied self-defense. I implied poorly-trained troops PERCEIVING it as such. There was an atmosphere of fucking violence in the air. THAT is my point. I'm not here to defend the soldiers, nor their actions. Students AND soldiers acted stupidly here.

As far as evacuating Gaza, a much simpler way to do it would have been for the Israeli government to announce that the IDF will be withdrawing on X date and will not return. Any Israeli squatters in Gaza can either move out before that date or stay behind and answer to the Palestinian Authority, to whom control will be handed. No Israeli soldiers would be in danger from Palestinians in Gaza or fanatical squatters.

In my fantasies, that's how it would've worked. In REAL life, the settlers are Israeli citizens who are there as the result of an active goverment policy to PUT them there. We could not withdraw our protection of them. Nor could we leave them to fend for themselves, since the position they're in is OUR fault.

Depends on the measures. Putting up barriers is one thing. War crimes are another.

If we could effectively stop the terrorists with barriers, no one would object. Unfortunately, we have to go AFTER them, because purely stopping them from getting in just doesn't work.

Screwed up? The "settlers" didn't end up in Gaza and the West Bank because they took a wrong turn. It was a result of government policy. If the IDF did its best to prevent #33 from being violated, they wouldn't be bulldozing entire neighborhoods in territory they don't own. If they weren't bulldozing homes as a fort of collective punishment, Rachel Corrie wouldn't have been killed, would she?

The IDF does not randomly bulldoze houses. It goes against places that either have or are assisting the terrorists. The cold hard fact here is that civilians get mixed up in this because terrorists hide among them. And again sentimentality triumphs, as it's automatically assumed a civilian home CAN'T be any threat(leaving aside that soldiers have encountered weapons caches in civilian homes. Frequently hidden under the sleeping mat of an old man to shame the soldiers into not moving him). And THAT's what brought Rachel Corrie to die.

Does it miss at times? Sure. I said it's track record was good, not perfect.

[Elfdart]

When you're through impugning my character,

What character?

you might take the time to note that there is not, nor has there ever been a country called Palestine.

The Palestinians would beg to differ.

The name "Palestine" derives from the Latin "Palaestina," which is what the Romans renamed Judea after... ethnically cleansing the Jews.

And?

As the territory is currently under Israeli jurisdiction, Israeli law means everything there.

No, the territory is under Israeli occupation. To be under Israel's jurisdiction, Israel would have to be there legally.

You asked what crime she committed, and I answered.

Bullshitted is more like it.

You may also wish to take note of Godwin's Law,

and the fact that I did not at any point cheer Rachel Corrie's death. I don't even know who Marla Ruzicka is (or was).

Liar. If you didn't know who she was, why did you start this thread about her?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... &p=2005938

You know, the one where you posted the article about Ruzicka's death and were in Durandal's words, "basking in it".

I do not, in fact, wish for the ISM to continue duping college students into outright aiding terrorists through actively interfering with IDF military operations, nor do I wish them to die. Feel free to continue your paranoid delusions, though. That's amusing, although tragic deaths are not.

Translation: "I despise college students who risk their lives to try to stop war crimes because (a) I support those war crimes and (b) it shames me that they have the courage to do so while I don't have the balls to own up my own disgraceful fucking posts."

You asshole!

[Patrick Degan]

A few years ago, a greenpeace activist attached himself on the rail to stop a nuclear waste transport, the train didn't had time to stop in time and crushed the guy.
link

We are talking about a protest in france with choppers to survey the railtrack, a shitload of CRS, cops and DST agents around the train, i have no problem to believe that what happened to Rachel Corrie was a tragic accident.

The comparison to a bulldozer is not at all valid for the rather obvious reason that it's not possible to stop a train on a dime or even with 1000 ft. of braking distance. Have any idea how much one of those things weighs and the speeds they push all that weight at? Sir Issac Newton is in the driver's seat at all times.

[Darth Wong]

You're a fucking retard, you know that? The fact that somebody in the crowd threw rocks does not mean that any of the NG were actually hit by them or that the rocks even flew as far as the NG troops were, so it does not contradict the claim. Jesus fuck, you don't even read what you're presuming to refute; you just skim it looking for "talking points" you can use and ignore the rest.

Which might have more relevance, IF I was attempting to clear the troops of wrongdoing. Which, y'know, I wasn't. I was merely attacking Elfdart's claim that the crowd wasn't attacking the troops.

Ah, I see. So you're just strawmandering then. I guess you missed the fucking part of the text where he acknowledged that it was possible and probable that the crowd was throwing rocks, but that they were no threat to the NG.

Not severely, not enough to justify the force used in turn - but, dammit, enough to count as stupidity.

I'm not fucking attempting to defend what happened there, Mike. I'm using one element from as an EXAMPLE of a situation I consider stupid.

No, you're failing to read what you're attempting to refute.