Three Years Ago Today...

[MKSheppard]

I hope the right-wingers in this thread with their yuk-yuk Saint Pancake jokes

Point 1. ) The family held a Pancake festival. Thank them for legimitizing that as a reference to Rachel.

Point 2.) There is no way the bulldozer driver could ever have seen her unless she was standing 74~ feet away from the dozer; it's clearly the same thing as Miss Deaf Texas being struck by a train, she was stupid enough to walk on train tracks; while Ms. Corrie clearly did not get the CAT safety briefing that you get given at construction sites.

[Darth Wong]

I hope the right-wingers in this thread with their yuk-yuk Saint Pancake jokes

Point 1. ) The family held a Pancake festival. Thank them for legimitizing that as a reference to Rachel.

Point 2.) There is no way the bulldozer driver could ever have seen her unless she was standing 74~ feet away from the dozer; it's clearly the same thing as Miss Deaf Texas being struck by a train, she was stupid enough to walk on train tracks; while Ms. Corrie clearly did not get the CAT safety briefing that you get given at construction sites.

Point 1: No, it does not legitimize that as a reference to Rachel.

Point 2: The bulldozer's responsibility to public safety does not end when the public tries to protest. He could have simply waited until he was sure the area was clear; instead, it was pretty obvious he just said "fuck it" and barrelled ahead. If you were in a van with lousy visibility and you were backing out of a spot and you knew there were people milling around but you couldn't see exactly where they were, would you put your foot in the gas, run over some of them and say "well, I couldn't see them?"

I made this exact point SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES already in this thread; I expect you to notice that.

[CarsonPalmer]

You're right. I'm confusing posts later in the thread with the first post.

[MKSheppard]

MKSheppard:

Point 1: No, it does not legitimize that as a reference to Rachel.

Not even when the family holds it? Aren't they the gurantors of her good name?

Point 2: The bulldozer's responsibility to public safety does not end when the public tries to protest. He could have simply waited until he was sure the area was clear; instead, it was pretty obvious he just said "fuck it" and barrelled ahead. If you were in a van with lousy visibility and you were backing out of a spot and you knew there were people milling around but you couldn't see exactly where they were, would you put your foot in the gas, run over some of them and say "well, I couldn't see them?"

So you're saying an untrained person who enters a site where there is heavy machinery moving large amounts of stuff around cannot be held responsible for their own actions? That we have to hold anybody but the person themselves responsible for what happened?

The official IDF report states:

"The finding of the operational investigations shows that Rachel 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."

So are you saying that someone who enters a construction site illegally, and promptly is struck on the head by a falling tool, and is killed; the entire incident is the responsibility of the construction contractors; not the idiot in question? There's a reason that construction companies refuse to let people onto the jobsite unless they are wearing at a minimum, a safety helmet. If you're a worker, you can't even work on the site unless you're wearing long pants and steel-toe boots in addition to the helmet.

[Darth Wong]

Not even when the family holds it? Aren't they the gurantors of her good name?

They aren't the ones using it as the basis of a poor-taste joke. As I said, if you say that you have a right to make jokes, fine. I will simply point out the same for Pat Tillman, Ronald Reagan, etc.

So you're saying an untrained person who enters a site where there is heavy machinery moving large amounts of stuff around cannot be held responsible for their own actions?

Yes they can, fucktard. But SO CAN THE MACHINE OPERATOR, who is held responsible for HIS OWN actions, specifically his disregard for the intruders' safety if he continues to act as if those intruders aren't there even though he knows they're in the compound. People like you always insist that responsibility for an incident is an either/or scenario. Find the person you want to blame and then the other person walks away scot-free. Well that ain't the way it works for people who actually employ ethics as part of their worldview.

That we have to hold anybody but the person themselves responsible for what happened?

Yes.

The official IDF report states:

"The finding of the operational investigations shows that Rachel 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."

So are you saying that someone who enters a construction site illegally, and promptly is struck on the head by a falling tool, and is killed; the entire incident is the responsibility of the construction contractors; not the idiot in question? There's a reason that construction companies refuse to let people onto the jobsite unless they are wearing at a minimum, a safety helmet. If you're a worker, you can't even work on the site unless you're wearing long pants and steel-toe boots in addition to the helmet.

See above, moron. Your staggering ignorance of real-life negligence and liability principles is not my problem.

[MKSheppard]

Yes they can, fucktard. But SO CAN THE MACHINE OPERATOR, who is held responsible for HIS OWN actions, specifically his disregard for the intruders' safety if he continues to act as if those intruders aren't there even though he knows they're in the compound.

That's nice; except the IDF did extensive interviews and polygraph tests of BOTH the machine operator AND his commanders; and none of them knew that Corrie was there.

[Darth Wong]

Yes they can, fucktard. But SO CAN THE MACHINE OPERATOR, who is held responsible for HIS OWN actions, specifically his disregard for the intruders' safety if he continues to act as if those intruders aren't there even though he knows they're in the compound.

That's nice; except the IDF did extensive interviews and polygraph tests of BOTH the machine operator AND his commanders; and none of them knew that Corrie was there.

I grow seriously tired of repeating myself, asshole. For the umpteenth time, THEY KNEW PROTESTERS WERE IN THE VICINITY. They don't have to know for sure that someone is in front of the dozer to know that it's extremely dangerous to keep acting as if protesters aren't there even though they are. In your construction-site analogy, the site operator would be in SERIOUS shit if he continued to operate as if there weren't a bunch of people trespassing on his site even though he knew they were there, and he sure as fuck couldn't get away with it by simply saying he didn't know they were necessarily in front of any particular vehicle.

I do not like being forced to repeat points by people who don't bother to fucking read the first SEVERAL times I post them.

[Elfdart]

Polygraph tests? I guess they didn't have a Ouija Board handy.

[Darth Wong]

I love the "plausible deniability" mentality being employed by the Israelwankers in this thread. Imagine if you're in a vehicle with shit visibility. You know there are people milling around, but you look through your shit little visor and you say "well, I know there are people around but I don't see anything through this visor which I know to be absolutely shit for visibility, so FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!"

There's no fucking way anyone makes that decision unless he simply doesn't care about human life.

[Surlethe]

I love the "plausible deniability" mentality being employed by the Israelwankers in this thread. Imagine if you're in a vehicle with shit visibility. You know there are people milling around, but you look through your shit little visor and you say "well, I know there are people around but I don't see anything through this visor which I know to be absolutely shit for visibility, so FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!"

That sounds almost like the mentality of captain of the Titanic: "What? There are icebergs in the area? Full speed ahead! We have to make it to New York in record time!"

Except humans don't sink bulldozers.

[SirNitram]

The references to Polygraphs are amazing. Polygraphs are ridiculously easy to trick, and exist almost entirely as methods of trickery. The only way you could guarantee a result in this case is if the people questioned felt a large amount of grief.

[Elfdart]

As for him being "St. Swiss Cheese" you don't see threads about him here, do you (and Tianmen Square was a significant event, unlike St. Pankake's little rally to protect arms smuggling tunnels).

Any evidence she was defending "arms smuggling tunnels"? Because B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have shown that the demolitions have little or nothing to do with these alleged tunnels and have everything to do with collective punishment or the desire to clear homes out of the way of the Apartheid Wall or other works by Israel.

And Palestinians have no business blowing up cafes in Israel. What's your point?
Second, the buildings in question were at the end of an arms smuggling tunnel.

According to Sea Skimmer, Corrie was being stupid because the IDF wasn't really going to plough under the doctor's home. But according to you and the others who only wish they has the moral fibre to be corpsefuckers, Israel had the bulldozer and troops there because all the alleged tunnels in, under and around the house were such a clear and immediate danger. So which is it? Was she a moron for getting killed defending a house that wasn't going to be destroyed? Or was she a "terrorist sympathizer" who died while trying to prevent the IDF from fighting "terrorism"? Looks like Israel's fan-whores need to get their bullshit stories straight.

As it turns out, the IDF waited until SIX MONTHS after they killed Rachel Corrie to finally bulldoze the home. The Israeli government has never accused the owner of the home, Khaled Nasrallah, of being a terrorist or smuggling weapons. In fact, they allowed him to visit the US last summer -and the US government let him enter the country- without incident.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14265


A more likely scenario that is NOT based on horseshit or balancing Aryan Sharon's nuts on your chin is as follows:

The demolition of Palestinian homes is as the human rights groups claim: a campaign of reprisals, collective punishment and creating barriers (a no-man's-land between Gaza and the Egyptian border, and the Apartheid Wall). Corrie and the others were right to think the bulldozer was going to level the doctor's house, which was the last one standing in a neighborhood slated for demolition. Once the Israeli government realized they had just killed an unarmed US citizen, they called off the dogs for a few months until the furor died down -then bulldozed the house. In the mean time, Kahanist rentboys fap themselves into a lather over the corpse of a woman who was killed.

Compared to worthless fucks like you, Sheepfucker and the Trolling Cunt, Pastor Phelps and his congregation at Westboro Baptist Church are the epitome of decorum, decency and good taste.

[Elfdart]

From the following drawing, we see that a D9 operator cannot see Saint Pankake unless she is past 1351 pixels away; or 22.72 meters away, or 74 1/2 feet away, almost a foot-ball field's length!

Since when is a football field 74.5 feet? From the following drawing, we can see from the pixels that you are a lying cocksucker.

[Zadius]

I was unaware soldiers intentionally jumped in front of vehicles; in any case, I think the distinction between a soldier, who is doing his job, and presumably doesn't search out enemy vehicles to stand in front of, and a protester, who intends to impede the vehicle with his body, is quite clear.

No, you said that anyone who risks their life for an ideology is stupid. This applies to soldiers.

You're right; I suppose I did. I'd like then to retract that, and and modify it to simply that standing in front of large, moving vehicles is not the most intelligent thing to do.

But, in this case, and at tiananmen square, the person was risking their life for an idealogy by standing in front of large, moving vehicles. So you haven't really retracted the relevant point.

[Surlethe]

But, in this case, and at tiananmen square, the person was risking their life for an idealogy by standing in front of large, moving vehicles. So you haven't really retracted the relevant point.

Yes, I have. Just because I accept there are cases where it isn't foolish to risk one's life for ideology doesn't mean I accept that in every case it's not foolish. My assertion is that it is always foolish to stand and remain in front of large, moving vehicles, regardless of whether or not there's an ideological purpose.

[Zadius]

But, in this case, and at tiananmen square, the person was risking their life for an idealogy by standing in front of large, moving vehicles. So you haven't really retracted the relevant point.

Yes, I have. Just because I accept there are cases where it isn't foolish to risk one's life for ideology doesn't mean I accept that in every case it's not foolish. My assertion is that it is always foolish to stand and remain in front of large, moving vehicles, regardless of whether or not there's an ideological purpose.

Why? Certainly one can achieve positive results by taking a stand (literally), so why is that foolish, exactly?

[Ender]

The kids at Kent State must also have been morons.

Absofuckinglutely.

If there is gunfire, and you don't immediately hit the deck, you are a god damned retard. Even if you are going to return fire in combat, you go to ground to provide more stability and cover.

The fact that your cause is just does not mean your actions are smart.

[Surlethe]

Why? Certainly one can achieve positive results by taking a stand (literally), so why is that foolish, exactly?

Because, on a very practical level, there's no chance of victory: if the driver chooses to keep moving, then you are, quite literally, flattened. Of course, the driver could choose to stop, but that's not guaranteed.

[Ender]

But, in this case, and at tiananmen square, the person was risking their life for an idealogy by standing in front of large, moving vehicles. So you haven't really retracted the relevant point.

Yes, I have. Just because I accept there are cases where it isn't foolish to risk one's life for ideology doesn't mean I accept that in every case it's not foolish. My assertion is that it is always foolish to stand and remain in front of large, moving vehicles, regardless of whether or not there's an ideological purpose.

Why? Certainly one can achieve positive results by taking a stand (literally), so why is that foolish, exactly?

Because there are more effective and safer ways to do it.

The fact that your cause is just does not mean your actuions are smart.

[Zadius]

Why? Certainly one can achieve positive results by taking a stand (literally), so why is that foolish, exactly?

Because, on a very practical level, there's no chance of victory: if the driver chooses to keep moving, then you are, quite literally, flattened. Of course, the driver could choose to stop, but that's not guaranteed.

The idea is to increase awareness and rally support, and a simple act of defiance in the face of overwhelming force can be just the thing needed. Was what Rosa Parks did stupid? Risking jail for a seat on a bus? Maybe at face value it doesn't seem worth it.

[Lord Zentei]

I hope the right-wingers in this thread with their yuk-yuk Saint Pancake jokes will remember to keep this thread bookmarked for the next time somebody tries to have a moment of silence for something dear to the right-wing and someone decides to shit all over the thread. Because I can tell you right now that ha ha ha, the oh-so-funny right-wingers have just pissed away their right to complain about such behaviour the next time it happens, and if they choose to conveniently forget their behaviour in this thread, I won't.

I seem to recall somethng similar happen in the Pope threads. Perhaps the controversy could be split from Elfdart's memorial thread allowing people to discuss her more agressively, while those who want to pay their respects can do so without a flamefest occouring? Seeing as there is already a prescedent for this sort of thing...

[Ender]

Why? Certainly one can achieve positive results by taking a stand (literally), so why is that foolish, exactly?

Because, on a very practical level, there's no chance of victory: if the driver chooses to keep moving, then you are, quite literally, flattened. Of course, the driver could choose to stop, but that's not guaranteed.

The idea is to increase awareness and rally support, and a simple act of defiance in the face of overwhelming force can be just the thing needed. Was what Rosa Parks did stupid? Risking jail for a seat on a bus? Maybe at face value it doesn't seem worth it.

It wasn't. Her refusing to get up didn't accomplish anything. The boycotts that followed are what did the work, and those were brought about by the speeches the held her up as a hero, rather then just spontaniously occuring after she did it.

Who said "its brave when it works, otherwise its just foolhardy"?

[Zadius]

It wasn't. Her refusing to get up didn't accomplish anything. The boycotts that followed are what did the work, and those were brought about by the speeches the held her up as a hero, rather then just spontaniously occuring after she did it.

I didn't say it was spontaneous, but it did set the ball rolling.

[Ender]

It wasn't. Her refusing to get up didn't accomplish anything. The boycotts that followed are what did the work, and those were brought about by the speeches the held her up as a hero, rather then just spontaniously occuring after she did it.

I didn't say it was spontaneous, but it did set the ball rolling.

A ball which could have been set in motion simply by a large media campaign without a symbol. Its not like it would habve been tricky for the times, the communitiies were close knit and the leaders in those communities were in communication with each other. Plus its not that hard to sell people who are getting screwed and they know it that they should take action to stop getting screwed.

What she did was moral and brave, but it was not smart.

[Coyote]

Then there are those of us who see the actions of both sides as damnfool stupid. In this incident, there is plenty of blame to spread around and everyone needs to shoulder an equal share of the burden. Rachel Corrie died standing up for a cause which in her perception was just-- as far as standing up for the rights of Palestinians to be free and independent of outside rule, I can agree with that-- but then, I'm a "two-state solution-ist" myself.

The way she chose to stand up for her cause was not too fucking bright, though, nor was it too bright for the dozer operator or others nearby to not ensure the area was clear beforehand, or wait until it was. But that was the goal of the protestors-- create enough confusion to paralyze the Israeli group. The IDF commander should have just gone for the good old tear gas solution to disrupt the protestors and haul them out-- a PR nightmare but nowhere near as bad as what happened with Corrie.

So yeah, I'm on record saying that Israel should not be in the Territories, it was something that might have made some strategic sense a long time ago but now is an anachronistic millstone around their necks. Being in the Territories now is stupid. What Corrie did to protest was stupid. There were other, better ways to protest. People wax philosophic about whether it is ethical to fight evil with evil means, but no one stopped to ask if it is a good idea to fight stupidity with stupid means.

Either way, Israel has since pulled out of the Gaza Strip. Rachel Corrie won her victory posthumously. Perhaps she'd say it was worth it if we could ask her, we'll never know for sure.