Corrie vs. Caterpillar -- Redux.

[Mycroft]

Lol....Mycroft, last time you weighed in on this issue it was to claim that a non existant tunnel existed.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2451800&highlight=tunnel#post2451800

"he owned many homes, the one that was slated to be destroyed was empty at the time and had a tunnel used for smuggling weapons."


So when you made that statement you were happy to state that the house was slated for destruction...something you wish to flip flop on in this thread..... and you jazzed it up by adding a ficticious tunnel.

So after being caught in that lie you now want to be the honesty police on this issue? Get some credability first.

This time instead of working from memory I looked it up. If you have any issues with the factual content of my source, please feel free to raise them. Otherwise, you seem to be trying to personalize this argument, which I will ask you to stop doing.


Edited to add:

Do you realize you quoted my message but didn't address a single word of it? Instead, as is typical of you, you address everything against the person you're arguing with, and not one word about the facts.

 

[The Fool]

This time instead of working from memory I looked it up. If you have any issues with the factual content of my source, please feel free to raise them. Otherwise, you seem to be trying to personalize this argument, which I will ask you to stop doing.

When you make stuff up its hard not to refer to you when pointing out who makes stuff up.....So stop whining about personalization and try not to "forget" so much stuff that doesn't suit your spin...

 

[The Fool]

Edited to add:

Do you realize you quoted my message but didn't address a single word of it? Instead, as is typical of you, you address everything against the person you're arguing with, and not one word about the facts.

Its not "your" message...you simply provide a wiki link and highlight some bits that refer to an IDF report.....something you like to refer to as the truth. IDF reports and truth are apparently indistinguishable as far as you are concerned. I think your woefull record of dishonesty on this issue is highly relevant when you decide to become richeous on other posters about truthfullness.

look son....read more, make up less and don't imagine for one moment that you have any credability to discuss cleons truthfullness....just some free advice.

 

[The Fool]

dup

 

[Mycroft]

Its not "your" message...you simply provide a wiki link and highlight some bits that refer to an IDF report.....something you like to refer to as the truth. IDF reports and truth are apparently indistinguishable as far as you are concerned. I think your woefull record of dishonesty on this issue is highly relevant when you decide to become richeous on other posters about truthfullness.

Wow, look at all those personal pronouns. It seems as though you're still fixated on discussing me rather than the facts under discussion. If I may draw your attention away from a personal argument for a moment:

Cleon made a specific claim that it was an "uncontested point of record" that Corrie was defending the home of someone completely innocent of any terrorist activity, but the truth is if she was even defending a house at all is in dispute. One doesn't need to pick a side or choose a version to see that Cleon's statement is refuted.

Simple enough?

look son....read more, make up less and don't imagine for one moment that you have any credability to discuss cleons truthfullness....just some free advice.

Again, you have not a single word on the facts presented, and choose to make your comments completely about the people you're arguing with.

 

[The Fool]

Cleon made a specific claim that it was an "uncontested point of record" that Corrie was defending the home of someone completely innocent of any terrorist activity, but the truth is if she was even defending a house at all is in dispute. One doesn't need to pick a side or choose a version to see that Cleon's statement is refuted.

Simple enough?

That she was defending a house is in dispute? By who? An IDF report that even denies she was run over by the bulldozer?

OK...so what was rachael Corrie there to defend? The scrub and bushes?

amazing....

I'll ask you a simple queston mycroft. If the Bulldozers were not there to bulldoze the houses...were the houses there when the bulldozers left? You may look it up or "rely on memory" whichever you choose.

 

[Earthborn]

were the houses there when the bulldozers left?

Yes. They were. According to most sources, no houses were destroyed that day.

That does not of course disprove that she was there to defend a house. If the IDF wasn't planning to destroy houses does not mean the ISM wouldn't have reason to believe that it was. Different people have access to different information and therefore can come to different conclusions. If the IDF does not routinely provide the ISM with all details about their operations, then "Rachel Corrie was there to defend a house" is not disproven by "the IDF wasn't going to destroy any houses that day". She had every reason to think that they were going to destroy that house: there were machines in the area that were often used in house demolitions and the house she was defending was on the list for being destroyed, as the IDF did a few months later.

I don't think the IDF even disputes that she was there for the purpose of defending a house. What they dispute is that they were planning to destroy it that day.

 

[Earthborn]

The claim is that she knew a D9 was capable of crushing her.

Sorry, I read your claim as if you were saying that she knew the D9 was likely going to crush her, not whether it was physically capable.

Here is the material (Tom Dale's eyewitness account) that I relied on to make my statement that Corrie was kneeling/sitting as the earthmover came forward:
http://www.think-israel.org/corrie.html

Same witness, different source, my emphasis:

The bulldozer built up earth in front of it. Its blade was slightly dug into the earth. She began to stand up. The earth was pushed over her feet. She tried to climb on top of the earth, to avoid being overwhelmed. She climbed to the point where her shoulders were above the top lip of the blade. She was standing on this pile of earth.

That's pretty much the gist of all the eyewitness reports: she was sitting, she stood up.

You even spent some minor effort here to 'debunk' that photo (see your own post #25)

I did not debunk that photo, I debunked Ion's claim of what it represents. If you can't see the difference between those things, you really would be massively improved by a having a little reading comprehension.

Which leads me to say that Corrie "lost" in this confrontation.

Obviously she lost. Her life in fact. But your claim is that "she was playing chicken with a D9" and that suggests she was purposefully challenging the driver to crush her, and that the driver was playing along. That is something you have no evidence for.

 

[The Fool]

Yes. They were. According to most sources, no houses were destroyed that day.

The operation these Bulldozers were there for was to level the area. This was achieved. The operation corrie was there for was to prevent these dwellings being bulldozed. This was not achieved. As you point out....splitting this down into what happened on specific days of this operation is irrelevant to the aims of various groups in the conflict.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Sorry, it still ads up to "she played chicken with a bulldozer and lost", which is stupid.

That's still judging from outcomes. I ask again, what was she stupid about?

Most people who "play chicken with bulldozers" win. This was either cold-blooded murder, as some have claimed --- or it was a tragic accident --- which implies that the driver would have stopped if only he'd seen her. In the latter case, her "stupidity" boils down to not knowing that the Israelis would use bulldozers that the driver couldn't see out of.

 

[webfusion]

Quote Webfusion:
You even spent some minor effort here to 'debunk' that photo (see your own post #25)

Reply Earthborn:
I did not debunk that photo, I debunked Ion's claim of what it represents. If you can't see the difference between those things, you really would be massively improved by a having a little reading comprehension.

That's twice now you have resorted to this same "reading comprehension" personal attack on me. Why is that? I know very well how to read, and I am quite capable of parsing what I read.

"debunking a photo" can also have the meaning "proving that the context of the picture is not as offered" ------ we went through this exact process here with the widely-distributed photo of the ambulance in Lebanon that was claimed to depict a gaping hole on the roof (right in the middle of the Red Cross) caused by an Israeli missile. Now, there is no doubt the photo showed the hole. What was 'debunked' was the claim that an Israeli missile caused it.

Same thing in this case ----- the photo of corrie (standing with a megaphone and orange vest) was not fabricated/photoshopped/altered. However, the use of the picture to illustrate facts regarding the time of her death (to show that she was standing there in plain sight) warrants some debunking. Which we both have done here, successfully.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Back to the OP:

Mycroft is accurate in his assessment:
"Win or lose, the effect of this lawsuit would be to make other companies fearful of doing business with Israel."

For sure. The underlying aim is to equate Israeli military actions as "war crimes" and try to achieve boycotts and embargos.

 

[Freddy]

That's still judging from outcomes. I ask again, what was she stupid about?

Most people who "play chicken with bulldozers" win. This was either cold-blooded murder, as some have claimed --- or it was a tragic accident --- which implies that the driver would have stopped if only he'd seen her. In the latter case, her "stupidity" boils down to not knowing that the Israelis would use bulldozers that the driver couldn't see out of.

It's not that the driver couldn't see out of it. It's that he couldn't see what is right in front of it -- and that is not peculiar to this particular bulldozer. She was stupid because she failed to infer from the fact that she could not see the driver that he also could not see her. That's stupid. Is it any stupider than getting in the middle of an extremely complex decades-long conflict about which you know nothing, and then acting as if it couldn't be more black and white? Probably not stupider than that, which is why I say her parents are more responsible for her death than Caterpillar.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's not that the driver couldn't see out of it. It's that he couldn't see what is right in front of it -- and that is not peculiar to this particular bulldozer.

Oh, and there I was thinking it was badly designed. Well, so long as the driver just couldn't see where he was going, I guess that makes sense. She should have known that no-one would make a vehicle with forward visibility.

She was stupid because she failed to infer from the fact that she could not see the driver that he also could not see her. That's stupid.

"Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding."

Oh, wait, I'm confusing her with an ostrich, it's an easy mistake to make.

 

[webfusion]

She should have known that no-one would make a vehicle with forward visibility.

I'm not sure this is what you meant to say....
In any case, standing in front of earthmoving equipment is not a bright thing to do. Would you agree?

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

How many people besides Corrie have been run over by IDF bulldozers?

[IMAGE LINKs]
http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/image.php?action=resize&class=original&filename=CAT30.jpg&


and

http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/image.php?action=resize&class=original&filename=CAT39.jpg&


Meanwhile, in the news: Unmanned D9 to be deployed by IDF
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070712.CLTH007&show_article=1

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not sure this is what you meant to say....

Sarcasm. It's an English thing.

In any case, standing in front of earthmoving equipment is not a bright thing to do. Would you agree?

That depends on (a) whether you want to stop it (b) what you're prepared to risk to do so.

How would you stop a bulldozer? Assume that you're a peace activist and blowing it up is not an option.

 

[webfusion]

How would you stop a bulldozer? Assume that you're a peace activist and blowing it up is not an option.

I would strive to call attention to the reasons the D9's were sent into Rafah to begin with ----- the IDF was attempting to stem the rising tide of weaponry smuggled by various terrorist groups, whose intentions and efforts were/are to utilize these weapons against jews. Instead of expressing solidarity with these terrorists, my aim would be to protest loudly and openly the continued efforts of the terrorists to kill jews, and I would demand that the palestinians disarm the gangs of terrorists and cease calling for jihad.

If the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were run like a civilized place, without threats and violence against Israel, and without rockets flying into Israel, and without a flood of guns, RPG's, explosives and missiles, I can guarantee you that D9's would not be deployed.


Just sayin'

 

[Dr Adequate]

Your plan for stopping the bulldozer appears to involve bringing peace to the Middle East. I think your average bulldozer could get quite a long way while you were doing that.

 

[webfusion]

Peace Process

Your plan for stopping the bulldozer appears to involve bringing peace to the Middle East. I think your average bulldozer could get quite a long way while you were doing that.

You did ask, if I look back on it, how I would react as a "peace activist" -- there is only going to be one quick way for the palestinians to stop Robotic-D9's and IDF Merkavas and IAF Apache helicopters and f16's and RPVs.

Lay down your arms, surrender them, lay them out there on the beaches of Gaza, by the millions of guns and missiles, and explosives, and grenades, mines, RPG's, anti-aircraft rockets, you-name-it-they've-got-it in Gaza.

Israel is not so stupid as to permit Islamic fanatics to hold sway over any further arming of a small enclave. It was enough that the UN failed so miserably to enforce a simple resolution in Lebanon --- no rearming of Hezbollah, no further Syrian encroachment, and release of the IDF hostages.

None of that was accomplished. Neither was a promised "disarming" accomplished in Gaza, and we now witness the horrible result.



In Gaza, Israel is going to keep rolling in their tanks and D9's, and I'll give anyone listening a piece of friendly advice:

Stay the hell away from the business end of a fully-armored Robotic-controlled combat IDF D9 coming right at you, sucka.

And if you see one of these coming, duck!

 

[Dr Adequate]

You did ask, if I look back on it, how I would react as a "peace activist" -- there is only going to be one quick way for the palestinians to stop Robotic-D9's and IDF Merkavas and IAF Apache helicopters and f16's and RPVs.

I asked you how you would peacefully stop a bulldozer.

Lay down your arms, surrender them, lay them out there on the beaches of Gaza, by the millions of guns and missiles, and explosives, and grenades, mines, RPG's, anti-aircraft rockets, you-name-it-they've-got-it in Gaza.

Now tell me the smart way to non-violently stop a bulldozer.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But you're judging by outcomes. What was she stupid about?

The situation she was in, and what chain of events were unfolding, but calling that "stupid" may be uncharitable.

Standing in front of things is, after all, a common and often successful tactic of civil disobedience. If I wanted to stop a bulldozer from going somewhere, I'd stand in front of it, possibly hoping for Vogon intervention.

One never knows when such an event will occur.

Judging by the comments on this thread, she was ignorant of one of two things:

(1) The driver was a looney willing to kill an unarmed woman in cold blood.

(2) The Israelis were using bulldozers that the operator couldn't see out of.

Point 1 strikes me as not just biased, but as overly simplistic as the "stupid analysis" you objected to.

I wouldn't have guessed either.

I don't think the IDF keeps loonies in uniform.

Strath can answer his own mail on this, and my own position, having read quite a bit on this event when the last time we discussed it came up (thanks Dustin K and Earthborn for links) is that Rachel made an error in judgment.

In the situation she was in, she assessed that she could replay the Tianamen Square scenario and get the Bulldozer to stop. For one reason or another, that estimation was in error, and she was too slow to realize (as in time to get out of the way when it was became clear that no stopping was going to happen) that a quick exit/evasion/dodge maneuver would allow her to live to protest another day.

Errors in judgment aren't always fatal, but they can be, as the traffic death statistics show us each year.

DR