Corrie vs. Caterpillar -- Redux.

[steverino]

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.

Dr. A.: This happened here in Seattle just last month. I don't think the tractor driver was stupid, or that the tractor had a design flaw. It was just an accident.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=1159742

SEATTLE (AP) - A brush-cutter clearing blackberry bushes for a highway project accidentally killed a homeless man in a sleeping bag, authorities said.

Police had warned transients to leave the area last week and a special subcontracting crew had also worked to remove human waste, needles and other drug paraphernalia from a mile long section under the freeway.

The Transportation Department said the tractor, with an 18-foot rotary arm, had been operating for about a half hour Saturday morning when the man was hit.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have shown Dr Adequate his own words and Rachel Corrie's own words to show:

a) That he considered Rachel Corrie to be a peace activist,

But not according to the Sooper Sekrit definition in your head, as you lyingly claimed.

b) That Rachel Corrie was no peace activist and, instead, defended violence and supported the 'Palestinian resistance'.

This may possibly be true, but I have seen no evidence for it. Your claim that you have used her own words to prove this is an obvious lie.

Yet he is denying both statements.

Of course I have refuted your halfwit lies. It was especially easy because many of them are about my own clearly stated opinions.

If anyone is in any doubt about the way Dr Adequate behaves on this forum then here are some of the insults he has hurled around on this thread:

If anyone is in any doubt, I am always ready to tell a stupid dumb jerk that he is a stupid dumb jerk. Especially when the stupid dumb jerk lies to me about my own opinions, in a public forum where everyone reading this thread can see that the stupid dumb jerk is lying.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. A.: This happened here in Seattle just last month. I don't think the tractor driver was stupid, or that the tractor had a design flaw. It was just an accident.

I think the Seattle victim was lying down asleep hidden in the verge of the road, stop me if I'm wrong. Rather than standing up on a mound of rubble and shouting through a bullhorn and doing his darndest to be noticed. Also, I am fairly sure that in the case of the tramp in the sleeping bag, it was not the case that "maybe the driver saw him initially, but by the time he was in the blind spot he thought he was gone", as Freddy suggested re Corrie. So I'm not sure that the two cases are comparable.

 

[webfusion]

Because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I were to assume that you know very well how to read and are quite capable of parsing what you are reading, then I have no choice but to conclude that you are willfully misrepresenting what you are reading. Corrie's colleagues all agree that she was sitting, and then stood up, so claiming that her colleagues said she was sitting when she was crushed is either misreading or misrepresenting them.

Conclude what you wish -----
There were several conflicting eyewitness reports:

Was she standing, sitting, kneeling, or lying down in the path of the bulldozer?

* Tom Dale (ISM): "Rachel knelt down in its way."
* Greg Schnable (ISM): "Rachel was standing in front of this home."
* Richard Purssell (ISM): "Rachel stood to confront the bulldozer..."
* Joe Smith / Carr (ISM): "She sat down in front of it..."
* Al-Shaar (Pal): "The American girl was lying in front of the bulldozer..."

So they are not used to enforce building regulations? Have you hold the IDF?

Please, don't reply to my comments out of context. I said that the IDF would have no need to deploy into Gaza nor the West Bank with military forces, if the palestinians were to disarm. The "enforcement of building regulations" would be a civil matter that no doubt is going to continue in any eventuality.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/882365.html

What is it with you and backslashes, anyway?

I get an excellent discount on 'em; cheaper by the dozens.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

[Dr Adequate]

There were several conflicting eyewitness reports:

Was she standing, sitting, kneeling, or lying down in the path of the bulldozer?

* Tom Dale (ISM): "Rachel knelt down in its way."
* Greg Schnable (ISM): "Rachel was standing in front of this home."
* Richard Purssell (ISM): "Rachel stood to confront the bulldozer..."
* Joe Smith / Carr (ISM): "She sat down in front of it..."
* Al-Shaar (Pal): "The American girl was lying in front of the bulldozer..."

This is exactly why we should have surveillance cameras everywhere and execute so-called "eyewitnesses" without a trial.

---

What do you mean, "in a bad mood today"?

What?

 

[webfusion]

Just a thought ---- where is the lawsuit (seeking an injunction) against InRobTech LLC ?

These are the guys who have taken a D9 and modified it to operate remotely/robotically for the IDF. Why haven't the ISM or the Corries gone into court and demand that a judge rule that the delivery of these "death machines" is incompatible with the corporate responsibilities of inRobTech LLC?

"They sold this product knowing, or it should have known, it would cause exactly this harm"

If you understand inRobTECH's design of this new D9 modification, there seems to be no doubt that it has the capability of crushing anything in the path --- including people who don't scurry away.


For some reason, inRobTech's website is unavailable.
http://www.inrobtech.com/

 

[Beerina]

"Rolled forward relentlessly" ? You are trying to make the IDF look bad, don't you? The IDF claims that Rachel Corrie died because the driver could not see her, not that they instructed him to move forward relentlessly no matter what was in front of the D9. Assuming they are right, the driver would have stopped if he had known where she was and would not have been "relentless".

So we now know Israel was not demolishing houses (one wonders what they were doing) and that the driver did not know she was there, at least at the crucial moment in question.

The whole thing is just deep pockets. Daughter was stooo-oo-pid, and belongs in the Darwin Awards. But Mom & Dad see a chance to make beau-coup bucks off of their dead, stoopid daughter. Their only chance to get some is from Caterpillar. Greedy bastards. When the daughter willfully committed suicide. What kind of judgment did they raise her to have? commit suicide to make Momma rich?

Actually, I would never blame a parent for using everything at their disposal to get back at the killer, assuming they thought it a true injustice.

I always looked incredulously at those who felt Fred Goldman was suing OJ just to "get the money". Even if his son was estranged, he'd more likely than not want to get back at who he believed was his son's murderer. Criminal case fail? Sue him to make his life miserable. More power to him.

In this case, I don't think the parents are right, but I can see them believing Israel and Caterpillar are doing wrong, even if just in this particular case.

 

[Cleon]

So we now know Israel was not demolishing houses (one wonders what they were doing) and that the driver did not know she was there, at least at the crucial moment in question.

Well, again, it's worth noting that:

1. Rachel was talking with the driver before the incident. So he at least knew she was around.
2. The standing-in-front-of-the-bulldozer shtick was not something Rachel was doing for the first time. This was something ISM activists were doing pretty regularly.

So it might well be that the driver did not know she was directly in front of him at that specific moment, but it's not like he was clueless that she was around, or that she could be right in front of him.

Again, that's if you dismiss all ISM witnesses' accounts out of hand, which I do not.

Actually, I would never blame a parent for using everything at their disposal to get back at the killer, assuming they thought it a true injustice.

I always looked incredulously at those who felt Fred Goldman was suing OJ just to "get the money". Even if his son was estranged, he'd more likely than not want to get back at who he believed was his son's murderer. Criminal case fail? Sue him to make his life miserable. More power to him.

In this case, I don't think the parents are right, but I can see them believing Israel and Caterpillar are doing wrong, even if just in this particular case.

That's very fair of you. Thank you.

 

[Mycroft]

And blah, blah blah.

Well, thank you for demonstrating one thing. Your calling Rachel "stupid" has nothing to do with her actual intelligence, or the fact that she stood in front of a bulldozer.

Your only problem with Rachel is that she was on the "wrong" side.

Sure, but by the same token the only reason you want to glamorize her actions and motives is that you think she was on the "right" side.

Every year tens of thousands of teenagers die due to stupid errors in judgment. It should be a no-brainer that to purposefully place yourself in a war-zone and purposefully place yourself between the combatants in that war zone, is exactly that kind of lapse in judgment that could result in death. Yet for some reason, for some people, Corrie gets a pass on that because there was a political angle to her death.

The Corrie's are suing Caterpillar to further Rachael's political agenda, but if they really wanted to sue someone for wrongful death, they should sue the ISM. They're the ones that purposefully place children's lives in danger for the purpose of creating propaganda.

 

[Ion]

I disagree with this:

No she did not. Israel is not - and never has been - a dictatorship by any functional definition of dictatorship - nor has any Palestinean related area been anything rmotely like a bastion of democracy. She was engaged in an illegitimate act disrupting the legitimate military function of destroying actual/potential cover location for illegal combatants on their enemies side. That is a legal act of war. Granted, she should have been arrested and thrown in jail with the terrorists she supported but life is life and bad choices get bad rewards.

The San Diego Union Tribune of Saturday July 7, 2007 shows in brief news that Israel is beyond its borders.

That's dictatorship to the occupied populations.

That's what Rachel Corrie was fighting.

 

[Ion]

This is a list of the suicide bombings carried out in Israel in the 6 months leading up to Rachel Corrie's email of February 27 2003 in which she defends the 'somewhat violent' 'Palestinian resistance':

Source

Sept 18, 2002 - 1 Killed, 3 wounded at a bus stop

Sept 19, 2002 - 6 killed, about 70 wounded on a bus.

Oct 10, 2002 - 1 killed, 30 injured at a bus stop across from a university.

Oct 21, 2002 - 14 killed and some 50 wounded when a car bomb was exploded next to a bus.

Oct 27, 2002 - 3 killed, 20 wounded at a gas station.

Nov 4, 2002 - 2 killed, 70 wounded at a shopping mall.

Nov 21, 2002 - 11 killed, 50 wounded on a bus.

Jan 5, 2003 - 22 killed, about 120 injured at a bus station.

Were these in occupied territories?

And it's peanuts compared to what Bush kills in Iraq.

 

[Ion]

Well, again, it's worth noting that:

1. Rachel was talking with the driver before the incident. So he at least knew she was around...

From reports, she was always in front of the bulldozer and the driver knew.

 

[Cleon]

Were these in occupied territories?

And it's peanuts compared to what Bush kills in Iraq.

Not to mention the number of Palestinians killed by Israel.

 

[webfusion]

The Corrie's are suing Caterpillar to further Rachael's political agenda, but if they really wanted to sue someone for wrongful death, they should sue the ISM. They're the ones that purposefully place children's lives in danger for the purpose of creating propaganda.

The ISM 'useful idiots' are no longer in Gaza.

However, they are about to embark on a particularly dangerous mission, to try and confront the Israeli Navy, scheduled for August 15.
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/06/19/free-gaza-movement/

Hmmmmm, I wonder what they'll say after their ridiculous "Peace Flotilla" is blown to smithereens and sunk to the bottom of the Mediterranean?

Fortunately, they'll "be prepared":
From the ISM Action Plan --- We doubt that Israel will attack, but we will be prepared with medical personnel and equipment, life rafts and flotation vests.

This should be entertaining! I gotta hand it to the ISM, their theater of the absurd is fodder for internet forums such as this one.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The ISM 'useful idiots' are no longer in Gaza.

However, they are about to embark on a particularly dangerous mission, to try and confront the Israeli Navy, scheduled for August 15.
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/06/19/free-gaza-movement/

Hmmmmm, I wonder what they'll say after their ridiculous "Peace Flotilla" is blown to smithereens and sunk to the bottom of the Mediterranean?

Fortunately, they'll "be prepared":
From the ISM Action Plan --- We doubt that Israel will attack, but we will be prepared with medical personnel and equipment, life rafts and flotation vests.

This should be entertaining! I gotta hand it to the ISM, their theater of the absurd is fodder for internet forums such as this one.

The odds are that clever people in the Israeli Navy are already aware of this plot, posted as it is on the Internet. I expect they have a well crafted plan, with contingencies, branches, and serials, and a playbook, to handle this publicity stunt.

I don't think the Israelis will shoot. I think they'll board the vessels, at the most, and take them to a suitable port and intern them, possibly charging the various ISMers on them with suitable criminal offenses.

The Israelis don't need a bunch of bad press for blowing idiots into chum. There are simpler ways of dealing with them. Fight the info war in the info medium. It can work.

DR

 

[steverino]

I think the Seattle victim was lying down asleep hidden in the verge of the road, stop me if I'm wrong. Rather than standing up on a mound of rubble and shouting through a bullhorn and doing his darndest to be noticed. Also, I am fairly sure that in the case of the tramp in the sleeping bag, it was not the case that "maybe the driver saw him initially, but by the time he was in the blind spot he thought he was gone", as Freddy suggested re Corrie. So I'm not sure that the two cases are comparable.

Dr. A.- I understand the two cases are different. I simply say that tractors are noisy, and their drivers are apt to make mistakes, even tragic ones.

 

[webfusion]

I don't think the Israelis will shoot.

Why are you trying to ruin all the fun? This could be a great opportunity for a lawsuit against Northrop Grumman Ship Systems. (Sa'ar corvette battleship)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/eilat.htm
Or maybe sue Boeing (the manufacturer of the Harpoon missiles carried on board) right after the Israeli Navy directs one Harpoon, right into the middle of this ISM flotilla.

"They sold this product knowing, or it should have known, it would cause exactly this harm."



"We doubt that Israel will attack." --- ISM spokesperson.

 

[Cleon]

webfusion, every time you rejoice at the thought of the deaths of innocents, simply because you disagree with them politically, you say more about yourself than you do about them.

 

[gtc]

Not to mention the number of Palestinians killed by Israel.

The relative number of people killed by the various sides to this conflict is worthy of a thread in itself. As you know, it is a question of technology, tactics, civillian defence and motive.

It is also not relevant to the question of whether Rachel Corrie was a peace activist or whether the 'Palestinian Resistance' is merely 'somewhat violent'?

Do you think she was a peace activist?

 

[webfusion]

webfusion, every time you rejoice at the thought of the deaths of innocents, simply because you disagree with them politically, you say more about yourself than you do about them.

A. It was a tongue-in-cheek posting.


B. Assisting in running through a military blockade makes you a direct combatant --- not an "innocent".