NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/protester_killed_lawsuit :rolleyes:

What a pathetic attempt at umm, being pathetic.

First you get a girl so stupid she gets run over by a bulldozer - and it wasn't even the first time that ever happened to her! Most people would 'get it' after only being run over one time. Not her! She was right back at it a few weeks later! Duh! Put her up for a Darwin award.

Now they want to sue the driver? Nooo! The nation who's army was using it? Noooo! The company who manufactured it? Ding-ding-ding!!!! Correct!
I'm sure the good folks at Catarpillar said - "Hey, lets sell our bulldozers to Israel so they can run over some helpless peace activists and their bongo drums!" maybe the fact that that particular bulldozer is part of the 'Activist Smasher 5000' line gave it away.

What, she expects the driver to stop? It is a war zone, not a construction site. The homes destroyed belong to suicide bombers who have murdered hundreds of innocent citizens, including children. Trying that at a peaceful construction site is lunacy, in a war zone it is suicide. The driver of the dozer in the war zone is paneled in with bullet proof plating for chrissakes. She's lucky they saw her the first time. They sure as hell aren't going to stand around waiting for a sniper to take a shot at them while she sings 'Cum Bye Ya '

It is a bummer she died, I will admit. But blaming anyone except her own stupid self is just wrong. She knew what she was risking and she lost. If I knew where she was buried I'd send a tonka bulldozer to her gravesite as a token...

They sure as hell aren't going to stand around waiting for a sniper to take a shot at them while she sings 'Cum Bye Ya '

I think it's "Kumbaya", or something like that. "Cum Bye Ya" is a whole different song! :p

I hope the judges toss this suit out on it's arse.

I wonder who set the precedent of suing 3rd (or more) party companies? Could it be the LCAV and the Anti-gun community?

Ha! Hilarious.
Becuase clearly it was the company's fault that they made a bulldozer deliberatly to run her over.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/protester_killed_lawsuit :rolleyes:

Now they want to sue the driver? Nooo! The nation who's army was using it? Noooo! T
Her family is suing Israel.

Source: http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/article.php?id=256

Her family is suing Israel.

Source: http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/article.php?id=256
Her family is suing Israel...could it be because Israel couldn't have foreseen that her family would be stupid enough to raise her in such a way that standing in front of a bulldozer didn't raise HUGE red flags in her communist-addled brain??

Well, people are morons. What can ya do? *shrug*

Well, people are morons. What can ya do? *shrug*
Bulldoze 'em over with the Activist Smasher 5000! I'm buyin mine tomorrow!

Bulldoze 'em over with the Activist Smasher 5000! I'm buyin mine tomorrow!


Mommy! Mommy! I know what I want for Christmas. I want the Activist Smasher 5000. *Cue cheesy seventies commercial smile*

I thought that an insect killed here when i read the topic..... :eek: :eek:

i'm going mad

Oh yeah, I remember reading this case on some commie site. Really, if you jump in front of a bulldozer what the hell do you expect? Plus these bulldozers have poor visibility for the driver, especially the military models. Suing the company is like suing Ford when somebody gets killed by one of their cars.

No, it'd be more like suing the makers of boxcutters for 911

I bet these are the same sort of assholes whom would sue anyone remotely related to a accedent. I hope they loose and loose bad.

First you get a girl so stupid she gets run over by a bulldozer - and it wasn't even the first time that ever happened to her! Most people would 'get it' after only being run over one time. Not her! She was right back at it a few weeks later! Duh! Put her up for a Darwin award.


You are pretty stupid yourself. She got run over exactly twice within the space of five minutes, and died less than half an hour later. She had not been injured any time weeks before, so either you read a BS source or you're talking out of your rear.

I'm sorry, but she deliberately placed herself in danger. She knew the risks. She placed her body in front of a huge piece of construction equipment to make her political statement that it was wrong to tear down people's houses.

She gave her life to get her point across, but that was her choice.

I'm sorry, but she deliberately placed herself in danger. She knew the risks. She placed her body in front of a huge piece of construction equipment to make her political statement that it was wrong to tear down people's houses.

She gave her life to get her point across, but that was her choice.

Indeed, I agree.

She knew the risks, and if she couldn't get out of the way of a Bulldozer then she shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's a tragedy that she died, and as a staunch supported of Israel and the IDF I'll still say they screwed up, but you have to put some of the blame on her.

You are pretty stupid yourself. She got run over exactly twice within the space of five minutes, and died less than half an hour later. She had not been injured any time weeks before, so either you read a BS source or you're talking out of your rear.

If you had seen the video of the incident, you would realize that it was entirely her fault. There's a bit with her speaking right before, and it's very, very clear that she was a complete idiot and a complete ass.

She should have been nominated for a Darwin Award. I've only seen people who were drunk or stoned who were that stupid.

Israel should sue the dead idiot's family for the cost of cleaning up the bulldozer.

I think it's "Kumbaya", or something like that. "Cum Bye Ya" is a whole different song! :p

LMAO!!

Bulldoze 'em over with the Activist Smasher 5000! I'm buyin mine tomorrow!
hellz ya !

All this talk about her recieving a Darwin award is assinine. This woman wasn't unaware of the health concerns of getting run over by a bulldozer. She was making a political statement. That famous video of the Buddhist guy lighting himself on fire. Do you think he was oblivious to the detriments of lighting himself aflame? How about the famous picture from Tiananmen square of the guy staring down the column of tanks? Do you think he was not informed of the potential risks of getting run over by a tank? No. These people do it to make a stand for something they believe in, and if they are willing to give their lives for such a cause, then that's their decision. The Darwin awards are for idiots who decide to put their nuts in golf ball washers or play Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol, not for people who die making political stands.

All this talk about her recieving a Darwin award is assinine. This woman wasn't unaware of the health concerns of getting run over by a bulldozer. She was making a political statement. That famous video of the Buddhist guy lighting himself on fire. Do you think he was oblivious to the detriments of lighting himself aflame? How about the famous picture from Tiananmen square of the guy staring down the column of tanks? Do you think he was not informed of the potential risks of getting run over by a tank? No. These people do it to make a stand for something they believe in, and if they are willing to give their lives for such a cause, then that's their decision. The Darwin awards are for idiots who decide to put their nuts in golf ball washers or play Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol, not for people who die making political stands.
I'm just thankfull she's out of the gene pool.

It appears that the dead girl's relatives weren't counting on her getting killed. They believed that it wasn't risky - otherwise, they wouldn't be suing.

It was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on video - and she didn't look heroic doing it, either.

That Buddhist looked very noble - this twit girl looked like an idiot. The crap coming out of her mouth was even more idiotic.

It appears that the dead girl's relatives weren't counting on her getting killed. They believed that it wasn't risky - otherwise, they wouldn't be suing.

It was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on video - and she didn't look heroic doing it, either.

That Buddhist looked very noble - this twit girl looked like an idiot. The crap coming out of her mouth was even more idiotic.

No, I bet they're suing because they want some cash. Regardless of what she looked like or whether or not you liked what she said, she willingly died for something she believed in. That is noble.

No, I bet they're suing because they want some cash. Regardless of what she looked like or whether or not you liked what she said, she willingly died for something she believed in. That is noble.

You do realize that she was killed trying to prevent the bulldozer from caving in a tunnel used to smuggle arms?

That's how she was at the end of the video - the tunnel beneath her collapsed and she was buried alive. Is that noble? To defend a weapons smuggling tunnel and call it "defending the bulldozing of a house"?

No, I bet they're suing because they want some cash. Regardless of what she looked like or whether or not you liked what she said, she willingly died for something she believed in. That is noble.
Do you know she willingly died or did she just assume that nothing could happen to her and that whoever it was driving HAS to stop. (some younger people seem to have no concept of reality )

You do realize that she was killed trying to prevent the bulldozer from caving in a tunnel used to smuggle arms?

That's how she was at the end of the video - the tunnel beneath her collapsed and she was buried alive. Is that noble? To defend a weapons smuggling tunnel and call it "defending the bulldozing of a house"?

So because you don't agree with her cause it's less noble?

So because you don't agree with her cause it's less noble?

To say you're defending someone's home in the name of peace, and it's really that you're defending some terrorists' weapon smuggling tunnel (and you fall into it with a load of dirt and get killed), then you're either stupid (and had no idea!), or you're complicit in the lie - which makes you just as evil as the people who use the weapons.

So because you don't agree with her cause it's less noble?
I think he was geting more into the lying about what her real cause was line of thinking

Do you know she willingly died or did she just assume that nothing could happen to her and that whoever it was driving HAS to stop. (some younger people seem to have no concept of reality )

Well, as I understand it, she got run over twice. She might have thought nothing could happen to her before she got run over the first time, but I doubt she still thought nothing would happen after that first time.

Well, as I understand it, she got run over twice. She might have thought nothing could happen to her before she got run over the first time, but I doubt she still thought nothing would happen after that first time.

In the video, she jumps down under the bucket. There's no way the driver could have seen her, and there's a huge crowd around making a lot of noise.

It moves forward, the tunnel starts to collapse, the ground caves in, and she goes under. The dozer then backs over her, and goes forward again.

The driver never, ever saw her.

To say you're defending someone's home in the name of peace, and it's really that you're defending some terrorists' weapon smuggling tunnel (and you fall into it with a load of dirt and get killed), then you're either stupid (and had no idea!), or you're complicit in the lie - which makes you just as evil as the people who use the weapons.

Well I haven't seen a single word supporting what you're saying. You always seem to have the 'correct' story, so why don't you enlighten me? Show me an article detailing what really happened, otherwise I'm forced to go off of what I've seen, which is the two articles posted in this thread.

Well I haven't seen a single word supporting what you're saying. You always seem to have the 'correct' story, so why don't you enlighten me? Show me an article detailing what really happened, otherwise I'm forced to go off of what I've seen, which is the two articles posted in this thread.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=688

Both sides of the story:
On March 16, American activist Rachel Corrie, 23, was killed while trying to stop an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip.

Corrie, a student in Olympia, Washington, was the first member of the group to be killed in 30 months of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. The group claimed the bulldozer ran over her and then backed up. The army denied the claim and said the operator of the armoured bulldozer did not see her.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=688

Both sides of the story:
On March 16, American activist Rachel Corrie, 23, was killed while trying to stop an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip.

Corrie, a student in Olympia, Washington, was the first member of the group to be killed in 30 months of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. The group claimed the bulldozer ran over her and then backed up. The army denied the claim and said the operator of the armoured bulldozer did not see her.

That says nothing about a cave full of weapons.

Listen, I agree that it's not the driver's fault, nor is it Caterpillar's or Israel's. She chose to die for this. We can disagree whether or not it was a worthy cause to die for, but to her, it was. I'm just objecting to all the people saying she should get a Darwin award for killing herself as if she should be mentioned in the same breath as people who use lighters to see inside gasoline tanks or people who use pruning shears to cut downed power lines. It's absurd.

That says nothing about a cave full of weapons.

Listen, I agree that it's not the driver's fault, nor is it Caterpillar's or Israel's. She chose to die for this. We can disagree whether or not it was a worthy cause to die for, but to her, it was. I'm just objecting to all the people saying she should get a Darwin award for killing herself as if she should be mentioned in the same breath as people who use lighters to see inside gasoline tanks or people who use pruning shears to cut downed power lines. It's absurd.
The point was if she did not choose to die for it there really is no inherent “nobility”

Now you proposed that she knew she would die having been run over a first time and chose to do it again

He posted information that the “run over twice” was not in two separate incidences rather just the driver putting it into reverse

If it was all in one incident it removes the proof of “twice run over” for supporting the proposition of foreknowledge of being run over.

Understand where I am going with this?

Mis-captioned Reuters photo transforms accidental death into homicide.

Joe Smith, age 21, came with his college friend Rachel Corrie this past
Sunday, March 16th to Gaza to protest against terrorist home demolitions as
part of his activity with the International Solidarity Movement.

Both Joe and Rachel had studied at Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington.

Joe was witness to Rachel's tragic death late that afternoon, and
described what he saw to my colleague , recounting that "she was sitting on
a mound of earth in front of the bulldozer. The earth started to move under
her when the bulldozer digs in. You have a couple of options you can roll
aside-you have to be very quick to get out of the way. You can fall back,
but she leaned forward to try to climb up on top. She got pulled down, and
the bulldozer lost sight of her.Then, without lifting the blade, he
reversed and she was underneath the blade". Joe Smith did not sound
accusatory nor vindictive against the IDF bulldozer driver.

So why did the world have a different impression of what had happened?

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words.

The picture distributed by the Reuters News Agency showed Rachel Corrie
standing in front of the Bulldozer with a megaphone. That is the picture
that appeared on page three of the New York Times on March 17, 2003

The Reuters caption stated what the picture said that this picture was
taken before Rachel Corrie was crushed by this bulldozer, giving the reader the distinct impression that Rachel Corrie had been standing with a
megaphone in clear sight of the bulldozer.

That would have made this act some kind of homicide.

The next photo distributed by Reuters showed Rachel lying in front of the
bulldozer.

And then I began to notice something.

The lighting of the Gaza sky was different in both pictures of what were
supposed to be sequential shots. The landscape in each picture was
different.

I checked with Reuters to find out about the discrepancy of the picture
sequence.. The Reuters photo editor said, however, that , these were NOT
their pictures. They were sent by the International Solidarity Movement.
Indeed, these pictures did appear on the ISM web site at
www.palsolidarity,org. The Reuters photo editor assured me, however, that
the pix were clearly labeled as ISM pictures. A check with the Reuters web
site showed that they were labeled as Reuters pix.

A call back to Joe Smith about the sequence of the pix revealed another
unknown fact. Smith said that no one was on the spot with a camera before
Rachel Corrie was mauled by the bulldozer, and that the picture of Rachel
with the megaphone had been taken many hours earlier...

I placed a call to Tim Heritage, bureau chief of Reuters, and asked him
about Reuters policy in using pictures from political groups that might
manipulate the media...

I gave him a heads up about the fact that Reuters had
issued the photo of Rachel Corrie standing alongside the bulldozer with a
megaphone.

Heritage said that he would look into the matter and asked for a call back.
I called back an hour later. Heritage was not available. However, all of
the Rachel Corrie/bulldozer pix had been wiped off of the Reuters web site.

Yet the damage was done.

The indelible image of a mauled "peace activist standing with a megaphone"
will not leave people's minds for many years to come.

The point was if she did not choose to die for it there really is no inherent “nobility”

Now you proposed that she knew she would die having been run over a first time and chose to do it again

He posted information that the “run over twice” was not in two separate incidences rather just the driver putting it into reverse

If it was all in one incident it removes the proof of “twice run over” for supporting the proposition of foreknowledge of being run over.

Understand where I am going with this?

I suppose I do give her too much credit.

I suppose I do give her too much credit.
Maybe (I still dont think she deserves a darwin award but ... I dont see her as having inharent nobility either)

I do think her parents need to be examined though :p it was not a manufacturing defect that caused the issue it was an operational issue

It appears that the dead girl's relatives weren't counting on her getting killed. They believed that it wasn't risky - otherwise, they wouldn't be suing.

It was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on video - and she didn't look heroic doing it, either.

That Buddhist looked very noble - this twit girl looked like an idiot. The crap coming out of her mouth was even more idiotic.

do u have a link to that?

I would think the Darwin Award would go to her parents....whether her cause was noble or not...it's the fact that the parents believe that a Coporation, which sells millions of $ in equipment worldwide, should be held responsible for the actions of it's users is idiotic....I'm suddenly reminded of that little old old lady who sued McDonalds for burning herself with her cup of HOT coffee....

Maybe (I still dont think she deserves a darwin award but ... I dont see her as having inharent nobility either)

I do think her parents need to be examined though :p it was not a manufacturing defect that caused the issue it was an operational issue

Until WL puts up something definitive saying it was a terrorist weapons cache she was defending, then I'm going to believe she was there to protest the demolition of people's homes. I don't see how that puts her in the same category as the stupid, stupid people who win those Darwin awards.

I would think the Darwin Award would go to her parents....whether her cause was noble or not...it's the fact that the parents believe that a Coporation, which sells millions of $ in equipment worldwide, should be held responsible for the actions of it's users is idiotic....I'm suddenly reminded of that little old old lady who sued McDonalds for burning herself with her cup of HOT coffee....

The Darwin awards are for people who better our gene pool by removing themselves from it. Not for general stupidity.

do u have a link to that?
I don't have a current link to the video.

However, you can go to the website of the people who claim she was murdered, and you can look at their pictures, and then ask yourself some questions:

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/031603_photo_story.htm

1. Are these pictures taken in the same place?
2. Is that the same bulldozer in all the pictures?
3. If either 1 or 2 is showing a consistency problem, what do we make of the pictures that supposedly support their claim?
4. And if their claim is in question, what do we make of the IDF's version of the story?

Here's an examination of the pics:

http://www.geocities.com/rachav/Rachel_Corrie_Propaganda.html

And a fairly neutral link

http://www.occupationalhazard.org/article.php?IDD=611

I know this thread has veered a little away from the lawsuit itself, but here's my take.

Whenever some civil liberties organization sues for a wrongful death, it costs them a lot of money. Well they sure as hell ain't gonna get anywhere trying to sue the state of Israel. The driver probably hasn't a penny to his name (nor do I think he can blamed anyway.) "Hmmm... these political, yet comepletely futile lawsuits are gonna cost us a fortune! How can we bankroll them? OH! I KNOW! Let's sue a private company with tons of cash but was only coincedentally related to the incident for millions in a wrongful death suit and the company will settle out of court rather than spend a ridiculous amount of money going to trial and the money we get from the settlement will pay for our other lawsuits and for my new Porche 911 and will effectively do nothing but steal money away from a hardworking, taxpaying American corporation and drive up the cost of the goods they sell and send the American economy even deeper into the toilet! I'm a genius!"

And the sad thing is... Caterpillar will probably pay a settlement. It's stupid and unjust, but that's what these lawsuits are really about.

I'm not a corporate attorney, nor a CEO, but if I was I would like to think that I would stand up for my company in court and set a precedent that we can't be sued for ridiculous allegations like this one.

Okay, rant over.

I don't think that Caterpillar can be held responsible for this murder, but I think the family are right to press charges against them for supplying those tanks to the criminal IDF.

I don't think it's OK to demolish the family homes of people, even if they are suicide bombers. Imagine the uproar if our government started to demolish the family homes of convicted murderers. It's a form of collective punishment, which is barbaric and arcane.

that her family would be stupid enough to raise her in such a way that standing in front of a bulldozer didn't raise HUGE red flags in her communist-addled brain??
Where does it say she was a communist?

Here you go.

Buried bombs.

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030614/frontpage/28005.shtml

Until WL puts up something definitive saying it was a terrorist weapons cache she was defending, then I'm going to believe she was there to protest the demolition of people's homes. I don't see how that puts her in the same category as the stupid, stupid people who win those Darwin awards.
Um I just agreed on the no award thing? why you quotin me lol

I know this thread has veered a little away from the lawsuit itself, but here's my take.

Whenever some civil liberties organization sues for a wrongful death, it costs them a lot of money. Well they sure as hell ain't gonna get anywhere trying to sue the state of Israel. The driver probably hasn't a penny to his name (nor do I think he can blamed anyway.) "Hmmm... these political, yet comepletely futile lawsuits are gonna cost us a fortune! How can we bankroll them? OH! I KNOW! Let's sue a private company with tons of cash but was only coincedentally related to the incident for millions in a wrongful death suit and the company will settle out of court rather than spend a ridiculous amount of money going to trial and the money we get from the settlement will pay for our other lawsuits and for my new Porche 911 and will effectively do nothing but steal money away from a hardworking, taxpaying American corporation and drive up the cost of the goods they sell and send the American economy even deeper into the toilet! I'm a genius!"

And the sad thing is... Caterpillar will probably pay a settlement. It's stupid and unjust, but that's what these lawsuits are really about.

I'm not a corporate attorney, nor a CEO, but if I was I would like to think that I would stand up for my company in court and set a precedent that we can't be sued for ridiculous allegations like this one.

Okay, rant over.

word......

Here you go.

Buried bombs.

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030614/frontpage/28005.shtml

They were searching for bombs. They didn't actually find any, at least not according to that report. There's no actual proof that she was knowingly defending a weapons cache, or defending a weapons cache at all.

They were searching for bombs. They didn't actually find any, at least not according to that report. There's no actual proof that she was knowingly defending a weapons cache, or defending a weapons cache at all.

They weren't bulldozing houses, either. So why was she bulldozed over a trench?

The photos from the website that claims she's a victim are all incongruent.

I don't think that Caterpillar can be held responsible for this murder, but I think the family are right to press charges against them for supplying those tanks to the criminal IDF.

I don't think it's OK to demolish the family homes of people, even if they are suicide bombers. Imagine the uproar if our government started to demolish the family homes of convicted murderers. It's a form of collective punishment, which is barbaric and arcane.


Where does it say she was a communist?
Collective punishment was tried out of desparation. Suicide bombers obviously dont' care about what happens to themselves, so you have to be creative to try to deter them. I don't find bulldozing their families homes barbaric. I find it to be a natural reaction.

They were searching for bombs. They didn't actually find any, at least not according to that report. There's no actual proof that she was knowingly defending a weapons cache, or defending a weapons cache at all.
Even if she wasent defending one ... using bad judgement and puting yourself in place for accidental death is not really nobel either :D

I'm suddenly reminded of that little old old lady who sued McDonalds for burning herself with her cup of HOT coffee....

McDonald's was sued because their coffee was well over the safe holding temperature for coffee -- it should have been no more than 180 and was above 212 degrees Fahrenheit. They had had other scalding incidents before and were told REPEATEDLY to lower the temp, but refused. When she received 3rd degree burns over her thighs and genitals, she asked simply for McDonald's to cover her medical bills; they have refused and in fact, although a judgment was entered against them, to my knowledge they have given her not one thin dime. This is easily verified by searching any number of law links -- but hey, why confuse the issue with facts?

McDonald's was sued because their coffee was well over the safe holding temperature for coffee -- it should have been no more than 180 and was above 212 degrees Fahrenheit. They had had other scalding incidents before and were told REPEATEDLY to lower the temp, but refused. When she received 3rd degree burns over her thighs and genitals, she asked simply for McDonald's to cover her medical bills; they have refused and in fact, although a judgment was entered against them, to my knowledge they have given her not one thin dime. This is easily verified by searching any number of law links -- but hey, why confuse the issue with facts?

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

McDonald's was sued because their coffee was well over the safe holding temperature for coffee -- it should have been no more than 180 and was above 212 degrees Fahrenheit. They had had other scalding incidents before and were told REPEATEDLY to lower the temp, but refused. When she received 3rd degree burns over her thighs and genitals, she asked simply for McDonald's to cover her medical bills; they have refused and in fact, although a judgment was entered against them, to my knowledge they have given her not one thin dime. This is easily verified by searching any number of law links -- but hey, why confuse the issue with facts?
and why quote someone properly...never did they say that she succeded in her lawsuits...;)

and why quote someone properly...never did they say that she succeded in her lawsuits...;)

But they did imply that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when in fact McDonalds was willfully negligent.

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

Has McDonalds actually paid the settlement? I can't find anything about it.

and why quote someone properly...never did they say that she succeded in her lawsuits...;)
She did succeed. The jury awarded here 2.7 million dollars, which was reduced to 480,000, which was further reduced to an undisclosed sum in a private settlement.

Private settlements have a reputation for being paid - because if they don't the case goes back to court.

the 'they' I was refering to was Eastern Aotra...sorry

Do you think he was oblivious to the detriments of lighting himself aflame?
I'm pretty sure none of his family tried to sue Duralite BBQ fuel afterwords.

No, I bet they're suing because they want some cash. Regardless of what she looked like or whether or not you liked what she said, she willingly died for something she believed in. That is noble.
So if she died for Santa you'd call that noble too?

You are pretty stupid yourself. She got run over exactly twice within the space of five minutes, and died less than half an hour later. She had not been injured any time weeks before, so either you read a BS source or you're talking out of your rear.
Actually we are both wrong;

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/1248
(photo 1)
"Picture taken between 3:00-4:00PM, 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel Corrie (L) and Nick (R) oppose the potential destruction of this home (to the west of the Doctor's home where Rachel was killed). In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her. On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her. Photo by Joseph Smith (ISM Handout)."
(photo 2)
"Picture taken at 4:45PM on 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Other peace activists tend to Rachel after she was fatally injured by the driver of the Israeli bulldozer (in background). This photo was taken seconds after the bulldozer driver dragged his blade over her..."

So there, she had just been run over about 1-2 hours before, not weeks. You'd think that'd have made an impression. (oooh, poor choice of words)

...

So there, she had just been run over about 1-2 hours before, not weeks. You'd think that'd have made an impression. (oooh, poor choice of words)

One would think after getting compressed by a bulldozer the first time you would become more introspective about associating with the Palestinians.

It is, however, tragic that a life with such potential was snuffed out due to a foolish choice.

All this talk about her recieving a Darwin award is assinine. This woman wasn't unaware of the health concerns of getting run over by a bulldozer. She was making a political statement. That famous video of the Buddhist guy lighting himself on fire. Do you think he was oblivious to the detriments of lighting himself aflame? How about the famous picture from Tiananmen square of the guy staring down the column of tanks? Do you think he was not informed of the potential risks of getting run over by a tank? No. These people do it to make a stand for something they believe in, and if they are willing to give their lives for such a cause, then that's their decision. The Darwin awards are for idiots who decide to put their nuts in golf ball washers or play Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol, not for people who die making political stands.
Just because she went out on the Most Painful Elimination of the Day, doesn't make her a martyr. I know many ways to get my points across, that DON'T even remotely put my life in peril...oh, well.

At least Caterpillar served as chlorine for the gene pool.

So because you don't agree with her cause it's less noble?
It is ignoble, because she died defending a tunnel used by terrorists to smuggle weapons into Israel.

isn't it amazing how the path of warped beliefs are often tied with that of insanity :)

I don't think that Caterpillar can be held responsible for this murder, but I think the family are right to press charges against them for supplying those tanks to the criminal IDF.

I don't think it's OK to demolish the family homes of people, even if they are suicide bombers. Imagine the uproar if our government started to demolish the family homes of convicted murderers. It's a form of collective punishment, which is barbaric and arcane.


Where does it say she was a communist?

Didn't you know? Anyone who supports human rights is a terrorist, gay, communist, hippie, and most likely a Muslim as well. :headbang:

The point was if she did not choose to die for it there really is no inherent “nobility”

Now you proposed that she knew she would die having been run over a first time and chose to do it again

He posted information that the “run over twice” was not in two separate incidences rather just the driver putting it into reverse

If it was all in one incident it removes the proof of “twice run over” for supporting the proposition of foreknowledge of being run over.

Understand where I am going with this?

Seeing as how she spent the five minutes between the first time in her life being run over by a bulldozer, and the second time - ie. directly underneath the machine - I kind of doubt that she made a conscious choice to be run over again.

Didn't you know? Anyone who supports human rights is a terrorist, gay, communist, hippie, and most likely a Muslim as well. :headbang:

Depends on which Muslim/Communits/whatever you talk to... but I can think of a lot of communists (Stalin) and Muslims (bin Laden) and what-have-you that are not only not for human rights but in direct violation of them...

Course you were being sarcastic, but I wanted to clarify for all others ;)

It is ignoble, because she died defending a tunnel used by terrorists to smuggle weapons into Israel.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up that statement?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up that statement?

It's the classic copout. If you speak up for Palestinian human rights, you're automatically branded an anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizer.

It's the classic copout. If you speak up for Palestinian human rights, you're automatically branded an anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizer.
You would think so but I believe in a few of the stories whispering posted her death was caused by being buried when the catipillar broke through into thus said tunnel (though not sure arms were found) :p

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up that statement?
You need to read back in the thread.
The photos provided by the people who support Connie don't match up with each other. Why would they post pictures of different locations and different bulldozers and call them the same location and same bulldozer?

Are they trying to cover their asses with falsehoods? Why?

The IDF has their side of the story as well. They weren't demolishing houses that day.

Bah, enough about Saint Jemima. It's Saint Patrick's Day! Time to quit talking about the crazies and start publicly acting like one. ;)

Bah, enough about Saint Jemima. It's Saint Patrick's Day! Time to quit talking about the crazies and start publicly acting like one. ;)

Yes, if you're going to get run over by a bulldozer, at least say, "well I was really drunk".

Yes, if you're going to get run over by a bulldozer, at least say, "well I was really drunk".

Yeah, and remember to change booze-soaked shirts if you're gonna be doing some flag burning for the kiddies.

You would think so but I believe in a few of the stories whispering posted her death was caused by being buried when the catipillar broke through into thus said tunnel (though not sure arms were found) :p

Her death, according to the doctors, was caused by severe internal head injuries when the bullldozer smeared her into the ground. To accomplish that, the ground must be very solid.

I don't know where you got the story about the tunnel, but it is quite clear from the photos that wherever such a tunnel was, neither the bulldozer or Rachel were near, in, or on top of it at any single time.

That point sort of makes me doubt the other stories you mention.

Her death, according to the doctors, was caused by severe internal head injuries when the bullldozer smeared her into the ground. To accomplish that, the ground must be very solid.

I don't know where you got the story about the tunnel, but it is quite clear from the photos that wherever such a tunnel was, neither the bulldozer or Rachel were near, in, or on top of it at any single time.

That point sort of makes me doubt the other stories you mention.

It didn't "smear" her into the ground.. the pictures show the ground looked medium-soft, and her head was in tact.

However, who cares?


Final Score:

Rage - 0
The Machine - 1

:)

Maybe they need to put warning labels on bulldozers just to be on the safe side:

"Warning: Being run over by a bulldozer may be hazardous to your health."

Seeing as how she spent the five minutes between the first time in her life being run over by a bulldozer, and the second time - ie. directly underneath the machine - I kind of doubt that she made a conscious choice to be run over again.
You really shouldn't be so careless. It could lead you to considerable embarassment. Look six posts up from your post that I quoted (on THE SAME PAGE even, for chrissakes) to see how wrong you are.

Her death, according to the doctors, was caused by severe internal head injuries when the bullldozer smeared her into the ground. To accomplish that, the ground must be very solid.

I don't know where you got the story about the tunnel, but it is quite clear from the photos that wherever such a tunnel was, neither the bulldozer or Rachel were near, in, or on top of it at any single time.

That point sort of makes me doubt the other stories you mention.

The photos make it clear, if you aren't blind, that the photos themselves are suspect. There are two different bulldozers in two wildly different locations in the pictures.

Take a look at the pictures again. Her political group is full of shit.

You really shouldn't be so careless. It could lead you to considerable embarassment. Look six posts up from your post that I quoted (on THE SAME PAGE even, for chrissakes) to see how wrong you are.

Ignore lists have that way of making one overlook posts.

In this case, it wasn't worth viewing anyway:

Actually we are both wrong;

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-b...view.cgi/7/1248
"Picture taken between 3:00-4:00PM, 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel Corrie (L) and Nick (R) oppose the potential destruction of this home (to the west of the Doctor's home where Rachel was killed). In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her. On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her. Photo by Joseph Smith (ISM Handout)."
(photo 2)

Granted, the incident in fact happened. The activist concerned, a certain "Will", was male and not in any way, shape, or form, identical to Rachel Corrie.

To quote from an eyewitness account (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1263.shtml):

When Rachel and I arrived on the scene, two bulldozers were clearing the ground near to these homes. There was also a tank. Our group began to stand in front of these bulldozers in an attempt to stop them. Generally they did not stop when we stood in front of them, but continued to push the earth up from underneath our feet to push us away. Several times we had to dive away at the last moment in order to avoid being crushed.

This continued for about two and a half hours. All the time the bulldozers were approaching closer to the families homes. They made several attempts to evade us and outmaneuver us. At one point, Will from the United States was nearly crushed between the bulldozer and a pile of razor wire. The bulldozer stopped at the last minute in Will's case. If it had moved any closer he would have been impaled by the razor wire.

She was not the victim of the first incident, but she witnessed it, and witnessed the remorselessness with which the drivers would willingly harm them. She knew the dangers. Calling her stupid for staying true to her ideals in the face of this danger is demeaning and spiteful.

She was not the victim of the first incident, but she witnessed it, and witnessed the remorselessness with which the drivers would willingly harm them. She knew the dangers. Calling her stupid for staying true to her ideals in the face of this danger is demeaning and spiteful.

To show a picture of a different bulldozer from a different location with Rachel in front of it, and to say it's the same bulldozer that ran her over seems to imply that the people who posted (and took) the pictures planned to have her jump under the blade of a bulldozer - and then frame the driver of the bulldozer and make her a martyr.

I can't help it if you can't see the difference in the pictures. It's so different that you would have to be blind not to see it.

Maybe they need to put warning labels on bulldozers just to be on the safe side:

"Warning: Being run over by a bulldozer may be hazardous to your health."

It should be at the top of the front blade so it doesn't get covered with dirt as quickly.

To show a picture of a different bulldozer from a different location with Rachel in front of it, and to say it's the same bulldozer that ran her over seems to imply that the people who posted (and took) the pictures planned to have her jump under the blade of a bulldozer - and then frame the driver of the bulldozer and make her a martyr.

I can't help it if you can't see the difference in the pictures. It's so different that you would have to be blind not to see it.

And in what way does this bear any relation to the post you quoted? The bulldozers depicted here

http://www.inquiring-mines.com/images/conspiracy/rachel_corrie_02.gif

and here

http://www.inquiring-mines.com/images/conspiracy/rachel_corrie_03.gif

are obviously different. I never claimed they were identical. What does that matter? It was a bulldozer that killed her, and the shape or appearance of that bulldozer is irrelevant. Do you seriously believe the ISM took Rachel, flattened her somehow, and then laid her out in front of a bulldozer just for kicks?

If you do... well...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/protester_killed_lawsuit :rolleyes:

What a pathetic attempt at umm, being pathetic.
Jeeze! And I thought I had heard everything! :headbang:

No, they claim that the bulldozer in the pictures ran her over.

They claim that ALL of the pictures are pictures of the event at the location where it took place.

It looks like they took these pictures at another time, and are using them to support their claim that she was extremely visible.

And then later, she jumped under the blade, as the IDF says she did.

So they could make this outrageous claim.

No, they claim that the bulldozer in the pictures ran her over.

They claim that ALL of the pictures are pictures of the event at the location where it took place.

It looks like they took these pictures at another time, and are using them to support their claim that she was extremely visible.

no.

the pictures you are refering to were taken over an entire afternoon of anti-demolition actions, where they had successfully blocked multiple bulldozers multiple times (and are captioned as such at the ism webpage (http://www.palsolidarity.org/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=0&alias=Rainbow&lang=en-US&ItemID=618&mid=10614) where they come from). the idf knew they were there and knew they were physically blocking the paths of the bulldozers every chance they got.
there was no weapons cache.
there was no collapsed tunnel.
and rachel corrie died wearing the same bright orange jacket she had been wearing that entire day.

http://electronicintifada.net/artman/uploads/rach1_001.jpg

freepers are not good sources of information.

She was not the victim of the first incident, but she witnessed it, and witnessed the remorselessness with which the drivers would willingly harm them. She knew the dangers. Calling her stupid for staying true to her ideals in the face of this danger is demeaning and spiteful.


remorselessness?? If it had been a construction site police would have been called to take her away. Since it was a war zone all the drive could do was hope she was smart enough to get out of the way. Had he emerged from his equipment he would have been exposing himself to sniper fire.

I suppose the death of the driver would not have mattered much to them. bad photo-op. Been done before. Calling her stupid for staying in the way of a bulldozer is not demeaning or spiteful - it is accurate.

To quote from an eyewitness account (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1263.shtml):

.
Considering your 'eyewitness' came from the same site as my info we can conclude one of three things;

1) Both events happened.
2) The people at the site have really no clue what happened
3) One of the authors is lieing.

I'm good with any of the three - You decide.

remorselessness?? If it had been a construction site police would have been called to take her away. Since it was a war zone all the drive could do was hope she was smart enough to get out of the way. Had he emerged from his equipment he would have been exposing himself to sniper fire.

I suppose the death of the driver would not have mattered much to them. bad photo-op. Been done before. Calling her stupid for staying in the way of a bulldozer is not demeaning or spiteful - it is accurate.

This was not a construction site, it was a destruction site. What was going on was the unjustified obliteration of homes in a poor neighbourhood - acting out against that is a moral duty.

This was not a construction site, it was a destruction site. What was going on was the unjustified obliteration of homes in a poor neighbourhood - acting out against that is a moral duty.

Wrong. The IDF wasn't even destroying houses that day. They were looking for smuggling tunnels along the Egypt/Gaza border.

Do you know how many of those tunnels are found and destroyed every year?

Or do you think the Palestinians have a right to smuggle suicide bomb material across the border?

This was not a construction site, it was a destruction site. What was going on was the unjustified obliteration of homes in a poor neighbourhood - acting out against that is a moral duty.

To believe that I would have to believe that the Israeli forces expose themselves to hostile fire for the mere sport of destroying ghetto homes. I'm not biased enough to make that leap.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the sheer stupidity of stepping in front of an operating piece of heavy equipment.

Wrong. The IDF wasn't even destroying houses that day. They were looking for smuggling tunnels along the Egypt/Gaza border.

Do you know how many of those tunnels are found and destroyed every year?

1. Neutral source, please.

2. No, I do not know how many tunnels the IDF has claimed to have found every year. Number and neutral source, please.

Bozzy, thousands of idiots have signed themselves up to wage a war for Bush's economic interests. Over a thousand and five hundred of them have died already. In light of that, I find your claim of "stupidity" for someone who engaged in activism for an ideal she herself believed in, rather than a load of War on Terror propaganda, just a tad conceited.

1. Neutral source, please.

2. No, I do not know how many tunnels the IDF has claimed to have found every year. Number and neutral source, please.

If you're going to say "neutral source", you can't use any of the sources you've used for her side of the story. None.

A neutral source you say? What mythical beast is this you speak of? A legendary creature of impartial fairness? The unstained mirror of fact? If you do ever find one, let me know.

Bozzy, thousands of idiots have signed themselves up to wage a war for Bush's economic interests. Over a thousand and five hundred of them have died already. In light of that, I find your claim of "stupidity" for someone who engaged in activism for an ideal she herself believed in, rather than a load of War on Terror propaganda, just a tad conceited.
Ah, now your true colors are showing. I knew it wouldn't take long. Why is it that whenever a liberal finds themselves cornered by fact they default to Bush bashing? Calling war casualties 'idiots' is a new twist, though I strongly doubt a single one of them was killed by a bulldozer. Oh well, it is enough to know that it took so little to get you to hit the panic button.

Ah, now your true colors are showing. I knew it wouldn't take long. Why is it that whenever a liberal finds themselves cornered by fact they default to Bush bashing? Calling war casualties 'idiots' is a new twist, though I strongly doubt a single one of them was killed by a bulldozer. Oh well, it is enough to know that it took so little to get you to hit the panic button.

I am merely making a comparison. And why you are still so obsessed with the idea of someone getting killed by a bulldozer is amazing. You don't die any differently. Why is it that any time you find yourself cornered in this matter, you resort to calling her stupid for being overrun a bulldozer rather than, say, blown up or shot by a sniper or beheaded, like those soldiers in Iraq? Like her, they all volunteered.

I am merely making a comparison. And why you are still so obsessed with the idea of someone getting killed by a bulldozer is amazing. You don't die any differently. Why is it that any time you find yourself cornered in this matter, you resort to calling her stupid for being overrun a bulldozer rather than, say, blown up or shot by a sniper or beheaded, like those soldiers in Iraq? Like her, they all volunteered.

Well, the difference is mostly in the context. Someone in war has training and a real chance of surviving their next engagement. Death is an option, but not a certainty.

However, standing in front of a bulldozer in a hostile zone is much more clearcut. She had the opportunity to jump out of the way when she realized the driver could no longer see her. She probably wanted to become a martyr, sadly.

It's unfortunate that Palestinian homes get bulldozed, to be sure, but the reality is that the Israelis have a perfectly legal pretense to do so. Palestinian terrorists are the root cause of homes getting bulldozed, not the supposedly imperial Israelis. Once the Palestinians wake up and practice CIVIL disobedience, then maybe they would have a leg to stand on.

The real question is how many young americans (soldiers in Iraq, activists in Israel) have to die before Palestinian terrorists and Iraqi insurgents begin to act like civilized people.

I am merely making a comparison. And why you are still so obsessed with the idea of someone getting killed by a bulldozer is amazing. You don't die any differently. Why is it that any time you find yourself cornered in this matter, you resort to calling her stupid for being overrun a bulldozer rather than, say, blown up or shot by a sniper or beheaded, like those soldiers in Iraq? Like her, they all volunteered.

Is it that hard for you to figure out? Bulldozers are much slower than bullets, more obvious than snipers, and nobody had her bound while chanting 'Allah al akbar! and throwing her in front of it. It was all her baby. She learned the hard way that bitch w' megaphone < bulldozer (activist crusher 5000!) most folks understand that without trial and error.

And she chose to go there anyway. I call that courage. And you will please refrain from namecalling and profanity; it weakens your point and is highly offensive to me. Calling someone wrong, even stupid, is one thing, calling someone a b**** is another.

Sorry, still no sale. Suicide alone does nothing to further a cause. It didn't help the flammable monks nor the exploding Palestinians. Worthy of note; none of them attempt to blame anyone for the result of their action. None of them captured glory. A suicide mission to save human lives is one thing, but it is a stupid form for human communications. She foolishly risked her life and lost for an unworthy cause she barely comprehends. 'Bitch' is used to describe "a malicious, spiteful, or domineering woman". Judging by her actions I think it is an accurate descriptor. Only when it is inaccurate could it be offensive.

'Bitch' is used to describe "a malicious, spiteful, or domineering woman". Judging by her actions I think it is an accurate descriptor. Only when it is inaccurate could it be offensive.

I don't buy it. Don't act dumber than you are; you know full well that the colloquial meaning of "bitch" is a derogatory term synonymous with "prostitute" and treated in most reasonably polite circles as explicit profanity. Look it up in some damn dictionary. If you had been trying to express the definition you claim (which is still offensive, barring your subjective "accuracy"), those words would have perfectly done the trick. Your use of this specific term has no other purpose than being inflammatory.

Honestly, where did you practice debating, on Free Republic?

However, standing in front of a bulldozer in a hostile zone is much more clearcut. She had the opportunity to jump out of the way when she realized the driver could no longer see her. She probably wanted to become a martyr, sadly.
Is there some evidence that says that she knew that the driver could no longer see her?

Is there some evidence that says that she knew that the driver could no longer see her?
Not sure but at least to me common sence ... if you can not see the driver it is most likly that he can not see you as well (same goes with trucks ... they even have that sticker on trucks around here "if you can not see me I can not see you")

And she chose to go there anyway. I call that courage. And you will please refrain from namecalling and profanity; it weakens your point and is highly offensive to me. Calling someone wrong, even stupid, is one thing, calling someone a b**** is another.
While I do not agree with the name calling ... that is not a heroic act. a heroic act is when you knowingly do something that saves a life against malitious intent acting stupid and geting in a blindzone just to get killed by accident does not qualify

She put herself in position for an ACCIDENT to happen not for the opposing side to deliberatly kill her

She made an unwise choice to put herself in a position that she could NOT have made a change even if the driver agreed with her he did not SEE her ... if she had been brighter and moved away so that he could see her then it would have been much more heoric

While I generally disagree with the things Whisper and others are saying about the young lady in question, I do think suing caterpillar is silly. People should only sue someone who was negligent or malicious. I don't think the company qualifies in this case.

I don't buy it. Don't act dumber than you are; you know full well that the colloquial meaning of "bitch" is a derogatory term synonymous with "prostitute" and treated in most reasonably polite circles as explicit profanity. Look it up in some damn dictionary. If you had been trying to express the definition you claim (which is still offensive, barring your subjective "accuracy"), those words would have perfectly done the trick. Your use of this specific term has no other purpose than being inflammatory.

Honestly, where did you practice debating, on Free Republic?


I've never considered bitch and prostitute to be synonymous - in fact there is a tasteless joke I know that is about the difference. (I could only share it in a PM) now that you mention it though I will concede that in hip-hop culture the two are often used together. Drawing the connection takes little stretch, particularly for younger people who listen to that. In that vein then I accept your point. Same words, different language, inaccurate. Sorry. You may discuss the finer points with BK at your lesiure. Let’s move back from semantics to the topic at hand now.

Driving to work yesterday I heard a news report about a drug-seizure auction. I also saw today on yahoo news that a castle in CO (yes, Colorado) was seized by the US govt. in a tax fraud case.

It dawned on me that seizing property from criminals is not very different that what Israel is doing in their policy of destroying the homes of terrorists. The perpetrator may be dead, but their property still has to go. Same for the property seizures, the perp may be in jail or even dead, but their property has to go. If others were using it - that's too bad.

Why aren't these same folks trying to defend drug dealers, tax evaders and their friends/family in the US from property seziures? Is it because they look 'rich' or is it because they don't kill innocent people on a intentional and random basis?

And I have no clue what Free Republic is, wasn't that Luke Sywalker's side?

Not sure but at least to me common sence ... if you can not see the driver it is most likly that he can not see you as well (same goes with trucks ... they even have that sticker on trucks around here "if you can not see me I can not see you")
Is there some evidence that she couldn't see the driver?

While I do not agree with the name calling ... that is not a heroic act. a heroic act is when you knowingly do something that saves a life against malitious intent acting stupid and geting in a blindzone just to get killed by accident does not qualify

She put herself in position for an ACCIDENT to happen not for the opposing side to deliberatly kill her

She made an unwise choice to put herself in a position that she could NOT have made a change even if the driver agreed with her he did not SEE her ... if she had been brighter and moved away so that he could see her then it would have been much more heoric
Well phrased, though I don't even consider her presence there heroic. Heroic would be going into a Palestinian Mosque and speaking out against terrorist. Standing in front of one and shouting out with her megaphone 'Murder isn't martyrdom'. THAT would be heroic - though she'd probably be just as dead today.

Driving to work yesterday I heard a news report about a drug-seizure auction. I also saw today on yahoo news that a castle in CO (yes, Colorado) was seized by the US govt. in a tax fraud case.

It dawned on me that seizing property from criminals is not very different that what Israel is doing in their policy of destroying the homes of terrorists. The perpetrator may be dead, but their property still has to go. Same for the property seizures, the perp may be in jail or even dead, but their property has to go. If others were using it - that's too bad.

There are people who defend people from such property seizures, especially being that you don't have to be convicted or even tried for a crime to have your property stolen. It's a common fundraising tactic for police forces.


Why aren't these same folks trying to defend drug dealers, tax evaders and their friends/family in the US from property seziures? Is it because they look 'rich' or is it because they don't kill innocent people on a intentional and random basis?
Are you referring to Israel or Palestine, as both groups kill people on an intentional and random basis?

Really? I missed the part where Israel targeted and bombed a crowd of civilians then released a video congratulating themselves for responsiblilty.

Really? I missed the part where Israel targeted and bombed a crowd of civilians then released a video congratulating themselves for responsiblilty.
Oh, right, because that's the only way that a person can kill people intentionally and randomly.

Oh, right, because that's the only way that a person can kill people intentionally and randomly.
dah-dah-duh-dah dah step
dah-dah-duh-dah dah step
dah-dah-duh-dah dah SIDESTEP

two.. three... four!

Keep dancing.

dah-dah-duh-dah dah step
dah-dah-duh-dah dah step
dah-dah-duh-dah dah SIDESTEP

two.. three... four!

Keep dancing.
How clever. Not only did you come up with something so witty, but you fail to realize that you're the one who sidestepped the issue. You implied that Palestine was the only one who killed people intentionally and randomly, essentially due to suicide bombing. My reply was that suicide bombing wasn't the only way to kill people intentially and randomly. Essentially, your reply seems to imply that it is the only way to kill people intentionally and randomly, and that other things, such as driving a tank over anything in sight, or "precision" bombing don't apply.

While I generally disagree with the things Whisper and others are saying about the young lady in question, I do think suing caterpillar is silly. People should only sue someone who was negligent or malicious. I don't think the company qualifies in this case.
I have to agree. While there are plenty of good reasons to sue Caterpillar, this isn't one of them.

How clever. Not only did you come up with something so witty, but you fail to realize that you're the one who sidestepped the issue. You implied that Palestine was the only one who killed people intentionally and randomly, essentially due to suicide bombing. My reply was that suicide bombing wasn't the only way to kill people intentionally and randomly. Essentially, your reply seems to imply that it is the only way to kill people intentionally and randomly, and that other things, such as driving a tank over anything in sight, or "precision" bombing don't apply.
Thank you, now let me respond also with something more specific.

I said civilians, you said people. There is a difference. In the case of Israel - they have target people who have intent to harm them. They have had collateral damage which included citizens. Every nation on earth has done this. It is one of the many unfortunate side effects of war.

The Palestinians have targeted very few people who had intent to harm them, they have, however, targeted citizens with a sickening frequency.

A true hero would address their culture of murder for it breeds little sympathy for them. That person would deserve the moniker 'martyr'. Martyrs die for peace, not for murder.

Now I must go - it is time or me to make some waffles. Back later.

Thank you, now let me respond also with something more specific.

I said civilians, you said people. There is a difference. In the case of Israel - they have target people who have intent to harm them. They have had collateral damage which included citizens. Every nation on earth has done this. It is one of the many unfortunate side effects of war.

The Palestinians have targeted very few people who had intent to harm them, they have, however, targeted citizens with a sickening frequency.

A true hero would address their culture of murder for it breeds little sympathy for them. That person would deserve the moniker 'martyr'. Martyrs die for peace, not for murder.
I fail to see how collateral damage is any different than the intentional murder of civilians. You do realize that by your definition, the people who died in the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks were also collateral damage, as both buildings had military installations in them. (In the case of the World Trade Center, there were C.I.A. offices.)

I do agree with you, that the Palestinians aren't martyrs. My issue was that neither side, the Palestinians or Israelis, is right, and I find it to be rather odd how people can choose one or the other.

here ya go. No need to thank me.

Collateral Damage (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collateral+damage)
Murder (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder)

here ya go. No need to thank me.

Collateral Damage (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collateral+damage)
Murder (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder)
The collateral damage definition says that it's inadvertant. So I guess then that that makes it manslaughter.

The collateral damage definition says that it's inadvertant. So I guess then that that makes it manslaughter.
What is so important to you about redefining collateral damage?
Manslaughter is closer than murder, but still far from accurate.
None of the terms are attractive, but each has a specific definitition and purpose. Redefining them only creates obfuscation - a tool of propoganda. Is that your objective?

I stand on my original premise - When have you ever seen the Isralis release a video of themselves congratulating themselves and Yahweh after 'targeting civilians'. When have they video'd a decapitation of their prisoners while screaming 'Yahweh rules!'

They have not. Israel only target those who seek directly to harm them. Do they go too far? Only if the Palestinians were persuing the criminals - which they are not - they negotiate with and support them instead --a criminal activity in itself.

These criminals intentionally seek to place themselves among Palestinian citizens so as to create additional collateral damage if the Israeli's attempt to apprehend or neutralize them. Meanwhile the Palestinian government has silently endorsed them and refused to enforce lawfulness. Now these groups have power enough to threaten the Palestinian government. The beast becomes the master...

The people of Palestine suffer and these criminals are whom they should blame, but their mosques brainwash them and anyone who dares to speak out against them 'disappears' or is labled as an Israeli spy and murdered/executed. That is why I said the girl would have been much more heroic to speak out against the barbaric criminals on their home turf - and would probably have ended up just as dead.

Welcome to reality, may I take your order?

I say we ban all heavy machinery. It's dangerous and bad for the enviroment. I think I'll become Amish. Agnostic Amish.

I say we ban all heavy machinery. It's dangerous and bad for the enviroment. I think I'll become Amish. Agnostic Amish.
Agnostic Amish - LOL. Is that like The Lost Antisemetic Sect of Jews?

I'll protest you by throwing myself in front of your ox plow.

What is so important to you about redefining collateral damage?
Manslaughter is closer than murder, but still far from accurate.
None of the terms are attractive, but each has a specific definitition and purpose. Redefining them only creates obfuscation - a tool of propoganda. Is that your objective?

I stand on my original premise - When have you ever seen the Isralis release a video of themselves congratulating themselves and Yahweh after 'targeting civilians'. When have they video'd a decapitation of their prisoners while screaming 'Yahweh rules!'

They have not. Israel only target those who seek directly to harm them. Do they go too far? Only if the Palestinians were persuing the criminals - which they are not - they negotiate with and support them instead --a criminal activity in itself.

These criminals intentionally seek to place themselves among Palestinian citizens so as to create additional collateral damage if the Israeli's attempt to apprehend or neutralize them. Meanwhile the Palestinian government has silently endorsed them and refused to enforce lawfulness. Now these groups have power enough to threaten the Palestinian government. The beast becomes the master...

The people of Palestine suffer and these criminals are whom they should blame, but their mosques brainwash them and anyone who dares to speak out against them 'disappears' or is labled as an Israeli spy and murdered/executed. That is why I said the girl would have been much more heroic to speak out against the barbaric criminals on their home turf - and would probably have ended up just as dead.


It should be pointed out that they are fighting against an occupying power that can arguably called oppressive. An occupying force that gained power over the area in no small part due to terrorist acts.
When Palastine was still a British territory it was the jews who were terrorists fighting for their freedom. Now that it is an Israeli terrority it is the Palastinians who are fighting fo rtheir freedom. Turn about is fair play.

http://www.timripley.co.uk/terrorism/terrorism1.htm

It should be pointed out that they are fighting against an occupying power that can arguably called oppressive. An occupying force that gained power over the area in no small part due to terrorist acts.
When Palastine was still a British territory it was the jews who were terrorists fighting for their freedom. Now that it is an Israeli terrority it is the Palastinians who are fighting fo rtheir freedom. Turn about is fair play.

http://www.timripley.co.uk/terrorism/terrorism1.htm

I had to do some digging on the Internet to find sites about the Irgun (Jewish) terrorists that was not biased.

I was saddened to find that there were some terrorist actions undertaken in the name of Zionism in the period before the UN partitioned Palestine into Palestine and Israel.

However, there were very few of them, and the target was usually against government and military installations. I'm not saying it was defensible, but Palestinian terrorism has surpassed any Israeli indescretions thousands of times over. You simply cannot argue that a Palestinian insurrection has any moral high ground.

I'm not argueing that they are morally superior in any way. I'm simply argueing that their goals and their tactics are no more or less moral than anyone elses.

While I generally disagree with the things Whisper and others are saying about the young lady in question, I do think suing caterpillar is silly. People should only sue someone who was negligent or malicious. I don't think the company qualifies in this case.
I guess a broken clock can be right ocassionally. Suing Caterpillar for Rachel's idiocy is beyond pathetic.