You know the Israeli perception on this? Why are so many Israelis armed, then? They both live in war zones. Incidentally, suicide bombers specifically target innocent civilians. They purposefully avoid military targets. The IDF goes after Hamas, PA, IJ, etc; innocents simply get caught in the crossfire because the militants hide behind civilians. As they are hiding behind these "human shields" right now. Well guess what? The concept of "human shields" doesn't matter a whole lot anymore. The only time it matters is when they are hostages - there against their will. Otherwise they are, for all intents and purposes, combatants - in the sense that they are part of one side's warfighting mechanism (its defense). If they get plowed down, well, that's just too bad. They made a conscious decision to put their lives in jeopardy. They shouldn't have been there. We decided after Mogadishu that when an enemy hides behind a civilian *with that civilian's consent* in order to act as a human shield, then the "civilian" gets popped too, because he/she is no longer a civilian, but is actively aiding someone who is trying to kill them. Battle sucks, but rule #1 is protect yourself. And rule #1 for the Israelis is protect Israelis.
Not cupability. I was just stating a political reality. The Bush Admin would be risking a tiff with Israel if they made any in depth comment. I am assuming that Bush would never come out publicly and say "she got what she deserved". Any comments past "unfortunate tradegy" would be problematic since they would head into the "excessive force" arena, to which the Israelis would take offense. The last thing that the Bush Admin wants right now is ongoing troubles with Israel while the war with Iraq is brewing.
A 23yr old woman stands in front of a bulldozer. Rather than just have someone go, and pick her up and move her away from the home they're about to bulldoze, or even arrest her - they run over her. Then they stop. And run over her again. How is this even defensible? It's not - It's a crime.
Here you contradict yourself. There are no innocents in war zones. If it is a war zone, you know, and you decide to stay, you forfeit your innocence. This was your argument wrt Rachel Corey, right?
No Worries: You are aware that Bush is set to restart the whole "roadmap" exercise, are you not? With the inaguration of the new Palestinian Authority PM he is also set to call for a dismantling of the settlements. What more do you want him to do? Oh, I get it. You want him to go on TV and say "You Israelis are bad. Bad Israelis!"... Is that it? Yeah, that would accomplish alot... Yeah, that was my argument. The babies killed in the pizzerias weren't innocent - they were combatants. The senior citizens blown to pieces on the buses were combatants too. You know, that is *exactly* the justification that the suicide bombers use. Exactly. Great ideological company you're keeping there, No Worries... Helloo??? The Israelis live there. Rachel Corey did not. She went there of her own accord. No contradiction. No Worries, you are making some seriously stupid arguments today. What is with you today? First, Iraq has no nuclear program simply because it doesn't have the fissile material to make a bomb. Now, there is no such thing as an innocent civilian? You are seriously stretching the bounds of incredulity today.
Before it gets out of hand, let's get the basic facts straight: The incident could be either an accident, as the IDF claims, or a willful act on the part of the bulldozer driver. If it's an accident, then there's not much controversy here. Condolences to her family and friends, et al. If this is a willful act on the part of the IDF, including the driver and the commander on the scene, then it should probably be called a murder. Whatever the circumstances, this is an unarmed woman. Someone on the scene should have the presence of mind to arrest her before the real tragedy occurs. The only danger I can think of is the threat of Palestanian snipers, but is the IDF really that fearful of snipers to risk publicity this bad? To place the blame on the victim or the Isreali government or the Bush Administration is wrong. The woman may be misguided, and I think she probably is. But nobody should have the power to bulldoze her over like her friends described. On the other hand, without U.S. aid, the Isrealis might not be able to get F-16's, but they would still have bulldozers. This incident is really unusual and local (we haven't heard any Palestanian shields being run over, that would be bad p.r. as well). And the culpability rests squarely on the driver or his commander. Bulldozers don't kill people, their drivers do.
So what about the children that the Israeli troops shot in their raids. Innocent bystanders? or humman shields thus combatants?
AP story The United States "deeply regrets this tragic death of an American citizen," State Department spokesman Lou Fintor said. He expressed condolences to Corrie's family and said the United States wants an "immediate and full investigation" into her death. "We again call on the Israeli defense forces to undertake all possible measures to avoid harm to civilians," Fintor's statement said. They went futher than I thought they would. Let's see how long this remains a page one story.
Dude, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that Israel wants to murder as many innocent protestors and civilians as possible? There are 2 possibilites for this. 1) It was an accident. 2) It was murder by the driver and the driver should be tried in an Israeli court. You are trying to use this as proof that Israel is evil, but it's not gonna work.
You know, I've seen alot of criticism for the Palestinians failure to use non-violent means of protest. Now we have someone who was using a non-violent approach and all everyone can say is "She should have known better."
subtomic, She was using non-violent methods to try to protect a suspected militant (ie being a human shield). As such, she is contributing to violence. Israel cannot allow the terrorists in Palestine to hide behind some misguided Americans. She should have been pulled out of the way and then the house could be bulldozed, but more importantly, she shouldn't have been there in the first place. You don't protest the war in Iraq by standing next to one of their air-defense batteries.
There still hasn't been anything to confirm that this house actually belonged to militants. It could have been knocked down for strategic reasons, ie militants can hide behind houses.
Have you ever driven a bulldozer? I have (it's true). They are very prone to sudden, unexpected movements, and (much like a hippo), they can move suprisingly quickly across flat, open land.
This thing gets fishier the more I think of it. First off there was no video camera present on the site. The point of non-violent protest is to be seen. Eight protestors and just one camera? Second the photos on Yahoo are strange. Apparently they do not show the "final approach" of the bulldozer. Maybe those pictures exist but they are too graphic to be published. Or they tell a different story than the ones her friends told and were not shown. Thirdly, where are the Isrealis on the scene? We don't see any soldiers on the ground what so ever. Just not right. It might be vulgar to disguss things in such technical detail, but for the sake of truth it probably should still be on our minds. The bulldozer had catepillar tracks. So the wounds they inflict must be analogous to tanks. Tanks under the Chinese government actually rolled over some victims in Tiananmen in 1989, and those people were literally flattened. I do not think this American woman was actually rollled over twice, she's at least in one piece. Anyways I feel too many key evidences are missing to make a sure judgement.
