Bulldozer Photos
Many apologists for the Bulldozer Murder have worked themselves into an absolute frenzy arguing that the crushed woman was not easily visible to the driver. Eyewitness accounts refute this propaganda.
The bulldozer began driving towards her. She waved for the bulldozer to stop and climbed onto the pile of rubble in front of her. The bulldozer continued to advance, burying her in the pile of rubble before driving over her twice. The seven other ISM activists yelled for the driver to stop as they listened to Rachel’s screams. Once the bulldozer had driven completely forward over Rachel, then backed over her again, they ran to dig her body out of the rubble and dirt. She was taken to the hospital where she was proclaimed dead of injuries to her head and chest.
Another line of personal attack against this murdered woman is to imply that her non-violent activities somehow aided “Terrorism”. I think the clearest analogy refuting this propaganda is here:
The house was being demolished not because there was any evidence that it had been used by militants, but because it was within 100 meters of a new security wall, and might be used by militants. In other words, Corrie was supporting terrorists about as much as Charlton Heston supported the Columbine shooters.
The image of her with her red jacket may become as iconographic as the classic Tiananmen Square student-vs-tank photo:
But I fear not because it was not so expertly framed.
Some people say this plucky little guy is still alive. Which is more than can be said for Rachel Corrie, who’s now enjoying a bizarre, mediated afterlife with many, many stirring eulogies. And to think she died for what is basically a particularly ruthless, illegal version of urban planning.
And as for incommensurate and culturally biased coverage of murders in Israel/Palestine, I note that a Washington Post article spends 700 words telling readers of Rachel’s murder while reserving the last 40-odd words, right at the bottom, to inform readers of the killing of two Palestinians by Israeli soldiers on the same day in the same neighbourhood. Their deaths are framed by the ameliorating “according to Palestinian media reports” tagline, which acts to dilute the “fact” of their deaths. Deaths of Americans, or Israelis, are never “according to Israeli media reports”. This is a trick taught in Propaganda 101 – Invalidate Enemy Casualties By Questionable Attribution Implication.
All News Is Not Created Equal. Palestinians burning US flags is big news, while Palestinians waving US flags is largely ignored.
Earlier here.
So what you are saying is that it is ok that this girl was crushed to death because there are people in Ireland who are killing other people? How is that related? Are you somehow saying that this reflects on Mike? Mike isn’t personally attacking you by putting up this story; this event was extremely horrific and unfortunate but it did happen. In the same way that no one should judge all of Israel for what happened to Corrie, I would hope you are not implying that all Irish people should be held responsible for the terrorist activities of a few.
You want “useful addition, insight, and amendment”. OK. Here is a summary…
I never said it was OK this girl was killed. I would never say that. I will say that I don’t believe it was intentional on the part of the bulldozer driver. I will say that most news accounts say she fell down, making her now visible. There is no proof that it was intentional. I will say that had an army wanted to kill some one, they could have done it covertly.
I will say that in the many months I’ve seen this blog I have never seen Mike report ANYTHING negative OF ANY Palestinian or report a SINGLE Jew being killed. This, despite the fact that perhaps 30% of his website is about the Arab/Israeli conflict.
I will say that after providing a link at slate article that proposes a bunch of theories about the origin of faked documents, none of which say it was Israel, mike writes: “the emerging consensus seems to be that the documents were supplied by elements within the Israeli intelligence community” So the evidence says nothing about Israel, but mike fabricates a conclusion not mentioned by his own evidence? Blame the Jews?
I will say that when I showed evidence that over 62% of Palestinians support suicide bombing Israeli civilians, men, women, and children, Mike responded with a story about a fish, to make fun of a crazy Jew. When I cited the statistics again, Mike again ignores the discussion, and quotes Rav Kook talking about souls. Again, irrelevant replies meant to make fun of Jews or Judaism, rather than dealing with the issue.
Mike then quotes articles of widely-regarded anti-Semite Pat Buchanan, that the war is the result of a Jewish conspiracy. Never mind that if it were up to the Israelis, the United States would be looking toward regime change in Iran or Syria. And never mind that this “cabal” is actually a bunch of predictable hawks who also urged action in Kosovo and Bosnia–on behalf of Muslims. Blame the Jews.
Then Mike highlights a pregnant woman and an a 14 year old boy dying. He says “boys”, but the article linked to only says one boy, and he ignores the fact that in the 29 month uprising, only 18% of Palestinians killed were civilians. I went to pains to say it wasn’t good that any civilian died, but I was accused of just talking numbers when these are people’s lives at stake. If numbers and statistics are now banned, all we can have is anecdotal evidence, and can never learn anything.
Finally, annoyingly, I will say that a “sack” is a bag worn on the outside, that a hairshirt is worn on the inside, and that after 3 requests Mike has failed to cite a single credible archeologist that they are the same, despite the fact that he said he googled many of them.
No deep-seated persecution complex. I just see a simple pattern. Your attempt at psychobabble was amusing.
You were raised in a country that you admit is racist, you care about human rights, poverty, aids, women’s rights, freedom of press, sexual freedom, and yet 30% of what you write about is the Israeli-Arab conflict, a conflict that is numerically the smallest of conflicts, where you side with islamic fascist dictatorship who outlaw women’s rights, homesexuality, free press, voting, and support intentional targeting of civilians (terrorism). We know what Arafatland would look like. It would look just like the other 22 arab countries — dictatorships, with no human rights, freedom of press, no voting, no women’s rights. Were the Palestinian people and their leaders to have peaceful intentions, they would have 1M peaceniks from tel aviv martching with them, in a heartbeat. Sadly that is not the case.
Point out one statement I have ever made where I said you advocate such a form of government as a desirable. What I said, in fact, is that in the Arab/Israeli conflict, you side (more) with the Arab dictatorships. And I stand by that. You may not agree with them, but you view them as better and more moral than Israel. I believe this because, with regard to the Arab/Israeli conflict you are ONLY critical of Israel and ONLY cite when arabs die. You do this because you see Israel as more monstrous than the 22 Arab dictatorships. This position is absurd, of course, but it’s your position, as indicated by your actions.
I also find your psychobabble of persecution complex silly. I’ve been blessed to live in an era where I don’t have to fear Christian European mob bastards or be subjugated by Islamist thugs. I certainly don’t feel persecuted or threaten by you. I do feel a need, however, to be watchful of inferiority complexes that lead some people to make conspiracy theories and blame others for their own inadequacies.
You comment about being an ‘ass’, was not a “useful addition, insight, and amendment”. Perhaps you should ban yourself.