Has any one seen this yet

[SpiralDragon]

guys incase you havent noticed the topic here is not iraq and WMD.... it is about the death of an inocent american girl...


where is the new on this... where are the updates... non on cnn, fox, bbc, and others... even local media.......

[Umfriend]

You're right, sorry.
Umf

[Gurm]

*sigh*

I'm very sad for the family of the innocent American girl. Can someone explain to me exactly what she was doing in front of a bulldozer in the occupied territories?

Oh, wait. She was acting as a human shield, no?

- Gurm

[Tomasz]

guys incase you havent noticed the topic here is not iraq and WMD.... it is about the death of an inocent american girl...

Yes... caused by Israel. If Iraq had killed Rachel when hypothetically speaking she had be protesting the unfair treatment of its citizens by Saddam, she would have become an instant hero and the event would have been used as propaganda for war. I can see it now: a picture of Rachel standing up to a bulldozer driven by Saddam juxtaposed with a picture of a student standing up to a tank in Tienemen Square. However, since Israel killed Rachel, the event has been mostly hushed up and will be forgotten very soon; that sucks! I am outraged and saddened by this murder carried out by our so called friends and allies.
By these statements, please do not assume that I am a liberal democrat. I consider myself a far-right conservative. However, please do not confuse that with the imperialistic neoconservatism that pervades through the Republican party at the moment and consists of Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney, and their mouthpiece puppets Bush, Powell, et al.

Back to Rachel. Was it foolish to stand in front of a bulldozer. Yes. Would I do it? Of course not... unless it was my home. However, this action did show a great deal of courage and I respect that, even though I would not agree with her decision to go to foreign country and fight somebody else's battles.

Tomasz UN has tried to stop Israel many times but the US have voted agains it (and used their veto 35 time)!

Exactly! Just another example of US favoritism.

You mean, because if the arab governments were weak, Israel would like conquer the entire middle east? What on earth needs to be balanced by arab governments? Really, critical as I sometimes am of Israeli policy towards the palestinians, I don't see how this statement makes any sense at all.

I do not know if I would go that far. But, I am quite certain that at least they would want to relocate all the Palestinians and instill puppet governments in all potentially threatening Arab governments, like Iraq. This would breed resentment among all Arab nations and the US, both through its funding of Israel and its attack on Iraq, would be seen as an accomplice. Now this would lead to the most terrorism! Remember, people need a damn good reason to blow themselves up. The more people are oppressed and the fewer options they have to defend themselves, the more likely are they to commit terrorist acts. The Arabs who hate us, hate us for one reason and it is not because they "hate our freedom."

Oh right, and besides, Ariel gassed like 100,000 of his own people just like Mr. S. Husein did. Sure, just as bad......

I assume you are referring to the Halabjah incident in 1988 (and the number dead usually quoted is 500-4,000 not 100,000). Basically, "his own people" does not fully apply because during this time Iraq was fighting a dual front war against both Iran and the Kurds, who were gassed. As bad as this action was, it was an act of war and no better or worse than the US's usage of Agent Orange in the Vietnam Conflict. Furthermore, It is still not clear whether this was done by Iraq or Iran. I don't know because I was not there and do not have access to classified US documents. After growing up in Communist Poland, I tend not to trust any government fully. In any case, more Iraqi civilians died because of economic sanctions and US bombings!

It made me laugh when president Bush called Ariel Sharon "a man of peace." This proves to me that Bush has absolutely no knowledge of history. Sharon, or the Butcher of Beirut, is allegedly an unrepentant murderer of civilians who many people consider to be a war criminal. Once again, I was not there when those actions took place, but the evidence is quite convincing.

WOuld you argue that Iraq is or has ever been facing the same threats as Israel has? Critical as I may be, this makes no sense to me (unless you just try to make a "neutral"statement here, as neatral as "the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s). In that case, the statement is only irrelevant. What should we coclude from this statement

This was a simple statement of a fact. This information is freely available so feel free to verify it yourself. I'll tell why this statement is relevant. The US claims that it is prepared to go to war against Iraq because Iraq has broken UN resolutions and has weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the US says that the UN has made itself irrelevant by not enforcing those resolutions. Now, if we apply this same logic to Israel, then we get:
1.) Israel has broken UN resolutions and has weapons of mass destruction. Therefore the US must go to war against Israel.
2.) The UN has long ago made itself irrelevant by not enforcing its resolutions against Israel.
However, the US only selectively applies this logic to Iraq.

Iraq has shown to be prepared to use WMD offensively both at other countries as at its own population. Israel has not.

OK, so attacking unarmed Palestinians civilians with fully geared up military units does not count? Let's not forget about the attack on the USS Liberty.

My question still remains: Why do we threaten Iraq with war and give Israel billions of dollars of our tax money? I think it is a definite case of favoritism.

[Umfriend]

First off, pls allow me to state that I am very critical of the policies of Israel regarding the palestinians. However:

I do not know if I would go that far. But, I am quite certain that at least they would want to relocate all the Palestinians and instill puppet governments in all potentially threatening Arab governments, like Iraq.

I'll agree that there is a groing faction within Israel that argues relocation to be the solution. I disagree with that. But let's be honest about one thing. From 1948 till present, there has never been a period in which non-hostile attitude towards Israel from all Arab countries and Iran was within reach. My history is not that good (so I should prob shut up, but won't) but I think there was the conference of Khartoum in 1973 after the Yom Kippur war where the Arab countries vowed never to settle with Israel. Settlement program started as of then. Israel offered to return all occupied terriroty (prob save Jeruzalem) in return for peace, but no.

Real peace talks with the palestinians started when? 1992? That is 20 years of settlements doctrine. Even after 1992, how realistic was it to expect a peace with the palestinians would change the attitude of all surrounding countries?

In light of the, in my view unreasonable, comparison between Israel and Iraq, can we at least agree that the circumstances under which both excersized disageeable policies are, to put it mildly, totally different?

I assume you are referring to the Halabjah incident in 1988 (and the number dead usually quoted is 500-4,000 not 100,000). Basically, "his own people" does not fully apply because during this time Iraq was fighting a dual front war against both Iran and the Kurds, who were gassed. As bad as this action was, it was an act of war and no better or worse than the US's usage of Agent Orange in the Vietnam Conflict.

Excuse me. I need to look this up someday. I thought there were actually 2 attacks using chemical weapons, but need to check. US's usage of Agent Orange was not directed directly at people. Its intended use was to cuase the forests to lease its leaves so that VC would be easier to find (that is, so that military objects were easier to find. Furthermore, apparantly we agree Iraq does use chemical weapons in war in any case, which Israel has not done (save once I saw on BBC three days ago, not sure what happened there and I don;t think it was lethal). They also used it against Iran in the prequel gulf war.

Can we agree that Iraq has killed more muslim civiliants than Israel has? In this light, can we agree muslim states tend to favoritise Iraq over Israel?

Sharon a man of peace? I would not agree indeed.

This was a simple statement of a fact. This information is freely available so feel free to verify it yourself. I'll tell why this statement is relevant. The US claims that it is prepared to go to war against Iraq because Iraq has broken UN resolutions and has weapons of mass destruction.

AND, the US also notes that Iraq has used those WMD, both domestically as against Iran. Furthermore, Iraq also attacked Kuwait. Finally, Iraq is a dictatorship wheras Israel is still a democracy. In my view, chances that a democratic state will start a war are smaller. Let's not forget, Pakistan has WMD now as well. I never heard on any plans by the US to attack Pakistan, even though it is a muslim country and it is not really a democracy. They haven't used it though.

OK, so attacking unarmed Palestinians civilians with fully geared up military units does not count?

I did not say that. I am not arguing that Israel is good and Iraq is bad, just that Iraq is worse, and so much so that it makes a comparison irrelevant.

I would argue that if you want to make a comparison with Israel, make it with Turkey (Kurds, Cyprus), and Marocco (Western-Sahara). There may be others that would fit better.

Another question: Let's assume that a proposal was made whereby Israel would give up occupation of Gaza and West-Bank completly (including settlement) (but retain Jeruzalem) and that the international community would commit forces to retain the peace. Who would these forces have most troubles with you think?
Umf

[Tomasz]

I acknowledge your views and I realize that this is very difficult situation to resolve. No country in that area is truly innocent. For better or for worse, the muslim states generally HATE Israel with a passion. I totally agree with you on that.

But my whole point is that the US should not get involved in that mess because it is not good for America. By attacking Iraq, in the minds of the Muslim people we align ourselves with Israel. I have heard this over and over in statements from Muslim leaders. Even Saddam Hussein in his TV address yesterday said the following:

"We promise you that Iraq, its leadership and its people will stand up to the evil invaders and we will take them to such limits that they will lose their patience in achieving their plans, which are pushed by criminal Zionism."
(Translation from the OC Register)

Therefore, by simple association, the Muslim states and people will hate us like they hate Israel, and this will result in increased terrorism. That is just my interpretation of the situation... I am just looking out for what is best for America. This is not our war!

To see where I am coming from please look at the articles on the American Conservative Website. Their views are quite similar to mine: http://www.amconmag.com

One more thing:

US's usage of Agent Orange was not directed directly at people. Its intended use was to cuase the forests to lease its leaves so that VC would be easier to find (that is, so that military objects were easier to find.

Dioxin is not a selective herbicide... It is a nasty hydrophobic (therefore it gets stored in fats) hormone-like substance that is toxic to humans in parts per trillion quantities. It is a known human carcinogen; I'm looking right now on my desk at the National Toxicology Program's list of known carcinogens and it is right here on the list!

[SpiralDragon]

http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncnews/story/2356592p-2198969c.html

[Umfriend]

Tomasz,

Sorry, I thought your point was "Israel is as bad as Iraq". Now I understand it to be "The US should stay out because it will bite us in the ass". I probably should have been able to see that from your earlier posts, but did not (My doctor assures me that thickheadiness and stupidity is not curable by medicine, so I'll live with it as I can).

It has crossed my mind that this is actually the underlying view of a lot some european countries (France, Germany, and my own country the Netherlands who are commited to fanatically stay completely divided on the issue)) Russia and China etc.

I do think that in the short run, an "isolationist" view (although that terminology may be to extreme, havent read the link you provided, need to work, blah!) may appear attractive, but wonder if the US curently feels that that would allow other competing superpowers to rise again. I can imagine that in the current analysis of the US, the long run risk of that supersedes the apparant advantages in the short run of staying out. ("In the long run, we're all dead" - John M. Keynes (18?? - Dead now)_

On Agent Orange, yes it kills and causes some nasty things. I do think though that my point that the intention with which it was used was not to kill or harm people directly. Not sure how much they new about the effects on humans at that time.

Finally, I have tried to do some checks on Iraq's use of chemical weapons against its own civilians. The only thing I have been able to found is indeed the Halabja (or some such name) incident and indeed, 100,000 is the number of ppl who fled apparantly. Approx 4,000 dead.

What I found extremely disturbing however is the fact that doubts were raised about the source and intent of that gas attack. It appears that there is more than a reasonable chance that it was direce at anamy forces, and it remains the question whether the gas was Iraq's or Iran's... Just goes to show how much factual information you get through the media and government. I hate this. I like to think of myself as a fairly rational person who's judgment is based on facts to the extent possible (as ethics come into play at some stage anyway). Learning again and agian that I simply can't rely on any information sucks big time.

Spiral, sry for participating in hijacking your thread.
Umf

[SpiralDragon]

on the contrary... i am finding your discution quite intresting... but i am in no mood to join, thats all...

[Tomasz]

SpiralDragon,
I have seen and heard about that cartoon. I saw the cartoon in another messageboard:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=4498&start=60

Here is a closeup of what damage a bulldozer can do to a human body:

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/112962_comment.php

Is it for these actions that we reward Israel with $10 billion dollars, when our own economy is in a deplorable state?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/274731.html

This page contains a few more pictures including a picture of Rachel supposedly tearing up a mock US flag... I don't know about it though... I've worked with photoshop since version 2 and well... I let you guys decide:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1583823_comment.php

Note: I don't neccesarily endorse the written content on any of these pages I have linked to as I have not read them yet... I just got the links from message boards and search engines and use them just for their pictoral content.

More stories:
Israeli troops prevented the ambulance carrying Rachel's body from leaving Gaza

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=22&art_id=vn20030318110429520C458242&set_id=1

Israeli troops harass people holding a memorial service for Rachel

http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=1&id=664

Umfriend,
Let me clarify one thing. In previous posts I have used the term Israel when I should have more accurately used "current Israeli government." I think that these people are evil and crazy and some Jewish people that I know agree with me. The guys who comprise Israel's government (Sharon and his cronies) are hardcore Zionists who would like nothing more than to more than to destroy all of Palestine and incorporate a large portion of the middle east in to Israel.
According to certain Jewish organizations, these are not real Jews, because real Jews are not supposed to have a homeland until God gives them one through divine intervention manifested in the coming of the Messiah:

http://www.nkusa.org/

Also, refer to some of Uri Avnery's articles about Sharon:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uri+avnery+sharon&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3ACE7394.BE9B7351%40bellsouth.net&rnum=1

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery0522.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/avneryoil.html

[Umfriend]

Tomasz, it's funny how one can discover that ones views coincide far more than initially thought I guess. But of course, we can fight about definitions. I think it is not accurate to call Sharon and his cronies (I agree with most of your comments on them) "Zionists". That would be defaming (english?) the Zionists of old who definately didi not have the present situation as a goal, let alone incorporating a large portio of the middle east. It is true, AFAIK, that the Zionist movement was not, or hardly, driven by religious motivations.

Thanks for the nkusa link. It is not as clear cut as they say, but indeed, most (really) religious Jews used not to be Zionists (i.e. wanting to move to Israel or even establish a state there), but I think this has changed since somewhere in the 70's or 80's. On the other hand, I am not religious at all, so those arguments really have no value for me.

In any case, Sharon, as Nethanyahu before him, are a bunch of idiots. Their policies may not lead Israel to destruction, but it is costing too many lives, only defendable by themselves by valuing jewish/Israeli lives lower palestinian lives. The guy that shot Peres (or the other one?) will burn in hell (and for a heathen, that is a strong thing to say, isn't it?)
Umf

[schmosef]

This is the first time that I've participated in a political discussion on a hardware site.

That said I have to admit that I'm very impressed with the high level of intellectual discussion going on.

SpiralDragon, I'm especially impressed with your even handedness when speaking about the middle east. Most of my muslim friends are the first to admit that the leaders of all the Arab / Islamic regimes are corrupt--But are also the first to side with them whenever they come into conflict with the West. Your honesty is refreshing and has inspired me to join the discussion.

I’d like to invite anyone interested to read the following article:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Bulldozer_Accident.asp

I think it brings up several important issues that have been glossed over in the press.

There’s a lot more I’d like to say but first I’d like to see what comments people might have about the article.

For the record, I think that Rachel Corrie’s death was tragic and ill deserved, but I don’t think “Israel” should bear the brunt of the blame.

[Wombat]

That article presents facts that I hadn't read before, but they lose a lot here:

And the entire mainstream media neglected to mention Corrie's anti-American activities and flag-burning.

1. They don't seem to back either of these accusations up.

2. They aren't accusations as much as cheap shots. "Anti-American" is a vacuous term, and is just used for derogatory purposes. And what does flag burning have to do with anything? It's a Constitutionally protected form of protest.

[KvHagedorn]

I had seen the flag-burning pictures, and yes, she was being irresponsible, but still, the police and soldiers were, too. They should have secured the area and not let them in there in the first place. This is common practice here in the U.S. at heavy construction sites. If you don't have any business there, you aren't allowed in, and if you do, you have to wear a hard hat. There is no reason for anyone to have to be killed in such operations.

[Tomasz]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
I had seen the flag-burning pictures, and yes, she was being irresponsible, but still, the police and soldiers were, too. They should have secured the area and not let them in there in the first place. This is common practice here in the U.S. at heavy construction sites. If you don't have any business there, you aren't allowed in, and if you do, you have to wear a hard hat. There is no reason for anyone to have to be killed in such operations.

Unfortunately, this was not a construction site! AFAIK, they were tearing down Palestinian houses. So, it would be quite hard to secure such a site.

I do not agree with many of the views that Rachel held and I believe that she did make a few unwise decisicions. However, I fully support anyone's right to express his or her views without fear of bodily harm. Personally, I still do not buy that this was an accident. Either way, I am taken aback by the total lack of response by the US government. I mean, if one of your citizens gets killed in highly publicized way, then at the least I would expect some sort of investigation (this is what fueled my earlier claims of US favortism for Israel).