Rachel Corrie Memorial Pancake Breakfast [Archive]

Mycroft

5th March 2006, 11:56 PM

Found over at Little Green Footballs:

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/49603.php

The Public is invited to a memorial pancake breakfast at Denny's Restaurant on Douglas Street near Finlayson, 10 am, Sunday March 12, 2006 to celebrate the life and untimely death of Rachel Corrie, Peace Activist with the International Solidarity Movement.

There will be a reading of selections from Ms. Corrie's letters and diary, followed by a ceremony at Topaz Park, where a stone cairn will be erected in her honour.

Attendees are encouraged to wear their keffiahs, and to dress in black.

I wonder if the person organizing this doesn't have a really dark sense of humor.

And, of course, representing "progressive politics" they felt the need to add the following warning:

No weapons, drugs, or alcohol please.

Because if they were not specifically told not to, you know they would. :D

The Fool

6th March 2006, 02:01 AM

you are a real hoot Mycroft....Never miss an opportunity to laugh about death, birth deformities, sexual assault.....one funny guy.

St Pancake...thats what you LGF dudes call Corrie isn't it? St Pancake? Never miss an opportunity to laugh at the misery of those you hate.

Cain

6th March 2006, 02:21 AM

I must admit it's a somewhat amusing idea. That said, Rachel Corrie, in a few photographs, resembled a young Elisabeth Shue. In other photographs she looks quite awful, particularly (I'm sure) the ones that show her dead body, which we should never forget.

http://www.orscp.org/images/uploads/rachelrelaxed200.jpg

Dr Adequate

6th March 2006, 03:22 AM

I wonder if the person organizing this doesn't have a really dark sense of humor. Oh funnee.

Do you know Fred Phelps? He likes dancing on graves too.

Maybe you should team up and tango as a twosome on a tombstone. You'd have to let Fred lead, of course.

6th March 2006, 03:45 AM

She effectively committed suicide, no? Or was she simply clumsey?

I don't recall her being particularly concerned about blown up jews. According to Wikki, her organization has a highly muddled philosophy: they appear to counanence violence unless it is directed at them selves, apparently.

It seems to me that she was a hypocritical member of a biased group who played with fire and got burned. Small loss, IMHO.

note: any public statements on her part unequically condemming suicide bombings of say, children (I'll even give her a pass on adults) will result in an immediate retraction of my somewhat negative comments concerning her.

ps... "Pancake" ... got it

Dr Adequate

6th March 2006, 04:30 AM

note: any public statements on her part unequically condemming suicide bombings of say, children (I'll even give her a pass on adults) will result in an immediate retraction of my somewhat negative comments concerning her. You require "public statements" from a person who was of no interest to the media before her death before you will believe that a peace activist disapproved of the murder of children?

Mycroft was only dancing on her grave, but you just took down your pants and ********** on it.

I might ask why, of all the peace activists in the world, you single her out, except that I know why. What singles RC out is that she was murdered by Israelis. I can see how that would rankle, and why, on the basis of the absence of evidence which we would not expect to exist, you wish to associate her with the murder of children.

6th March 2006, 04:53 AM

You require "public statements" from a person who was of no interest to the media before her death before you will believe that a peace activist disapproved of the murder of children?

I somehow suspect that she babbled on whenever there was someone with a mic or a notepad. Her organization, being somewhat equivical morally, might have caused her to clarify her position. If not then one must assume that she subscribed to directed violence as per her organization.

Mycroft was only dancing on her grave, but you just took down your pants and ********** on it.

Dead is dead. Aside from being a member of an organization that supports violence and apparently taking sides, what exactly makes her proof against critisism? She can't dodge a tractor?

I might ask why, of all the peace activists in the world, you single her out, except that I know why. What singles RC out is that she was murdered by Israelis. I can see how that would rankle, and why, on the basis of the absence of evidence which we would not expect to exist, you wish to associate her with the murder of children.

Her organization does not appear to condem it therefore it is her position unless she eschews it. Same standard one would aply to a republican that belongs to a segregated club.

Wait... you "know why" is that like the knowing about Iranian missle ranges? Two for two.

As far as murder goes, it appears either she was 1) clumsey as an ox and couldn't dodge a tractor or that she 2) committed suicide. In either event her death was her own responsibility.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 04:59 AM

I somehow suspect that she babbled on whenever there was someone with a mic or a notepad.

Yeah, ok. "Suspect."

Good thing we're all critical thinkers, here. :rolleyes:

Dead is dead. Aside from being a member of an organization that supports violence and apparently taking sides, what exactly makes her proof against critisism? She can't dodge a tractor?
I imagine this guy quite possibly could have dodged a tank:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/01/tiananmen/tank.standoff.jpg

But he didn't even drop his lunch.

Her organization does not appear to condem it therefore it is her position unless she eschews it.
What you (intentionally) neglect to mention is that they don't condone it.

6th March 2006, 05:16 AM

What you (intentionally) neglect to mention is that they don't condone it.

ISM's position on violence

The ISM's website describes the organization as a "non-violent movement"; however the same website carries a statement that says "As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognise the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance. " [2] (http://www.palsolidarity.org/portal/alias__Rainbow/lang__en-US/tabID__3337/DesktopDefault.aspx) This has led some to question the organisation's commitment to non-violence. For example an article in the UK's Telegraph newspaper asserts that ISM is "the 'peace' group that embraces violence". [3] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/15/whurn215.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/15/ixhome.htmlx) ISM disputes the accusations (see ISM links below).
According to a 2003 profile of ISM cofounder Adam Shapiro in the Jordan Star, Shapiro "justifies the Palestinian armed resistance against Israel as long as it is targeting Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Otherwise, he is not in favor of suicide bombings." http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ISM_essay_ref12.htm (http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ISM_essay_ref12.htm)
ISM cofounder George Rishmawi has, arguably, defended the "need" for suicide bombing:
"You are mistaken my friend. I am sorry to tell you this but you are. Well, When did the suicide bombing start? When did the occupation of the west Bank and Gaza started? When did the aggression against the Palestinian started? "You need to know the source of the conflict and the source of the suffering that pushes people to kill themselves and others. "I do not want to see anybody killed but we need to say that taking people's rights and freedom is the source of the problem and when this stops there should be not need for anymore killing. This is what we should advocate for it right now." http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ISM_essay_ref11.htm (http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ISM_essay_ref11.htm) Various sources attribute to ISM the statement that suicide bombing is "noble" [4] (http://www.presbyweb.com/2004/Letters/122101.htm) [5] (http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/PCUSA_Brodsky.htm) [6] (http://clarityandresolve.com/archives/2004/09/duke_to_host_pr.php). This assertion appears to arise from an article entitled "Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada (http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20020129050221695)", in which Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro state:
The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized... Hamas claims it has many men ready to be suicide bombers – we advocate that these men offer themselves as martyrs by standing on a settler road and blocking it from traffic. This is no less of a jihad. This is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation... The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. from Wikki

Cleon

6th March 2006, 05:20 AM

from Wikki

Which in no way, shape, or form contradicts my statement.

6th March 2006, 05:22 AM

Which in no way, shape, or form contradicts my statement.

You are splitting hairs. If they condone violence they are not, ipso facto, non-violent. If they don't condone Isreal killing terrorists that want to bomb them they are biased.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 05:33 AM

You are splitting hairs.
No, I'm not. You're simply trying to distract from your own unsupported assertions.

If they condone violence they are not, ipso facto, non-violent.
Except that they don't condone it.

If they don't condone Isreal killing terrorists that want to bomb them they are biased.
Nobody's said they're unbiased. Nor has anyone (or WOULD anyone) accused you, Mycroft, me, The Fool, zenith-nadir, or Yassir-***********-Arafat of being unbiased about the subject. BFD.

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 05:51 AM

Cleon

6th March 2006, 05:54 AM

I suppose a "pancake breakfast" is a fitting memorial to a woman whom a bulldozer flattened like a...

Ah, yes, the "Skeptic wit." You should do stand-up.

Manny

6th March 2006, 05:58 AM

So has anyone figured out whether this was a highly-unfortunate choice of events by her supporters or a cheap shot by her detractors?

6th March 2006, 06:33 AM

She knelt down in front of a dozer and none of her life afferming friends thought to push her out of the way. Nice, very nice.

Mark

6th March 2006, 06:58 AM

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that some people here seem delighted when someone with whom they disagree is killed?

Some "skeptic" site.

Manny

6th March 2006, 07:07 AM

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that some people here seem delighted when someone with whom they disagree is killed?

Some "skeptic" site.One might reasonably find the sentiments distasteful, but what does that have to do with skepticism?

Mark

6th March 2006, 07:09 AM

One might reasonably find the sentiments distasteful, but what does that have to do with skepticism?

I'd like to think skeptic thought would cause one to rethink such comments before making them. How could it not?

Btw, I don't agree with her support of the Palesitinans at all. But I certainly get no pleasure whatsoever from her violent death.

6th March 2006, 07:13 AM

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that some people here seem delighted when someone with whom they disagree is killed?

Some "skeptic" site.

not "delighted", indifferent.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 07:14 AM

Sorry Mycroft,

You are unfortunately politically incorrect. Now, if Cheney blows his head off with a shotgun or Bush suffocates while eating a grape, that would be funny and we could all laugh about that. Look dude, if you want humor you are going to have to stick with making fun of the right. Or dead musicians. I don't know why but it is ok to make fun of them (see Spinal Tap).

6th March 2006, 07:15 AM

Btw, I don't agree with her support of the Palesitinans at all. But I certainly get no pleasure whatsoever from her violent death.

She clearly courted it. Who are you to gainsay her wishes?

Manny

6th March 2006, 07:15 AM

I'd like to think skeptic thought would cause one to rethink such comments before making them. How could it not?Because it has nothing to do with skepticism. Skepticism is about the search for (or philosophicially, the simultaneous search for and ultimate denial of) objective truth through critical thinking and examination of facts. One might conduct a skeptical inquiry into a claimed psychic's ability and still giggle like a schoolgirl when that same psychic is made to look like a fool in a public demonstration.

Mark

6th March 2006, 07:17 AM

not "delighted", indifferent.

That I can deal with. Actually, I am pretty close to that feeling myself.

RF, you really don't see the difference berween this and the Vice President of the United States shooting a friend in the face with a shotgun?

6th March 2006, 07:23 AM

Mark

6th March 2006, 07:27 AM

If Chaney's pal grabbed the muzzle and pointed at himself it would be somewhat similar.

If he did it as a political statement for something he felt great passion and concern for, I suppose it would in a way. He would also be dead and I wouldn't find it amusing.

Were the Buddhist protestors who set themselves on fire to protest the Viet Nam war amusing to you? They weren't to me.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 07:35 AM

You are unfortunately politically incorrect.

Ah, the classic conservative "get out of rational thought free" card.

Hutch

6th March 2006, 07:39 AM

...oh, how awful of me to make fun of such a wonderful, wonderful woman:

Not awful. Classless, yes, without a doubt, but not awful.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 07:41 AM

Ah, the classic conservative "get out of rational thought free" card. Elaborate please? I don't deny I fail at rational thought as much as the next guy. Perhaps even as much as some clasic conservatives, whatever that means? You do know that I'm not conservative don't you?

Cleon

6th March 2006, 07:53 AM

Elaborate please? I don't deny I fail at rational thought as much as the next guy. Perhaps even as much as some clasic conservatives, whatever that means?
Said something stupid and want to dismiss criticism of it?
Acting like a jerkwad and don't want to take responsibility for it?

Try Conservative Classic(tm), the easiest phrase to use to get out of rational thought!

Simply invoke the phrase "politically correct," and you're automatically excused from owning up to your own stupidity!

You do know that I'm not conservative don't you?
You hide it well.

6th March 2006, 07:55 AM

If he did it as a political statement for something he felt great passion and concern for, I suppose it would in a way. He would also be dead and I wouldn't find it amusing.

And that would have been suicide. And as Jesus said he would have had his reward.

Were the Buddhist protestors who set themselves on fire to protest the Viet Nam war amusing to you? They weren't to me.

I find buddhists unsettling, not amusing, alite or otherwise. I find the idea of someone of a religious bent killing themselves and thus enabling a communist regime to be ironic and probably worth a chuckle.

Mark

6th March 2006, 08:04 AM

And that would have been suicide. And as Jesus said he would have had his reward.

I find buddhists unsettling, not amusing, alite or otherwise. I find the idea of someone of a religious bent killing themselves and thus enabling a communist regime to be ironic and probably worth a chuckle.

Well, what can I say? We have very different senses of humor.

Not to mention the absurdity of your view of the Viet Nam War...but that's another topic.

Manny

6th March 2006, 08:06 AM

I find buddhists unsettling, not amusing, alite or otherwise. I find the idea of someone of a religious bent killing themselves and thus enabling a communist regime to be ironic and probably worth a chuckle.Serious question: Did any buddhist protestors set themselves on fire to protest the reeducation camps, or the killing fields, or the thousands and thousands who drowned trying to escape the victors?

And heck, as long as we're asking questions, are any ISM members non-violently interdicting the rioters and vandals destroying the greenhouses purchased for the Palestinian people?

Cleon

6th March 2006, 08:10 AM

Serious question: Did any buddhist protestors set themselves on fire to protest the reeducation camps, or the killing fields, or the thousands and thousands who drowned trying to escape the victors?

Not as far as I know. Which means, of course, that Buddhists support reeducation camps, killing fields, etc. There can be no doubt.

And heck, as long as we're asking questions, are any ISM members non-violently interdicting the rioters and vandals destroying the greenhouses purchased for the Palestinian people?

Not likely, as Israel has been doing its damndest to keep ISMers out of the country since Corrie and Tom Hurndall were killed by IDF forces.

Which can only mean, of course, that the ISM supports rioters and vandals. The logic is clear.

:rolleyes:

Manny

6th March 2006, 08:27 AM

Let the record reflect that you said that, not me.

Not as far as I know.Surely there must have been some protests, even if they didn't involve self-immolation. Perhaps someone else knows more?

Not likely, as Israel has been doing its damndest to keep ISMers out of the country since Corrie and Tom Hurndall were killed by IDF forces.
Well, I know that at least some moderate Palestinians were trying to get rid of them (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=93549), but have they and Israel been successful? This article (http://english.wafa.ps/cphotonews.asp?num=1155) seems to suggest that they at least have a spokesperson present, but that of course doesn't mean that they have an adequate corps of 'sexually lewd, depraved, permissive drug users' to conduct an action against the rioters and looters.

aerocontrols

6th March 2006, 08:27 AM

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that some people here seem delighted when someone with whom they disagree is killed?

Some "skeptic" site.

Apparently I need a lesson in skepticism.

Why, exactly, can't a skeptic be happy when somebody (let's take politics out of this and stipulate anybody*) dies?

*unless the key here is that RC is someone they disagree with?

Mark

6th March 2006, 08:33 AM

Apparently I need a lesson in skepticism.

Why, exactly, can't a skeptic be happy when somebody (let's take politics out of this and stipulate anybody*) dies?

*unless the key here is that RC is someone they disagree with?

I answered that already.

Apparently you disagree.

OK...laugh it up then. You're right...someone getting horribly killed by a bulldozer is hysterical. I wonder why I didn't see it before? I bet her brains splattered all over the rocks! What a hoot!!!!!!!!

Manny

6th March 2006, 08:35 AM

I answered that already.

Apparently you disagree.I don't think you addressed it. At least enough for me to agree or disagree.

C'mon, when John Edward passes on and can't talk to anybody, isn't it going to be just a little bit of a hoot? If Sylvia Browne gets in a car wreck, won't you think "and she never saw it coming?"

6th March 2006, 08:42 AM

I answered that already.

Apparently you disagree.

OK...laugh it up then. You're right...someone getting horribly killed by a bulldozer is hysterical. I wonder why I didn't see it before? I bet her brains splattered all over the rocks! What a hoot!!!!!!!!

No, she evidentially said "my back is broken" after her suicide attempt. They brought her to a palistinian hospital. Given that there are radical palistinians that see her death as benificial to their cause one wonders if they simply offed the crusader so that they had a mayrter that the west would notice. Greater good and all. If I were a Hamas kinda guy the thought would definately cross my mind. Hell, they kill kids for nebulous reasons, this murder would make some sense.

6th March 2006, 08:43 AM

Mark

6th March 2006, 08:44 AM

I don't think you addressed it. At least enough for me to agree or disagree.

C'mon, when John Edward passes on and can't talk to anybody, isn't it going to be just a little bit of a hoot? If Sylvia Browne gets in a car wreck, won't you think "and she never saw it coming?"

OK, the Sylvia Browne thing made me chuckle. But only because it hasn't really happened. If it did, I would certainly see the irony...but I don't think I would find it funny.

Much like Rachel Corrie...I diagree completely with her stance on the Palestinians, but her death doesn't make me laugh. Actually, given that it was a Israeli bulldozer, there is not even any irony involved. Had it been a Palestinian bulldozer, that would have been irony writ large.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 08:45 AM

L
Well, I know that at least some moderate Palestinians were trying to get rid of them (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=93549),
Actually, the original criticism is not aimed at ISM itself, though there's a lot of overlap.

but have they and Israel been successful? This article (http://english.wafa.ps/cphotonews.asp?num=1155) seems to suggest that they at least have a spokesperson present,
OK, there's some confusion about what ISM is and what it isn't.

It really isn't an ongoing activist organization; ISM really has almost no regular membership the way Amnesty International, the ACLU, or your local anti-war coalition has members. (There are some local groups here and there that identify as ISM, but they're really not organizationally connected to "the" ISM. They just share the name and cause.) To be an ISM "member" usually means you've been on one of their trips to the occupied territories.

ISM is first and foremost run by Palestinians, based in an office in (IIRC) Ramallah. All ISM really does is coordinate travel for US-based activists to travel to the OT and participate in non-violent civil disobediance. Beyond that, they have very little actual activity beyond releasing the occasional statement. ISM "members" are usually involved in a range of Palestine-related groups, from local groups to Al-Awda to the Palestine Solidarity Movement that organizes a yearly conference (but, like ISM, has verry little activity beyond that). So there's a lot of overlap.

Manny

6th March 2006, 08:45 AM

Much like Rachel Corrie...I diagree completely with her stance on the Palestinians, but her death doesn't make me laugh. Actually, given that it was a Israeli bulldozer, there is not even any irony involved. Had it been a Palestinian bulldozer, that would have been irony writ large.Oh, that part I get. I understand, and don't even necessarily disagree (though my sense of humor is darker than average). What I don't get is what, if anything, that point of view has to do with skepticism.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 08:47 AM

No, she evidentially said "my back is broken" after her suicide attempt. They brought her to a palistinian hospital. Given that there are radical palistinians that see her death as benificial to their cause one wonders if they simply offed the crusader so that they had a mayrter that the west would notice. Greater good and all. If I were a Hamas kinda guy the thought would definately cross my mind. Hell, they kill kids for nebulous reasons, this murder would make some sense.
Another unsubstantiated assertion. You really are full of them.

Mark

6th March 2006, 08:51 AM

Oh, that part I get. I understand, and don't even necessarily disagree (though my sense of humor is darker than average). What I don't get is what, if anything, that point of view has to do with skepticism.

Skepticism's most important aspect (IMO) is questioning one's self and one's own opinions. Someone laughing at the violent death of a young woman doesn't seem willing to do that, to say the very least.

It's just my take...clearly most people think I am wrong. I still think it, though.

6th March 2006, 08:55 AM

Another unsubstantiated assertion. You really are full of them.

Conjecture, not assertion. Do you understand the difference? When you say she was "murdered" that is an assertion that is unfounded.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 08:59 AM

Conjecture, not assertion. Do you understand the difference?

In your case, there isn't much of one. But feel free to continue to weasel out of providing evidence--you're here to troll, after all, not to contribute anything substantial.

When you say she was "murdered" that is an assertion that is unfounded.

Except for those pesky eyewitnesses. (I know, I know, they were all Arabs and ISMers, so their word can't be trusted.)

6th March 2006, 09:01 AM

In your case, there isn't much of one. But feel free to continue to weasel out of providing evidence--you're here to troll, after all, not to contribute anything substantial.

Except for those pesky eyewitnesses. (I know, I know, they were all Arabs and ISMers, so their word can't be trusted.)

Right. The ones that let her get run over. They were certainly complicit in her death.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 09:02 AM

Right. The ones that let her get run over. They were certainly complicit in her death.

:rolleyes:

Ed, go troll somewhere else. Really.

Freakshow

6th March 2006, 09:09 AM

I'd like to think skeptic thought would cause one to rethink such comments before making them. How could it not?
Okay, rethought. And I'll still make a lot of comments that show that I am delighted or indifferent to someone's death. (Not talking about RC here, just in general.)

So...what does that have to do with skepticism? Rethought, same conclusion. Am I not a skeptic, simply because I don't share your opinion?

ETA: I ran into the same thing in the thread about why people still study traditional martial arts. Someone said they were shocked that a skeptic/critical thinker wouldn't know better than to get some sort of satisfaction out of learning how to fight well, which of course includes learning how to injure people.

Which has nothing at all to do with skepticism.

I think some believe (not sure if Mark believes this or not, and I'm not sure if the person speaking against me in the TMA thread believes this or not) that skepticism/critical thinking has as much to do with WHAT you think as it does HOW you think. And I couldn't disagree more.

Nyarlathotep

6th March 2006, 09:15 AM

Taking joy in the death of another human being, for no better reason than you disagree with that person's politics, is reprehensible, IMO. And if it becomes common, its scary because it is a short step from "WOO HOO! One of those stupid liberals/conservatives got killed" to "Hey, lets go kill one of those stupid liberals/conservatives!"

Freakshow

6th March 2006, 09:18 AM

6th March 2006, 09:23 AM

:rolleyes:

Ed, go troll somewhere else. Really.

The problem is that you, if you are truthful, can see that it is well within the moral scope of Hamas to murder a misguided tool such as this unfortunate young woman.

Nyarlathotep

6th March 2006, 09:24 AM

But is that at all related to skepticism/critical thinking?

No, since it deals with nothing provable it falls outside the purview of skepticism, and I don't claim it is related at all. My comments were prompted by the fact that I find it unsettling that some people seem to be taking such joy in her death.

Mark

6th March 2006, 09:25 AM

Okay, rethought. And I'll still make a lot of comments that show that I am delighted or indifferent to someone's death. (Not talking about RC here, just in general.)

So...what does that have to do with skepticism? Rethought, same conclusion. Am I not a skeptic, simply because I don't share your opinion?
I didn't take it that far; I am not using it as an ultimate judge of whether or not someone is a skeptic. Just that by itself it is not particularly skeptical, IMO.

ETA: I ran into the same thing in the thread about why people still study traditional martial arts. Someone said they were shocked that a skeptic/critical thinker wouldn't know better than to get some sort of satisfaction out of learning how to fight well, which of course includes learning how to injure people.

Which has nothing at all to do with skepticism.
Agreed.

I think some believe (not sure if Mark believes this or not, and I'm not sure if the person speaking against me in the TMA thread believes this or not) that skepticism/critical thinking has as much to do with WHAT you think as it does HOW you think. And I couldn't disagree more.
I agree some people think that...and I agree that it is wrong.

Mark

6th March 2006, 09:27 AM

But is that at all related to skepticism/critical thinking?

I think it is...in the sense that you said yourself in another post: some people think skeptical thinking has more to do with WHAT you think. In this case, she was a moron and her death is laughable.

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 09:28 AM

If he did it as a political statement for something he felt great passion and concern for, I suppose it would in a way. He would also be dead and I wouldn't find it amusing.

Since when is having "a political statement one feels a great passion for" a reason for any respect? The Waffen SS, KGB agents, and Spanish Inquisition also often died (and, of course, killed) pursuing "a political statement they felt a great passion for".

It depends WHAT the "great passion for" is. Corrie felt "great passion" for the destruction of Israel and the USA. I say, f--k that "great passion", and bring on the laugh track.

Mark

6th March 2006, 09:31 AM

[B]
It depends WHAT the "great passion for" is. Corrie felt "great passion" for the destruction of Israel and the USA. I say, f--k that "great passion", and bring on the laugh track.

Anyone who doesn't think the way you do is deserving of A) a horrible death, and B) that death is funny? Is that really what you mean?

Hmmm....who sounds like the SS and Spanish Inquisition here?

Nyarlathotep

6th March 2006, 09:32 AM

I think it is...in the sense that you said yourself in another post: some people think skeptical thinking has more to do with WHAT you think. In this case, she was a moron and her death is laughable.

But whether her death was a laugh riot or a terrible tragedy is a value judgement. Value judgements are, by their very nature, unique to the individual and not something that can be objectively proven, thus they fall outside of skepticism.

Mark

6th March 2006, 09:33 AM

But whether her death was a laugh riot or a terrible tragedy is a value judgement. Value judgements are, by their very nature, unique to the individual and not something that can be objectively proven, thus they fall outside of skepticism.

But examining those values does fall under skepticism, does it not?

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 09:33 AM

Taking joy in the death of another human being, for no better reason than you disagree with that person's politics, is reprehensible, IMO.

Unless, of course, the person in question is on the right of the political spectrum, in which case "shotgun" jokes and feeling sorry that pretzel's weren't made slightly larger are hilarious.

Cleon

6th March 2006, 09:36 AM

Unless, of course, the person in question is on the right of the political spectrum, in which case "shotgun" jokes and feeling sorry that pretzel's weren't made slightly larger are hilarious.

Unless this was inexplicably covered up by the Great Liberal Media Conspiracy (tm), I don't recall anyone dying from either the shotgun or pretzel incidents.

Nyarlathotep

6th March 2006, 09:38 AM

But examining those values does fall under skepticism, does it not?

Only if you can somehow prove, objectively, that it is better to feel one way than another. Good luck with that.

Nyarlathotep

6th March 2006, 09:40 AM

Manny

6th March 2006, 09:47 AM

Skepticism's most important aspect (IMO) is questioning one's self and one's own opinions. Someone laughing at the violent death of a young woman doesn't seem willing to do that, to say the very least.

It's just my take...clearly most people think I am wrong. I still think it, though.OK, I gotcha. Yes, I disagree. :)

OK, there's some confusion about what ISM is and what it isn't.Yeah. I was, like you, oversimplifying for the purpose of not writing a 10,000 word post to get all the nuances in.

I guess what I'm asking is if the Israeli/moderate Arab campaign to keep out foreign ISMers has been successful. If it has been, then clearly any criticism of them for failure to interdict the looters and rioters is missplaced. You can't really have a successful interdiction without any interdicters (though one might reasonably wonder what the native-Palestinian ISMers and their affiliates have been up to).

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 09:54 AM

Anyone who doesn't think the way you do is deserving of A) a horrible death, and B) that death is funny? Is that really what you mean?

No, but, of course, that's not remotely what I said.

Can we laugh at the death of SS men? Or should we bow our head in reverence, saying, "well, at least they were passionatly devoted to a political cause"?

Hutch

6th March 2006, 10:14 AM

Can we laugh at the death of SS men? Or should we bow our head in reverence, saying, "well, at least they were passionatly devoted to a political cause"?

Well, I'll quote you above so what you say is not remote...

And said quote is about the dumbest Manichean black/white strawman that I have seen in many a day.

I neither laugh at or revere death--even of woolly-headed 'pacifists' or murdering stormtroopers...people die for any reason and no reason and once they are gone they are gone forever and I give them the solemn due that the end of life (and as I do not subscibe to an afterlife, it really is gone forever in my book) while acknowledging that in many cases that death was either an absolute necessity (see SS) or tragic/stupidity (Ms Corrie or a Darwin Award winner).

But they are dead. For good or for evil, they are dead. And I will grant the dead rest, if not forgiveness (for it is not mine to give). But I would not write:

I suppose a "pancake breakfast" is a fitting memorial to a woman whom a bulldozer flattened like a...

As I said before--Classless.

aerocontrols

6th March 2006, 10:39 AM

I answered that already.

Hardly.

Apparently you disagree.

OK...laugh it up then. You're right...someone getting horribly killed by a bulldozer is hysterical. I wonder why I didn't see it before? I bet her brains splattered all over the rocks! What a hoot!!!!!!!!

Please refrain from trying to read my mind, and attributing to me beliefs I do not hold. My position on 'yukking up' someone's death is pretty well-established on this forum, I think.

The difference between us, it seems, is that I don't believe that the statement 'reason requires that X not be funny' can ever be true.

Only if you can somehow prove, objectively, that it is better to feel one way than another. Good luck with that.

Bingo.

Steve

6th March 2006, 11:20 AM

So has anyone figured out whether this was a highly-unfortunate choice of events by her supporters or a cheap shot by her detractors?

Any definite answer to this yet? I'm reading it as a spoof but I would like to know for sure.

Regarding the pro and con comments about finding humour in death - I am a big fan of the Darwin Awards so yes, my warped sense of humour does allow me to find humour in death. I tend to find this woman as a borderline Darwin Awards candidate herself. (And this has nothing to do with my political leanings, which I pointedly avoid stating here).

Mycroft

6th March 2006, 12:13 PM

That I can deal with. Actually, I am pretty close to that feeling myself.

RF, you really don't see the difference berween this and the Vice President of the United States shooting a friend in the face with a shotgun?

I see differences, but not such that laughing at one is bad but laughing at the other is okay.

The most important difference is that there was a fatality in one, but not the other. Both are tragic accidents, and laughing at them would be an example of dark humor.

With Cheney, the laughter is at the act itself. the VPOTUS shoots a guy in the face, hilarity ensues.

With Rachael Corrie, at least in this thread, what’s being laughed at is not the event itself, but the unfortunate choice of memorials.

Mycroft

6th March 2006, 12:35 PM

Another unsubstantiated assertion. You really are full of them.

I'm not going to go tracking down old news stories, but what he said is true. I remember reading that the doctor of record was pretty high up in the PA hierarchy, though I don’t remember his title.

Mycroft

6th March 2006, 12:40 PM

Anyone who doesn't think the way you do is deserving of A) a horrible death, and B) that death is funny? Is that really what you mean?

Hmmm....who sounds like the SS and Spanish Inquisition here?

I think there is a huge difference between "doesn't think the way you do" and "works towards or openly supports those who work for your annihilation."

Don’t you agree?

Mycroft

6th March 2006, 12:42 PM

Any definite answer to this yet? I'm reading it as a spoof but I would like to know for sure.

A part of me is a little bit skeptical on this and thinks this might be a joke someone is playing.

Manny

6th March 2006, 12:45 PM

That's what I think, too. The Victoria indymedia's main page (http://victoria.indymedia.org/) says they're on hiatus and hasn't been updated since early February. And the responses to it look, uh, unindymedia-like.

Mark

6th March 2006, 01:55 PM

I think there is a huge difference between "doesn't think the way you do" and "works towards or openly supports those who work for your annihilation."

Don’t you agree?

Yes. But no one I know of in this discussion was working toward your annihilation. And even in the former, I don't really laugh at violent death...although I realize I am in the minority in that; it's just the way I am wired, I guess.

There is a great Taoist quote: "In battle, do not celebrate your victory, but rather mourn your enemy's defeat." I don't expect anyone else to agree with that, though.

Mycroft

6th March 2006, 04:51 PM

Yes. But no one I know of in this discussion was working toward your annihilation. And even in the former, I don't really laugh at violent death...although I realize I am in the minority in that; it's just the way I am wired, I guess.

Huh?! Nobody said anyone in this discussion was working towards anyone's annihilation. Rachel Corrie, however, did openly support those working for the annihilation of Israelis. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Skeptic, or anyone else who's perfectly aware of the stakes of the conflict, to be particularly sensitive to the misfortune of someone like that.

epepke

6th March 2006, 05:28 PM

You are unfortunately politically incorrect. Now, if Cheney blows his head off with a shotgun or Bush suffocates while eating a grape, that would be funny and we could all laugh about that.

Grapes aren't funny.

On the other hand, if he died of cirrhosis of the liver, that would be funny.

Similarly, if Noam Chomsky were beheaded by a pack of enraged Palestinians, that would also be funny.

I remember an issue of National Lampoon, which had illustrations of John Denver with his eyes pecked out by a bald eagle, and Ewell Gibbons dead from eating a woodland plant.

Mark

6th March 2006, 05:47 PM

Huh?! Nobody said anyone in this discussion was working towards anyone's annihilation. Rachel Corrie, however, did openly support those working for the annihilation of Israelis. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Skeptic, or anyone else who's perfectly aware of the stakes of the conflict, to be particularly sensitive to the misfortune of someone like that.

I know that's whom you were referring to....I'm not that thick. I just think you are grossly overstating your case. Working for the "annihilation" of the Israelis?!?!?! I mean, come on.

And there is a world of difference between not being sensitive and actually finding joy and humor in the horrific death of someone with whom we disagree. That's just...Neandertal at best.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 06:00 PM

Said something stupid and want to dismiss criticism of it?

Acting like a jerkwad and don't want to take responsibility for it?

Try Conservative Classic(tm), the easiest phrase to use to get out of rational thought!

Simply invoke the phrase "politically correct," and you're automatically excused from owning up to your own stupidity!Do you have anything beyond rhetoric? What was said that was stupid and why do you feel that it was? What the hell is "Conservative Classic(tm)"?

You hide it well.{sigh} Really Cleon? You are not paying attention. I'm staunchly for the seperation of church and state. I want the church, 10 commandments and prayer out of our schools and public places. I actively support abortion rights. I support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and to enjoy all of the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. I'm fanatically pro-free speech including pornography and I support anyone's right to burn the flag or to verbally or symbolically attack any American institution. I wan't marijuana legalized. I want to end the idiotic drug war, NOW! I'm for leagalizing prostitution. I want the government out of our personal lives and our homes. All of these things I have fought for on this very forum.

I don't know where you got your idea of what a conservative is. I grew up in a conservative community and I can tell you that these are NOT conservative values.

I'm not hidding anything. Your are either not looking or you have an odd definition of conservative.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 06:08 PM

Grapes aren't funny. I was thinking of the time he choked on a pretzel and fell down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/01/19/bush/BushPretzel.jpg

So, if Bush died from choking on a pretzel wouldn't that be funny?

Similarly, if Noam Chomsky were beheaded by a pack of enraged Palestinians, that would also be funny.

I remember an issue of National Lampoon, which had illustrations of John Denver with his eyes pecked out by a bald eagle, and Ewell Gibbons dead from eating a woodland plant. Shock!!!! :D

Hey, I've gotten bent out of shape when someone I respected was made fun of when they were seriously injured or they passed away. I think I got upset on the forum at least once for a similar experience.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 06:17 PM

I am a big fan of the Darwin Awards so yes, my warped sense of humour does allow me to find humour in death. I agree. I don't usually find humor in the death of children or those vulnerable (not sure I ever have) and I often don't find humor shortly after the death of someone regardless of circumstances. But time plus tragedy equals commedy. I didn't like the crap said about Reagan shortly after he died but I wouldn't mind any death jokes now. BTW, do you know what Regans favorite vegetable was? James Brady.

Anyway, I suspect that many of the people who are angry at the jokes making fun of Rachel Corrie wouldn't be so angry if it was some anti-abortion protestor who blew himself up trying to blow up a an abortion clinic. I don't care who you are, THAT would be funny. :D

epepke

6th March 2006, 06:36 PM

So, if Bush died from choking on a pretzel wouldn't that be funny?

Pretzels, unlike grapes, are funny. Except the Philadelphia flat pretzels. If you can work Hitler into it, pretzels are funnier. See the original Producers for an example of a funny pretzel with Hitler on the side.

KelvinG

6th March 2006, 07:33 PM

Do you have anything beyond rhetoric? What was said that was stupid and why do you feel that it was? What the hell is "Conservative Classic(tm)"?

{sigh} Really Cleon? You are not paying attention. I'm staunchly for the seperation of church and state. I want the church, 10 commandments and prayer out of our schools and public places. I actively support abortion rights. I support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and to enjoy all of the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. I'm fanatically pro-free speech including pornography and I support anyone's right to burn the flag or to verbally or symbolically attack any American institution. I wan't marijuana legalized. I want to end the idiotic drug war, NOW! I'm for leagalizing prostitution. I want the government out of our personal lives and our homes. All of these things I have fought for on this very forum.

I don't know where you got your idea of what a conservative is. I grew up in a conservative community and I can tell you that these are NOT conservative values.

I'm not hidding anything. Your are either not looking or you have an odd definition of conservative.

OH MY GOD! Randfan's a liberal!!!

RandFan

6th March 2006, 08:19 PM

OH MY GOD! Randfan's a liberal!!!:D

No, I really don't fit neatly into any model or ideaology. In many ways I'm libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) (small-l). Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

epepke

6th March 2006, 08:37 PM

:D

No, I really don't fit neatly into any model or ideaology. In many ways I'm libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) (small-l). Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

Which is pretty much classical liberal. Jefferson would have offered you a mug of cider. Only left-wingers smoke so much dope they can't remember this.

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 09:19 PM

Yes. But no one I know of in this discussion was working toward your annihilation.

Er, of course not. We said Rachel Corrie openly supported and helped people working towards Israel's annihilation.

gtc

6th March 2006, 09:20 PM

There is a difference between laughing at Rachel Corrie's death and laughing at the fact that someone would commerate her death with pancakes.

If a bulldozer ran me over, I would hope my family would not mourn my passing with pancakes.

Now, whether or not her friends wanted her dead, it certainly seems that her death has been milked for all its worth

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-22-2003-37821.asp

'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. 'Going in front of the tanks was heroic. Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'

And Rachel was certainly not someone who shunned media attention (as her flag burning photo clearly demonstrates).

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 09:21 PM

Of course, the ironic thing about Corrie is that she trusted with her life the Israelis she so despised. She was sure that until she will not leave, the bulldozer will not destroy the building. And she was probably correct; the point was that the bulldozer driver didn't know she was there and stopped the moment he realized he hit her.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 09:32 PM

From Buzzle.com (Inteligent Life on the Web)

Her British friend and fellow activist, Tom Dale, 18, from Lichfield in Staffordshire, said he saw her die. First, he said, there was fear on her face as she realised that her defiant gesture was going wrong. Joe Smith, 21, who went to college with Corrie, said that, although they acknowledged the danger, they saw death as a 'small, unlikely, potential risk'.

'We knew there was a risk,' Smith said, 'but we also knew it never happened in the two years that we (the ISM) have been working here. I knew we take lots of precautions so that it doesn't happen, that if it did happen it would have to be an intentional act by a soldier, in which case it would bring a lot of publicity and significance to the cause.' Nice real nice. It's not dangerous and if it is it will bring a lot of publicity.

The Fool

6th March 2006, 09:34 PM

Er, of course not. We said Rachel Corrie openly supported and helped people working towards Israel's annihilation.
Pah...they'll be lucky. They would need the support of at least 2 rachel corries to annihilate Israel.

RandFan

6th March 2006, 10:01 PM

I suppose a "pancake breakfast" is a fitting memorial to a woman whom a bulldozer flattened like a...

...oh, how awful of me to make fun of such a wonderful, wonderful woman:

http://inhonor.net/pictures/Rachel%20Corrie%20burning%20us%20flag.jpg

You know, I could have had respect for her if she was unbiased and was simply a peace activist trying to save Palestinians. It wouldn't even bother me if she only sought to help Palestinians because she believed that it was the best way for her to save the most lives. However it is clear that she takes a side. It is clear that she sees the deaths of Palestinians more significant than the deaths of Israelis.

Someone else said we shouldn't ever forget the picture of her dead body. I wonder if that same person thinks we should never forget the pictures of the dead Israelis? And I'm not talking soldiers. I'm talking ordinary citizens including women and children who are just as human as Palestinians.

I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for Rachel Corrie. She is as much an instrument of death as any other icon in this whole mess. Peace activist is not appropriate for her. That is NOT a peace activist.

a_unique_person

6th March 2006, 10:06 PM

RandFan

6th March 2006, 10:28 PM

gtc

6th March 2006, 10:33 PM

Why is she not a peace activist? When did she ever say that the deaths of Israeli's did not matter? You seem to be creating things she thought, without supplying evidence. She was protesting, vigorously. I did not know that burning flags made you violent.

I think you are splitting some very fine hairs there.

Unfortunately you can't ask her what she was thinking, so we will never know, but I doubt it was peace to Israel.

Rachel in her own words
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html
I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed - the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here - recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people's vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can't.

If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.

Also she had to know the occupational hazards of being a direct-action resister.

When I am with Palestinian friends I tend to be somewhat less horrified than when I am trying to act in a role of human rights observer, documenter, or direct-action resister.

Mycroft

6th March 2006, 10:39 PM

gtc

6th March 2006, 10:44 PM

Also peace activists do not tend to refer to people planting explosives as the
Palestinian resistance.

But peace activists also don't spend ages trying to justify Palestinian violence.

And tend not to say stuff like this:

Today, as I walked on top of the rubble where homes once stood, Egyptian soldiers called to me from the other side of the border, "Go! Go!" because a tank was coming. And then waving and "What's your name?". Something disturbing about this friendly curiosity. It reminded me of how much, to some degree, we are all kids curious about other kids. Egyptian kids shouting at strange women wandering into the path of tanks. Palestinian kids shot from the tanks when they peak out from behind walls to see what's going on. International kids standing in front of tanks with banners. Israeli kids in the tanks anonymously - occasionally shouting and also occasionally waving - many forced to be here, many just agressive - shooting into the houses as we wander away.

Note how the only ones who are simply agressive are the Israelis? Although she did modify that with the word many Israeli army people.

Note how everybody gets a root cause and paragraphs of justification for their actions, but not Israelis. Notice how the Palestinians 'resistance' is the Israelis' fault, but many Israelis shoot at Palestinian homes simply out of aggression.

She can't have it both ways. You can't be a peace activist and justify Palestinian violence and suggest that many Israelis are simply violent and burn flags.

The Fool

6th March 2006, 11:23 PM

Note how everybody gets a root cause and paragraphs of justification for their actions, but not Israelis.
sorry, but surely you must have noticed all the material available everywhere that is justification for Israeli actions?

RandFan

6th March 2006, 11:28 PM

sorry, but surely you must have noticed all the material available everywhere that is justification for Israeli actions?I don't justify Israel's actions. Wrong is wrong. I condemn any crimes commited by Israel and America for that matter. There are no clean hands in this mess. Let's stop pointing fingers and stop the killing.

Skeptic

6th March 2006, 11:40 PM

Why is she not a peace activist? When did she ever say that the deaths of Israeli's did not matter?

Call me overhasty, but somehow I doubt that a person who burns the American and Israeli flags in a face controted with rage cares much for Israeli, or American, children. Also, the ISM to which she belongs openly supports "all kinds" of Palestinian "resistence", that is, including suicide bombing.

Since her organization supports the death of Jewish children by suicide bombing and she burns the country's flag in insensate rage, I'd say she doesn't care for Israeli children.

It's another one of those annoying, blindingly obvious facts AUP cannot see.

gtc

6th March 2006, 11:44 PM

sorry, but surely you must have noticed all the material available everywhere that is justification for Israeli actions?

There is plenty of material justifying Palestinian violence too, but I was specifically referring to Rachel Corrie. She spent ages justifying Palestinian actions, but noted that many Israeli's are simply aggressive.

I fail to see how she was evening up the score either. It was a letter to her Dad after all.

I am sorry, to show that she was a Peace Activist, you have to do better than suggest she was evening up the balance of justifications.

a_unique_person

6th March 2006, 11:58 PM

I think you are splitting some very fine hairs there.

Unfortunately you can't ask her what she was thinking, so we will never know, but I doubt it was peace to Israel.

Rachel in her own words
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html

Ah, yes, it's "Death to Jews" that gives them away every time.

Earthborn

7th March 2006, 01:52 AM

It says so right on their website how they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against IsraelWhere does it say that on their website? Show me.

The Fool

7th March 2006, 02:17 AM

The ISM are not "peace activists" because they support Palestinian violence. It says so right on their website how they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel, which would include everything from suicide bombings, to rocket attack, to naming streets after martyrs.

please don't simply ignore Earthborn's request...its your claim. I don't think its unreasonable for you to simply find and quote the words you say are there...

To claim they are peace activists because they don't use violence themselves would be like calling George W. Bush a peace activist because he personally hasn't fired any guns in Iraq or Afghanistan.

so if GWB is not a peace activist what do you think he is?

No, what the ISM has done is not made themselves advocates for peace, but simply have chosen sides in a violent conflict with the goal of adding a fake veneer of morality to the more brutal side. The Palestinians themselves would never choose non-violent protest (it would get quashed by the higher-ups) but they get all the benefits by luring naïve Euro-teenagers over to do it for them. And if one or two get killed in the process, so much the better for the Palestinian PR machine.
Are you claiming that Palestinians do not participate in ISM non violent protests? Its impressive how you can proclaim something before your eyes does not exist.

7th March 2006, 04:37 AM

Where does it say that on their website? Show me.

“As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions , we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance.”
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/faq/

They don't, evidentially, feel that non violence as a technique is something worthy of demanding of the palistinians. I guess their ethos is "keep your hands clean, your ass out of danger and let the wogs do the work".

Cleon

7th March 2006, 05:20 AM

Skeptic

7th March 2006, 05:31 AM

So Ed, in your own spin, you're basically admitting that the claim "it says so right on their website how they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel"

What part of "we support legitimate armed struggle" didn't you understand, Cleon?

Stop splitting semantic hairs. "Armed struggle" = Palestinian terrorism.

zenith-nadir

7th March 2006, 05:31 AM

http://michaelparker.blogspot.com/rachel-corrie-flag.jpg

Look ma, that "peace activist" is burning AMERICAN flags for the children! How cute!

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/rachel-corrie-flagburner.jpg

Look ma, that "peace activist's" face is twisted with rage!

Peace like this always makes me feel fuzzy and warm inside.

http://civilwarclipart.com/Clipartgallery/images/SaintJemima.jpg

Cleon

7th March 2006, 05:37 AM

What part of "we support legitimate armed struggle" didn't you understand, Cleon?

Stop splitting semantic hairs. "Armed struggle" = Palestinian terrorism.
And "legitimate" means what, exactly, in your little world? Whatever you want it to mean, apparently.

Claim: "it says so right on their website how they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel"

Reality: They support the right to "legitimate armed struggle." Not endorse it's use, mind you, but the right. Which is rather different from "they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel."

This isn't "semantic" by any stretch of the imagination, and it's definitely not splitting hairs. This is you and your crowd being either dishonest or stupid. At this point, given the nature of this thread, I could go either way.

7th March 2006, 05:44 AM

So Ed, in your own spin, you're basically admitting that the claim "it says so right on their website how they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel" is in fact false.

Go figure...Mycroft's full of crap. Again.

No spin, pinhead:D

Their words are their words. They support violence against Isreal. They use the term "legitimate" which means suicide bombing I suppose based on this:

That some Palestinians have turned themselves into weapons is not something inherent to Palestinians or Muslims. Rather, it is a tragic weapon of those who have nothing else to fight with.

They go on, having supported murder, to don the appropriate fig leaf of pucillanimous moral hedging:

This does not justify the action. The ISM maintains that all military tactics should be stopped by all sides in favor of nonviolent alternatives. Most importantly, we’ve concluded from experience that as long as the occupation continues and the Palestinian people are denied freedom, human rights and self-determination, there will be those who will use violence against the underlying, systematic and foundational violence of the occupation.

The problem with these guys is that they cannot bring themselves to take a clear stand. If violence is wrong, it is bloody wrong no matter who does it. They couch palistinian violence in terms of "just struggle" without giving an inch on a complete disregard for any justification of the Isreali's behavior. That is bias, that is moral bankruptcy. At least Hamas is up front.

7th March 2006, 05:48 AM

Burning question ....

Was Ms. Corrie a hottie do you think?

She probably talked too much a la Anne Coulter but that aside what do you think?

ps. no jokes about her being "flat". That would be in bad taste.

Manny

7th March 2006, 05:50 AM

Flat-chested.

7th March 2006, 05:52 AM

Flat-chested.

That's different.

..hey, you get my PM?

Cleon

7th March 2006, 05:56 AM

No spin, pinhead:D
Nothing BUT spin.

Their words are their words. They support violence against Isreal.
They support the right to legitimate armed resistance.

That is not the same as "they support violence against Israel."

It's definitely not the same as "they support *all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel." Which remains a false claim.

They use the term "legitimate" which means suicide bombing I suppose based on this:

You "suppose." There it all is in a nutshell.

You have no evidence to back up your claim. In fact, the claim is demonstrably false. However, you continue to make the claim based on what you want the situation to be. You want ISM to support terrorism, so you cherry-pick statements that you can twist, turn, mash, and mutate into support for terrorism, and you keep barfing them up as if they're evidence.

They're not.

"The ISM maintains that all military tactics should be stopped by all sides in favor of nonviolent alternatives."

It's a shame your reading comprehension is apparently so low, but any mutation of the above clear, concise statement against violence into support for "*all* forms of Palestinian resistance against Israel" is simply dishonest.

7th March 2006, 06:02 AM

Anything less than unequivical condemnation is support.

Cleon

7th March 2006, 06:56 AM

Anything less than unequivical condemnation is support.

That's a load of crap, and you know it. Come on, Ed. This sort of crap is beneath you.

You don't like the ISM, fine. Nobody's saying you have to.

But this constant need to spin, lie, distort, cherry-pick, and twist reality to attribute to them a position they don't have simply shows your (collective) lack of ability and desire to think rationally about the subject.

Skeptic

7th March 2006, 06:57 AM

And "legitimate" means what, exactly, in your little world? Whatever you want it to mean, apparently.

Well, it includes suicide bombing of schoolbuses, since while it "should be stopped", it's merely a "tragic weapon of those who have nothing left to lose" due to the "violence of the occupation".

So when suicide bombing occurs, it's merely a reaction against "the occupation"--which, I presume, is why Gaza is so peaceful now, once the occupation had ended. They automatically, and in advance, blame "the occupation" for all and any suicide bombings.

I'd say that's support of suicide bombing.

Let's use a metaphor. Suppose I say that I am against rape, favoring "sex by non-violent alternatives". However, as as it so happens, I just happen to think every single act of rape is in reality just a reaction of opressed men who have nothing left to lose against the evil and violent denial of sexual priviledges by women.

I'd say that is support of rape, wouldn't you? "Don't rape--but if you do, it's the women's fault". That's exactly their position: "don't blow up children--but if you do, it's Israel's fault."

Cleon

7th March 2006, 07:02 AM

Well, it includes suicide bombing of schoolbuses, since while it "should be stopped", it's merely a "tragic weapon of those who have nothing left to lose" due to the "violence of the occupation".

:rolleyes:

Whatever. You're intent on lying about this, that much is evident.

7th March 2006, 07:40 AM

Perhaps we can agree on this (and leave it at that)

1) This organization does not reject the use of force by others to achieve political ends.

2) Feeling that the Isreali's are well represented in the press and militarily, they see their sole occupation in Palestine to support the palestinians.

3) The see the Isreali's as being solely responsible for the violence and the overall situation.

I think that that is a pretty objective and non extreme precis of thier positions and each point is well supported by their FAQ.

Cleon

7th March 2006, 07:49 AM

7th March 2006, 08:02 AM

Well, I would've agreed up until point 3. Replace "solely" with "largely" and I would agree.

Do you have a reference from their web site? I did not see anything wherein they allowed for the slightest responsibility on the part of the palestinians. Could be wrng though.

Cleon

7th March 2006, 08:06 AM

Do you have a reference from their web site? I did not see anything wherein they allowed for the slightest responsibility on the part of the palestinians. Could be wrng though.

Ed, you posted it yourself. You just don't like the fact that it said something other than what you were trying to spin it to say.

That some Palestinians have turned themselves into weapons is not something inherent to Palestinians or Muslims. Rather, it is a tragic weapon of those who have nothing else to fight with. This does not justify the action. The ISM maintains that all military tactics should be stopped by all sides in favor of nonviolent alternatives.

"All sides" seems a mite different than "just Israel," but what do I know.

7th March 2006, 08:09 AM

That's a load of crap, and you know it. Come on, Ed. This sort of crap is beneath you.

You don't like the ISM, fine. Nobody's saying you have to.

But this constant need to spin, lie, distort, cherry-pick, and twist reality to attribute to them a position they don't have simply shows your (collective) lack of ability and desire to think rationally about the subject.

Look... I didn't claim to be a believer on non violence, they did. How can you "sort of" believe in nonviolent techniques? It appears to me (and insted of critisising, you might read their FAQ and give a reference or two) that they say that Isreali violence is wrong and that Palistinian violence is justified. It seems like they are severely torn. They'd like to be Ghandiesque but they really want to see Jew ass kicked. They probably don't sleep well.

7th March 2006, 08:12 AM

Ed, you posted it yourself. You just don't like the fact that it said something other than what you were trying to spin it to say.

"All sides" seems a mite different than "just Israel," but what do I know.

Except that they justify the palestinians in using violence and they understand that poor prople need to make people bombs. You can't have it both ways.

Why not say "All violence is wrong, regardless of the method or the provocation." Period, end of story. They try to have it both ways.

Cleon

7th March 2006, 08:16 AM

Look... I didn't claim to be a believer on non violence, they did. How can you "sort of" believe in nonviolent techniques?

They support non-violence as a tactic, not a principle. It's not unheard of, really.

It appears to me (and insted of critisising, you might read their FAQ and give a reference or two) that they say that Isreali violence is wrong and that Palistinian violence is justified.

It appears that way to you because you WANT it to appear that way to you. It's convenient to your worldview. You've spent this entire thread twisting, cherry-picking, and "conjecturing" your way into assuming that the view you hold of ISM (that they're terrorist-supporting thugs) is correct. Evidence doesn't bear that out, but when it comes to matters of faith, evidence apparently doesn't matter.

If you're going to play the sort of games you have in this thread, you're going to get called on it.

It seems like they are severely torn. They'd like to be Ghandiesque but they really want to see Jew ass kicked. They probably don't sleep well.

Again with this word "seems." As if it's an adequate substitute for "evidence." Sorry, doesn't fly.

7th March 2006, 08:26 AM

They support non-violence as a tactic, not a principle. It's not unheard of, really.

It appears that way to you because you WANT it to appear that way to you. It's convenient to your worldview. You've spent this entire thread twisting, cherry-picking, and "conjecturing" your way into assuming that the view you hold of ISM (that they're terrorist-supporting thugs) is correct. Evidence doesn't bear that out, but when it comes to matters of faith, evidence apparently doesn't matter.

If you're going to play the sort of games you have in this thread, you're going to get called on it.

Again with this word "seems." As if it's an adequate substitute for "evidence." Sorry, doesn't fly.

If we stick to objective evidence, they are hypocrites. That is not interpretation.

Cleon

7th March 2006, 08:29 AM

Except that they justify the palestinians in using violence and they understand that poor prople need to make people bombs. You can't have it both ways.
They don't say that poor people need to make people bombs. And they don't "justify" Palestinians using violence. They try to place it in context of the overall situation--which is not justification, but explanation.

There's your dishonesty showing again.

Why not say "All violence is wrong, regardless of the method or the provocation." Period, end of story. They try to have it both ways.
Because they're not pacifists out of principle, and never claimed to be. Neither are you. I'm certainly not.

Christian Peacemaker Teams is pacifist out of principle. There are plenty of groups that are. ISM is not one of them. You can support non-violence out of principle, support it because it seems to be that right tactic, or any combination of the above. It's not a contradiction by any means to be neutral on the position of violence out of principle and support non-violent tactics.

I find it interesting that everyone demands that the Palestinians and their supporters be hard-core pacifists; but the same demand is not placed upon the Israelis, and when hard-core pacifists (like CPT) DO try to make a difference, they're treated with the same scorn that groups like the ISM are.

Which seems to indicate (heh) that you, Ed, care less about questions of violence and more about doing whatever possible to paint the Palestinians and their supporters in the worst light possible.

Cleon

7th March 2006, 08:30 AM

If we stick to objective evidence, they are hypocrites. That is not interpretation.
You're right, that's not an interpretation. It's a lie.

a_unique_person

7th March 2006, 01:43 PM

Except that they justify the palestinians in using violence and they understand that poor prople need to make people bombs. You can't have it both ways.

Why not say "All violence is wrong, regardless of the method or the provocation." Period, end of story. They try to have it both ways.

Are you going to say that of Israel, too?

Jocko

7th March 2006, 02:23 PM

Are you going to say that of Israel, too?

It's in quotes, AUP, to indicate that he is expressing the thoughts of another person. In this case, a hypothetical epiphany of ISM's leadership in general and Corrie in particular. It's not Ed's thoughts or endorsement necessarily.

Thought I'd just nip that sucker in the bud. No charge, folks.

Mycroft

7th March 2006, 06:25 PM

I think it's interesting to to compare some paragraphs in Cleon's post:

They don't say that poor people need to make people bombs. And they don't "justify" Palestinians using violence. They try to place it in context of the overall situation--which is not justification, but explanation.

So when it comes to Palestinian violence, ever effort is made to place it "in context" of the overall situation. It goes without saying no such effort is made for Israeli violence.

Then we have this:

I find it interesting that everyone demands that the Palestinians and their supporters be hard-core pacifists; but the same demand is not placed upon the Israelis, and when hard-core pacifists (like CPT) DO try to make a difference, they're treated with the same scorn that groups like the ISM are.

Well, nice try at finding a double standard, but the Israeli Defense Force does not advertise itself as a "peace organization" and its members "peace activists."

The hypocrisy, however, is loud and clear when every effort is made to rationalize Palestinian violence by placing it "in context" yet Israeli violence is condemned no matter what the context.

I personally favor judging both sides by the same standard, which means the ISM is free to choose sides, but we're also free to point out the hypocrisy of claiming to be a peace organization while supporting a violent cause.

Mycroft

7th March 2006, 06:58 PM

And "legitimate" means what, exactly, in your little world? Whatever you want it to mean, apparently.

Okay, you make a lot of their use of the word "legitimate". As well you should, that seems to be an addition to their written policy, presumably based on exactly this sort of criticism. Thank God for web archives, eh?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030205150658/www.palsolidarity.org/faq.htm

28) What exactly is the ISM position on non-violence? From the ISM website:

The International Solidarity Movement is a growing movement of Palestinian and international activists working to raise awareness of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize non-violent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge the illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.

We recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via armed struggle, yet we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance.

» We support the Palestinian right to resist the occupation

» We call for an immediate end to the occupation and immediate compliance and implementation of all UN resolutions including the right to return of Palestinian refugees and a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem

» We call for immediate international intervention to protect the Palestinian people and ensure Israel 's compliance with international law

Don't get me wrong, I support the ISM bending to pressure and adopting a more moral philosophy, even if it is just in baby-steps. I hope that the change is more than just the cosmetic addtion of a word to a statement on their website.

Edited to correct link.

Giz

7th March 2006, 09:41 PM

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that some people here seem delighted when someone with whom they disagree is killed?

It can be funny. From the Darwin Arwards (www.darwinawards.com):

Living on Zionist Time
1999 Darwin Awards Winner
Confirmed True by Darwin
5 September 1999, Jerusalem In most parts of the world, the switch away from Daylight Saving Time proceeds smoothly. But the time change raised havoc with Palestinian terrorists this year.

Israel insisted on a premature switch from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time to accommodate a week of pre-sunrise prayers. Palestinians refused to live on "Zionist Time." Two weeks of scheduling havoc ensued. Nobody knew the "correct" time.

At precisely 5:30pm on Sunday, two coordinated car bombs exploded in different cities, killing three terrorists who were transporting the bombs. It was initially believed that the devices had been detonated prematurely by klutzy amateurs. A closer look revealed the truth behind the explosions.

The bombs had been prepared in a Palestine-controlled area, and set to detonate on Daylight Saving Time. But the confused drivers had already switched to Standard Time. When they picked up the bombs, they neglected to ask whose watch was used to set the timing mechanism. As a result, the cars were still en-route when the explosives detonated, delivering the terrorists to their untimely demises.

Skeptic

7th March 2006, 09:58 PM

Gee, Mycroft, so I was right: they do support suicide bombing ("armed struggle") as legitimate, and only added the "well, nonviolence might work too" clause afterwards.

So far, we have a "peace" organization that:

1). Legitimizes suicide bombing.
2). Only adds a fig-leave "but we prefer nonviolence" as a sop to public opinion.
3). Has its members burn the flags of other nations in a face contorted with rage, throw rocks at soldiers, etc., etc.

Seems like a violent, pro-terrorism organization to me, whose members merely calls themselves "peace activists" and "non violent".

It's an old trick in the middle east; the Arabs are especially good at it, e.g., with expressions such as "just peace" (the dresturction of Israel) "the right of return" (the destruction of Israel) "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" (the destruction of Israel), "liberating occupied Palestine" (the destruction of Israel), etc., etc., etc.

Hey, it's all about rights and peace and justice and liberation! What's not to like?

a_unique_person

7th March 2006, 10:00 PM

That would explain the ISM members shot and killed who were armed and hunting Israelis.

Earthborn

7th March 2006, 10:44 PM

The hypocrisy, however, is loud and clear when every effort is made to rationalize Palestinian violence by placing it "in context" yet Israeli violence is condemned no matter what the context.That's not hypocrisy, that's one sidedness.

I personally favor judging both sides by the same standard, which means the ISM is free to choose sides, but we're also free to point out the hypocrisy of claiming to be a peace organization while supporting a violent cause.You have to present better evidence that they support a violent cause and you'll have to explain why an organisation that supports 'the right to use violent means' cannot call itself a peace organisation.

It would also be nice if you could present a single historical example of an organisation that is dedicated to using non-violent means that never got the same sort of criticism you are throwing at the ISM. I don't think there has ever been one.

Skeptic

7th March 2006, 10:48 PM

RandFan

7th March 2006, 10:55 PM

...you'll have to explain why an organisation that supports 'the right to use violent means' cannot call itself a peace organization.?

Really?

ETA: I guess they can call themselves anything they want. This would include any terrorist organization but I'm guessing that is not what you meant. Isn't there a contradiction there?

peptoabysmal

7th March 2006, 11:28 PM

Serious question: Did any buddhist protestors set themselves on fire to protest the reeducation camps, or the killing fields, or the thousands and thousands who drowned trying to escape the victors?

And heck, as long as we're asking questions, are any ISM members non-violently interdicting the rioters and vandals destroying the greenhouses purchased for the Palestinian people?
In a nutshell, it was to protest a puritanical, Catholic rule over a population of mostly Buddhists. Diem was a corrupt, rotten guy and at the same time, kind of like a sheriff sent in to clean up the lawless town in western badlands. Is there a correlation between this situation and the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq?

Diệm's rule was firm, puritanical and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his brother Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diệm political party. Ngô Đình Can his other brother he put in charge of the former Imperial City of Huế. Another brother Ngô Đình Luyen he appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom and also put him in charge of the Cham people, minorities in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.

His brother Nhu's wife Madame Nhu was South Vietnam's First Lady and she led the way in Diệm's programs to reform Saigon society in accordance with their Catholic values. Brothels and opium dens were closed, divorce and abortion made illegal, and adultery laws were strengthened. Diệm also won a street war with the forces of the gangster Le Van Vien, the notorious ruler of the Cholon brothels and gambling houses who had enjoyed special favors under the French and Bảo Đại. Diệm was also passionately anti-Communist. A member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, Diệm's pursuit of pro-Catholic policies antagonized many of Vietnam's Buddhists. State police were often accused of assaulting Buddhists (the religious majority in the country). Buddhist activists staged mass protests and even self-immolations culminating in several coups attempts, the final one resulting in Diệm's own execution.

...

Diệm forged a relationship with the United States for support, while retaining policies that were independent from the United States. The United States supported Diệm in the hopes of securing a foothold in Southeast Asia from which to increase pressure on Communist China. Claims of corruption were merely political rhetoric, however. Hồ Chí Minh and his communist policies were popular, and Diệm was not. President Eisenhower himself commented that, given a democratic election, a socialist government would no doubt win. The United States did not want South Vietnam to be ruled by a Communist government, so the U.S. continued to provide Diệm with support.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 12:47 AM

That's not hypocrisy, that's one sidedness.

Demanding from others a standard you don't practice yourself may be both hypocrisy and one sidedness.

You have to present better evidence that they support a violent cause...

The Palestinian cause is advanced by violence, and honestly if what they really wanted was independence, it's a cause that would much better be advanced by peaceful means. It's a violent cause.

...and you'll have to explain why an organisation that supports 'the right to use violent means' cannot call itself a peace organisation.

:oldroll:

It would also be nice if you could present a single historical example of an organisation that is dedicated to using non-violent means that never got the same sort of criticism you are throwing at the ISM. I don't think there has ever been one.

Does the American Civil Rights Movement as led by Dr Martin Luther King count?

Earthborn

8th March 2006, 01:33 AM

Demanding from others a standard you don't practice yourself may be both hypocrisy and one sidedness.Yes, but "demanding from others a standard" has nothing to do with the sentence I quoted.

The Palestinian cause is advanced by violence, and honestly if what they really wanted was independence, it's a cause that would much better be advanced by peaceful means. It's a violent cause.I think your wording is a bit muddled. How can a violent cause be better advanced by peaceful means?

I'm not convinced that independence would be easier to get through peaceful means. Maybe the United States would have been independent from Britain if they tried to become independent through peaceful means...

:oldroll:Do you support peace? Do you also support the existence of the military?

If you answer yes to both, as many people would do, then you support peace and 'the right to use violent means' because a military by definition uses violent means. Many peace organisations have large numbers of people in them who are not anti-military or anti-violence.

Does the American Civil Rights Movement as led by Dr Martin Luther King count?Martin Luther King was viciously accused of having ties with "communists", so the answer is obviously no. Replace "communists" with "terrorists" and you get pretty much the same sort of things you accuse ISM of.

a_unique_person

8th March 2006, 03:11 AM

This thread just typifies what happens in a place like LGF as opposed to the JREF. LGF just assumes that everyone is consumed by their world view, in which it is something that is 'taken for granted' that 'pancake' is a reference to Rachael Corrie, that a memorial at a pancake parlour is a stupid thing to do. There is a whole world of opinion and ideas outside of the closed minds that inhabit that place, that is completely indifferent to what they think.

The Fool

8th March 2006, 03:52 AM

you'll have to explain why an organisation that supports 'the right to use violent means' cannot call itself a peace organisation.

It might have something to do with the fact that "peace" and "violence" are contradictory.

Just a wild guess.

Incidentally, after he finishes explaining that, maybe he will have to explain why Fred "God hates fags" Phelps cannot call himself a gay rights advocate. After all, he merely supports violence againt homosexuals, which by your logic is perfectly consistent with being pro-gay, just like supporting violence against Israelies is perfectly consistent with being pro-peace.
sorry but that is just plain silly you are claiming that supporting violence against innocent people is the same as believing someone has the right to resist violence with violence. Tell me how, in your example...the gay bashers are in any way resistang a homosexual occupation....

No matter how much you try to be an apologist for occupying these people it is doing Israel no good at all. For the life of me I cannot think of a single sane reason that Israel would want to rule over people that are not thier citizens.

The only reasons I have heard are stuff about security concerns...like its a bad move to have your army defending your population instead of patrolling another..

That one and something about sending wrong messages....thats a good one.

Skeptic

8th March 2006, 04:02 AM

Do you support peace? Do you also support the existence of the military?

If you answer yes to both, as many people would do, then you support peace and 'the right to use violent means' because a military by definition uses violent means.

Yes, but Mycroft DOES NOT pretend to be a "peace organization". If I eat both vegetables and steaks, I hardly have the right to call myself a vegetarian merely because I don't eat ONLY meat.

Skeptic

8th March 2006, 04:10 AM

No matter how much you try to be an apologist for occupying these people it is doing Israel no good at all. For the life of me I cannot think of a single sane reason that Israel would want to rule over people that are not thier citizens.

For starters, because a Palestinian state would merely be a terrorist camp whose sole reason d'etre is to serve as a military base for Israel's destruction.

See the Hamas and PLO charters, the 1974 PLO acceptance of the "stage plan", Arafat's numerous speeches after the Oslo "peace" agreement, etc., etc., etc.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 05:17 AM

Let's call a spade a spade already. Is screaming anti-American invectives while burning an American flag peace activism?

http://kuranes.blogspot.com/corrie.jpg

Not in my books...in my books that is incitement to violence.

That said, Corrie and other ISM members had to know they were aiding and abetting terrorists. Why? Corrie and other ISM members spent their days trying to harass and provoke Israeli troops and interfere with Israel's anti-terrorist military operations. Corrie and other ISM members must have seen Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorists on the streets parading with their weapons. Corrie and other ISM members mingled and even lived among Gaza Arabs and therefore must have seen and heard about the 90 or so smuggling tunnels in Rafah which were used to smuggle illegal weapons and explosives for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The Israelis know about the tunnels, the Egyptians know about the tunnels, the Palestinians know about the tunnels, so I highly suspect ISM also knew about the tunnels which were used to smuggle illegal weapons and explosives for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

ISM tried to smuggle food into the Palestinian terrorists who stormed and took over the Church of the Nativity in 2002. Twenty eight ISM members were involved in the whole operation, 22 of whom were subsequently arrested by Israel for aiding and abetting.

That said, Corrie and other ISM members had to know Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were terrorizing civilians in Israel by randomly suicide bombing innocent civilians with malice aforethought. Therefore Rachel Corrie gave her life trying to protect groups whose declared aim is to annihilate another country.

8th March 2006, 05:17 AM

Has Hamas ever put forward a peace proposal of any sort?

Cleon

8th March 2006, 05:21 AM

Gee, Mycroft, so I was right: they do support suicide bombing ("armed struggle") as legitimate, and only added the "well, nonviolence might work too" clause afterwards.

That is a total, complete lie on your part. Not that I expected anything better.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 05:23 AM

Has Hamas ever put forward a peace proposal of any sort?Never. Hamas is sworn to Israel destruction, that is the core of their charter and ideology.

Hamas Covenant (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine.
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

..I think everyone gets the point.

8th March 2006, 05:28 AM

Never. Hamas is sworn to Israel destruction, that is the core of their charter and ideology.

..I think everyone gets the point.

So what is the discussion? Any organization that supports Hamas is, ipso facto, a terrorist abettor. How could ISF or any other organization lift a finger for these people, in whatever capacity, and not be considered terrorists themselves?

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 05:48 AM

So what is the discussion? Any organization that supports Hamas is, ipso facto, a terrorist abettor. How could ISF or any other organization lift a finger for these people, in whatever capacity, and not be considered terrorists themselves?That's the whole point. Here we have pages and pages of hemming and hawing about how Corrie and other ISM members are simple "peace activists" when infact they were aiding and abetting known and designated Palestinian terrorist groups who are well-known to terrorize and murder innocent Israeli civilians with malice aforethought.

Thursday, March 20, 2003 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113302_shield20.shtml) - SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

In the activists' eyes, the Israelis are brutal overlords, and the Palestinians beleaguered and innocent victims -- a world view that is simplistic and black and white, critics say, and has, at times, led them to become terrorist supporters.

According to movement volunteer coordinator Ed Mast, a Seattle playwright, and Susan Barclay, another volunteer and Seattle resident who recently returned from the West Bank after being deported, the activists there mostly engage in mundane activities such as staying in Palestinians' homes and walking with them to schools, markets or hospitals to make sure they are not harassed by Israeli army or police.

In fact, Barclay said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, she knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- terrorist groups that sponsor suicide bombings and exist, according to their charters, to demolish the Jewish state entirely.

Barclay acknowledged that in organizing a non-violent February march on an Israel-imposed gate that divided eastern and western Nablus, she worked with representatives from the two groups.(emphasis mine).

Now before someone blows a gasket:

August 21, 2002 Posted: 1:42 PM EDT (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/21/mideast/) - CNN

Israeli police Wednesday said they had broken up a terrorist cell that they believe was responsible for eight attacks, including a bombing at Hebrew University that killed nine people, five of them Americans.

Members of the group had confessed to carrying out eight attacks that killed 35 people, police said. They said they got their orders from Ramallah-based leaders of the radical Palestinian group Hamas, the sources said.

So ISM movement volunteer Susan Barclay said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, she knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in 2003 even AFTER they had murdered nine people, five of them Americans in the bombing the Hebrew University cafeteria on July 31, 2002.

ISM movement volunteer Susan Barclay aided and abetted a known and designated Palestinian terrorist group who even murdered Americans.

Peace activists my butt. :rolleyes:

8th March 2006, 05:54 AM

I suspect that there will now be some rationalization about her not really representing ISF and acting on her own and how one can deal with terrorists for "humanitarian" issues but not support/condone acts of violence.

Makes me think of 1984. What was it about holding two contridictory beliefs simultainiously and not seeing a conflict?

Skeptic

8th March 2006, 05:56 AM

So ISM movement volunteer Susan Barclay said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, she knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad AFTER they killed nine people, five of them Americans by bombing the Hebrew University cafeteria on July 31, 2002.

The ISM reminds me of the galactic warrior race in Douglas Adams' Hitchiker series who go out on spaceships from their planets singing songs about (I quote from memory) "beauty, love, peace, and the destruction of all other life forms." The ISM, too, is for freedom, equality, justice, and the destruction of the state of Israel.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 05:59 AM

I suspect that there will now be some rationalization about her not really representing ISF and acting on her own and how one can deal with terrorists for "humanitarian" issues but not support/condone acts of violence.Of course there will be a rationalization to explain why A) Rachel Corrie is pictured screaming anti-American invectives while burning a home-made American flag and B) why ISM movement volunteer Susan Barclay aided and abetted a known and designated Palestinian terrorist group - Hamas - in 2003 even after they murdered Americans in 2002.

There are always rationalizations...;)

8th March 2006, 06:02 AM

Mark

8th March 2006, 06:53 AM

This entire thread is so very odd.

Let me ask a question:

Is there any group in the entire world whose aims are opposed to capitalism, american interests, america itself whose methods are so reprehensible that one would consign them to the outer reaches with none of these absurd excuses? Or is it that when you reach a certain level of self loathing absolutely any enormity visited on the US, Isreal etc. etc. can be justified?

Let me ask one: does everyone who disgarees with us deserve a horrific death?

Jocko

8th March 2006, 06:59 AM

Let me ask one: does everyone who disgarees with us deserve a horrific death?

By twisting that rhetoric so violently, you have answered Ed's question. Your presumption of American guilt in everything going back to the extinction of the dinosaurs is hardly news, but it's nice of you to provide such a prompt example when asked.

Mark

8th March 2006, 07:05 AM

By twisting that rhetoric so violently, you have answered Ed's question. Your presumption of American guilt in everything going back to the extinction of the dinosaurs is hardly news, but it's nice of you to provide such a prompt example when asked.

That isn't what I said or implied, but, hey, if it makes you feel important to say something that off base, knock yourself out.

It's not like I take you seriously on anything.

8th March 2006, 07:56 AM

Let me ask one: does everyone who disgarees with us deserve a horrific death?

This is a very odd response to a fairly clear cut question on one's moral position. It is, pardon my saying, what I would expect of a politicon.

Manny

8th March 2006, 08:05 AM

Let me ask one: does everyone who disgarees with us deserve a horrific death?In the hopes that you'll actually answer Ed's question, I'll take a crack at this. Depends on what the disagreement is. The people who disagree with "us" that, to pick an example, 'the right to free speech is above the right not to be offended' do not deserve a horrific death. The people who disagree with "us" that 'flying passenger jets into office buildings is bad' do deserve a horrific death, if they then act on that belief.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 08:13 AM

Let me ask one: does everyone who disgarees with us deserve a horrific death?Rachel did not deserve to die. Hell, I even admire her for taking a stand and actually putting her money where her mouth is by flying all the way from Washington state to Gaza.

The issue is does ISM directly or indirectly support terrorism. If I read the ISM website correctly it states:
About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/)

"The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles."

Ok, I am totally cool with ISM resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles. What I am not cool with is why A) Rachel Corrie is pictured screaming anti-American invectives while burning a home-made American flag and B) why ISM movement volunteer Susan Barclay aided and abetted a known and designated Palestinian terrorist group - Hamas - in 2003 even after they murdered Americans via a terror attack on a university in 2002.

It seems to me that once you start burning American flags, providing support to terrorists who stormed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and aiding and abetting known and designated Palestinian terrorist groups who have murdered Americans you have stepped well clear of "using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".

Jocko

8th March 2006, 08:17 AM

That isn't what I said or implied, but, hey, if it makes you feel important to say something that off base, knock yourself out.

It's not like I take you seriously on anything.

Seems several people have trouble understaning what your point is, but I'm not one of them. I understand perfectly, and that's why you take me very seriously indeed. ;)

8th March 2006, 08:20 AM

This entire thread is so very odd.

Let me ask a question:

Is there any group in the entire world whose aims are opposed to capitalism, american interests, america itself whose methods are so reprehensible that one would consign them to the outer reaches with none of these absurd excuses? Or is it that when you reach a certain level of self loathing absolutely any enormity visited on the US, Isreal etc. etc. can be justified?

I am very curious as to the reasons behind the lack of a response to this. It appears that we have people who care about life and liberty and all that except for some people. This has the earmarks of moral bankruptcy.

Cleon

8th March 2006, 08:25 AM

I am very curious as to the reasons behind the lack of a response to this.

Just off the top of my head...Because it's a loaded, stupid, pointless question that was obviously meant to be rhetorical?

8th March 2006, 08:29 AM

Just off the top of my head...Because it's a loaded, stupid, pointless question that was obviously meant to be rhetorical?

Not at all. It defines a bright line for lunitics.

Cleon

8th March 2006, 08:38 AM

Not at all. It defines a bright line for lunitics.
Yeah...Of course it does. :rolleyes:

Tell me, does this sort of rhetoric work on anyone that doesn't already agree with you? All it tells me is that you're not worth taking seriously.

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 08:38 AM

I am very curious as to the reasons behind the lack of a response to this. It appears that we have people who care about life and liberty and all that except for some people. This has the earmarks of moral bankruptcy.

I think it's more likely that people tire of responding to positions which have been attributed to them without a hint of evidence that they hold them. I can think of examples of anti-American organizations I would condemn in virtually every country in the world, but what does that have to do with the ISM? You're confusing anti-Americanism with unrelated actions.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 08:40 AM

This has the earmarks of moral bankruptcy.The entire Palestinian question survives on moral bankrupcy. Why? No grievance can justify the deliberate slaughter of innocents and that is exactly what Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades do with malice aforethought, they deliberately slaughter innocent people without regard to the victims race, creed, nationality or religion.

Rarely do groups like ISM mention that the Palestinian terrorist groups want to destroy Israel. Or that their ideologies are based explicitly on wild antisemitic conspiracy theories,

Hamas Covenant 1988 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)

Article Thirty-Two:

The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

and that many institutions of Palestinian society relentlessly transmit these fundy ideologies to their children.

18:01 Mar 08, 2006 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=99839)

The Palestinian Authority's ruling Hamas terror group has launched a web site for children, preaching the moral desirability of being a suicide terrorist via cartoons and children's stories.

The Hamas-run Al-Fateh.net glorifies shahada, martyrdom, and presents the deaths of terrorists attacking Israelis as a time of celebration, according to a report by Palestinian Media Watch.

Nor does ISM mention that Palestinian terrorist groups regularly murder Palestinians for “collaborating” with Israel,

December 2003 (http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/pse-summary-eng) - Amnesty International

Hundreds of Palestinians remained in detention without charge or trial. They included alleged members of armed groups and people suspected of “collaborating” with Israeli intelligence services. Some alleged “collaborators” were killed by armed Palestinians. Palestinian members of armed groups killed some 200 Israelis, most of them civilians. Adequate investigations into such attacks were not carried out and none of those responsible was brought to justice.

...nor do they - ISM - demand that the Palestinian Authority fulfill their obligations under several internationally-brokered peace agreements to disarm and dismantle Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

However, groups like ISM do manage somehow to vocally object to “the draconian conditions of the continuing occupation under which so many Palestinians live.” It's moral bankrupcy of the first order.

8th March 2006, 08:46 AM

I think it's more likely that people tire of responding to positions which have been attributed to them without a hint of evidence that they hold them. I can think of examples of anti-American organizations I would condemn in virtually every country in the world, but what does that have to do with the ISM? You're confusing anti-Americanism with unrelated actions.

This has nothing to do with my question. I am at a loss to understand why it is so hard to answer.

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 08:51 AM

It has everything to do with your (complex) question. The answer is obviously yes, any of us would be able to reel off a list of anti-American organizations that we would not support. What does that have to do with the ISM? You have not established that they support terrorism, only that they support legitimate struggle on the part of Palestinians and oppose American foreign policy. It seems to me that your reasons for condemning them are absurd, and not the 'excuses' others have provided. Maybe you should ask a question that doesn't include implicit judgements if you really want an answer.

Manny

8th March 2006, 08:54 AM

I think it's more likely that people tire of responding to positions which have been attributed to them without a hint of evidence that they hold them. Except that nothing has been attributed to anybody. The uncontested facts about Hamas have been laid out; the uncontested fact that ISM works with Hamas has also been laid out. Many people have decided that, given the reality of the situation on the ground in the Palestinian Territories, the mere association is not sufficient to tar ISM. OK, that's a point of view. How far can that be taken? If there were a nominally non-violent group which dealt with the taliban and which opposed the US occupation of Afghanistan, but that group itself did indeed use only non-violent means to oppose that occupation, is that OK too? What about a group which espoused non-violence and an end to US troops in South Korea which dealt with North Korea's government?

8th March 2006, 08:55 AM

Cleon

8th March 2006, 09:02 AM

Except that nothing has been attributed to anybody.

Then you obviously have been reading a different thread.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 09:10 AM

What does that have to do with the ISM? You have not established that they support terrorism, only that they support legitimate struggle on the part of Palestinians and oppose American foreign policy.

Examples of support for Palestinian terrorism by ISM:

1) http://michaelparker.blogspot.com/rachel-corrie-flag.jpg

Burning an American flag infront of children is inciting violence and not teaching coexistence, tolerance or "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".

2) About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/) - "In April 2002, with help from Palestinians, international activists were able to outmaneuver the Israeli military during two of its biggest military operations, entering and providing support to those trapped inside the Presidential Compound in Ramallah and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem."

Entering and providing support to terrorists who A) were hiding in Arafat's Mukata compound and B) stormed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is supporting violence and not teaching coexistence, tolerance or "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".

3) SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER - Thursday, March 20, 2003 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113302_shield20.shtml) - "In fact, Barclay said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, she knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- terrorist groups that sponsor suicide bombings and exist, according to their charters, to demolish the Jewish state entirely."

Knowingly working with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad which: A) are designated foreign terrorist groups by the US, EU, Canada and Israel and B) Have taken responsibility for murdering five Americans a few months earlier as they ate in University cafeteria is supporting violence and not teaching coexistence, tolerance or "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".

So do I unskeptically believe the words I read off the ISM website? Or do I look at ISM actions on-the-ground and decide what's fact from fiction?

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 09:25 AM

Complex? What implicit judgements?
Here's the question you asked:

Is there any group in the entire world whose aims are opposed to capitalism, american interests, america itself whose methods are so reprehensible that one would consign them to the outer reaches with none of these absurd excuses? Or is it that when you reach a certain level of self loathing absolutely any enormity visited on the US, Isreal etc. etc. can be justified?
As you anyone can plainly see, it is impossible to answer this yes/no question without accepting that the 'excuses' offered in defense of ISM are absurd.

Nobody has offered excuses, absurd or otherwise, but they have called into question your assertion, so far unsupported, that ISM endorses terrorism in particular or violence in general.

Why not reel off a few and tell me why.
Shining Path, The Contras, Aryan Nations, various mafias...the reason is that they are using illegitimate means to oppose what are at least vaguely legitimate governments.

Since the objection here seems to have been reduced to the fact that ISM works with Hamas, I will say that I don't think it's a bad thing that they're doing so. To the extent that ISM is encouraging non-violent resistance rather than suicide bombing (and they seem to have had some success in communicating the effectiveness of this tactic), I think they're doing good work.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 09:37 AM

Since the objection here seems to have been reduced to the fact that ISM works with Hamas, Wrong. I just gave various examples by different ISM activists who A) burned an American flag infront of children, B) provided support to terrorists who were hiding in Arafat's Mukata compound, C) provided support to terrorists who had stormed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and D) knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas who had earlier blown up five Americans eating lunch at the Hebrew University.

I will say that I don't think it's a bad thing that they're doing so. To the extent that ISM is encouraging non-violent resistance rather than suicide bombing (and they seem to have had some success in communicating the effectiveness of this tactic), I think they're doing good work.When an "International Solidarity Movement" is documented burning American flags while providing support to terrorists who blew up five Americans and stormed the Church of the Nativity, then I would say they are doing a pretty crappy job encouraging non-violent resistance.

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 09:39 AM

Burning an American flag infront of children is inciting violence and not teaching coexistence, tolerance or "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".
I would like you to support the idea that burning American flags incites violence.

Entering and providing support to terrorists who A) were hiding in Arafat's Mukata compound and B) stormed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is supporting violence and not teaching coexistence, tolerance or "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".
The Palestinians who stormed the Church of the Nativity weren't terrorists.

Knowingly working with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad which: A) are designated foreign terrorist groups by the US, EU, Canada and Israel and B) Have taken responsibility for murdering five Americans a few months earlier as they ate in University cafeteria is supporting violence and not teaching coexistence, tolerance or "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".
If you are working with them in a way designed to discourage the use of violence, you are not supporting violence.

So do I unskeptically believe the words I read off the ISM website? Or do I look at ISM actions on-the-ground and decide what's fact from fiction?
You approach the problem with an assumption that ISM supports terrorism against Israel, which clouds your ability to think about it rationally.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 09:59 AM

I would like you to support the idea that burning American flags incites violence.Burning a flag is a violent act in itself. The symbolism of burning an American flag in the Middle East - infront of children! - needs no explanation.

The Palestinians who stormed the Church of the Nativity weren't terrorists.Really?

Church of the Nativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativity) - Wiki

In the spring of 2002, 200 Palestinians, including 50 armed militants, broke into the Church and occupied it for 39 days. They were seeking refuge from an Israeli Defense Force incursion into Bethlehem. Israeli army snipers killed seven armed militants and wounded more than 40 people during the siege. Following extensive negotiations, the Israeli army lifted the siege on condition that 13 of the Palestinian militants be deported to Cyprus and another 26 transferred to the Gaza Strip.

May 1, 2002 Posted: 11:52 PM EDT (0352 GMT) (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/01/mideast.church/) - CNN

BETHLEHEM, West Bank (CNN) -- A massive explosion rocked Manger Square and a fire broke out near the Church of the Nativity after a firefight between Israeli troops and Palestinians inside.

Who broke into the Church and occupied it for 39 days? Who shot from inside the Church of the Nativity at the IDF outside the Church of the Nativity? Monks? Priests? The Vatican SWAT team? ;)

If you are working with them in a way designed to discourage the use of violence, you are not supporting violence.If I give shelter and support to designated terrorist organizations then I am supporting violence. If I refuse to give shelter and support to designated terrorist organizations - as a matter of principal - but only shelter and support Palestinian non-combatants then I am not supporting violence.

You approach the problem with an assumption that ISM supports terrorism against Israel, which clouds your ability to think about it rationally.I am totally rational, when I get my meds ;) Consider me skeptical that ISM does not support terrorism due to the preponderance of the evidence I have documented so far in this thread.

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 10:17 AM

Burning a flag is a violent act in itself. The symbolism of burning an American flag in the Middle East - infront of children! - needs no explanation.
I think it rather does need explanation, since it seems to me that burning a flag is a symbolic act of defiance. This strikes me as equivocal.

Really?
It's interesting to me that you cite an article that does not use the word terrorist to support the claim that the people who stormed the church were terrorists. Certainly, some of them were militants (the majority were unarmed civilians). Certainly, some of the militants might have been terrorists (the majority of them, Israel conceded, were not). Given that the potential terrorists were a small minority of the people holed up in the church, I can't actually hold ISM's support (which, as far as I know, amounted to getting food and water in) against them.

If I give shelter and support to designated terrorist organizations then I am supporting violence. If I refuse to give shelter and support to designated terrorist organizations - as a matter of principal - but only shelter and support Palestinian non-combatants then I am not supporting violence.
This is the only interesting question, and I don't think it's so clear cut. I think it's possible to justify working with Hamas if you can encourage a more palatable form of resistance, particularly now that Hamas is not simply a terrorist group.

I am totally rational, when I get my meds ;) Consider me skeptical that ISM does not support terrorism due to the preponderance of the evidence I have documented so far in this thread.
Well, suffice it to say that I don't think your evidence is very convincing.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 10:49 AM

I think it rather does need explanation, since it seems to me that burning a flag is a symbolic act of defiance. This strikes me as equivocal.So we agree to disagree. I find burning an American symbol infront of Palestinian children in no way shape or form "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".

It's interesting to me that you cite an article that does not use the word terrorist to support the claim that the people who stormed the church were terrorists.The church was stormed by Palestinians with guns who were fleeing a firefight with the IDF. You can't wish that away mumblethrax. 26 known Palestinian terrorists were taken to Gaza, where they were supposed to face trial on terrorism, 124 non-combatants were set free and 13 senior Palestinian terrorists were deported to Europe.

13 Palestinian terrorists from the Church of the Nativity to be deported - 10-May-2002 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/5/13%20Palestinian%20terrorists%20from%20the%20Churc h%20of%20the%20N)

Ibrahim Moussa Salem Abayat (alias Abu Jalif) - head of the Fatah Tanzim terrorist organization in the city.
Ibrahim Mohammed Salem Abayat - Abayat provided accommodation to both Salamah and Mouhi Adin Sharif - a senior bomb 'engineer' - in his Bethlehem apartment.
Jihad Youssef Khalil Jaara - Jaara carried out a number of attacks, and was responsible for a number of terrorist killings.
Abdullah Daoud Mohammed Abdullah Khader - the Head of the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence apparatus in Bethlehem, recruited operatives, and encouraged them to carry out attacks.
Mohammed Said Atallah Salem - a senior operative in the Fatah Tanzim terrorist infrastructure of Ahmad Magharbi, which is responsible for lethal bombing attacks in the areas of Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
Mohammed Fouzi Mohammed Muhaneh
Rami Kamel Eid Kamel
Aziz Khalil Mohammed el Abayat
Mamdoukh Akhsan Mohammed Wardiyan
Khaled Mohammed Abd el Hamid Abu Najimeh
Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed al Hemamreh
Khalil Mohammed Abdullah Nawareh
Annan Mohammed Hamis Tanjeh

These 13 terrorists were were on a list of terrorists that Arafat and the Palestinian Authority were to arrest, which they never did.

May 10, 2002 Posted: 6:30 PM EDT (2230 GMT) (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/10/mideast.nativity/index.html)

A monk who also was inside during the standoff said he was not held against his will and was not mistreated. Kyprianos said he and the other clergy were mostly afraid someone might get hurt because of the gunmen's "clumsiness, silliness."

The priest said the Palestinians had split up into factions. "There was the army group, the police group and different other groups. And each group had their own section in the basilica," he remembered.

After the Palestinians' departure an Israel Defense Forces spokesman said 40 "explosive devices" were found in the church compound. The spokesman said the IDF was invited into the compound by church officials who asked the military to check the facility.Militants who booby trap churches, especially the Church of the Nativity are terrorists mumblethrax.

Well, suffice it to say that I don't think your evidence is very convincing.At least I have been providing evidence for my conclusions. ;)

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 11:15 AM

So we agree to disagree. I find burning an American symbol infront of Palestinian children in no way shape or form "resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".
I'd prefer it if we could agree that describing the burning of an American flag as an act of violence, particular in the sense that you were using the word just prior to this claim, is crazy. I've often observed that people who say that they'll have to agree to disagree are backing out of an argument they know they can't win. See Bill O'Reilly for copious examples of this practice.

But feel free to agree to disagree.

The church was stormed by Palestinians with guns who were fleeing a firefight with the IDF. You can't wish that away mumblethrax. 26 known Palestinian terrorists were taken to Gaza, where they were supposed to face trial on terrorism, 124 non-combatants were set free and 13 senior Palestinian terrorists were deported to Europe.
I didn't deny that they had guns. I called into question that they were terrorists. You're all over the place with your claims, which makes it very hard for me to talk to you about this.

The 26 released into Gaza were not known terrorists, they were wanted for relatively minor offenses. The 13 who were deported were on Israel's most-wanted list.

Militants who booby trap churches, especially the Church of the Nativity are terrorists mumblethrax.
That's an astonishing leap.

At least I have been providing evidence for my conclusions. ;)
You're providing evidence for the claim that you and others have made, which is as things should be. Not very good evidence, but I'm glad you're at least trying.

rikzilla

8th March 2006, 11:18 AM

Sorry Mycroft, although I'm regularly a big fan of black humor I can't bring myself to laugh about Rachel Corrie. She was simply too young and naive to be anything more than a victim. A victim of her loony-lib parents; a tool to be used by the ISM and PA; and finally...yes...a victim of the IDF.

Her parents filled her head with baloney; the ISM and PA placed her in harm's way for their own reasons; and the IDF 'dozer driver was negligent to not clear the area prior to doing his job. (note that I would say criminally negligent...but I imagine that if he had left his cab to clear the area properly he'd have likely been shot.)

All in all the whole thing was a preventable tragedy. Who knows? Rachel might have matured someday and started thinking for herself? I feel very, very sorry for her loss merely because my own daughter is nearly Rachel's age and I feel very lucky to have raised her to be a skeptic. Perhaps if the Corrie's had embraced critical thinking during young Rachel's formative years she'd still be alive now? I'd be willing to put money on that.

Sadly more Rachel's are being raised around the world in every imaginable society. (especially in the ME) I truly believe that skepticism and critical thinking in education are the only things that can prevent these on-going tragedies. We've really, really got to grow our little movement. It's too important. If we as a race continue to allow the idiots amongst us to lead; we've not got too much of a future on this planet.

-z

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 01:12 PM

Yes, but "demanding from others a standard" has nothing to do with the sentence I quoted.

I disagree.

I think your wording is a bit muddled. How can a violent cause be better advanced by peaceful means?

By changing methods, it would cease being a violent cause.

I'm not convinced that independence would be easier to get through peaceful means. Maybe the United States would have been independent from Britain if they tried to become independent through peaceful means...

I didn’t say all independence movements would be better advanced through peaceful means, just this one.

Do you support peace? Do you also support the existence of the military?

If I support a military it implies that I understand that peace may not be the best answer to every situation. If I support a military (or paramilitary organization, or a cause advanced by a terrorist organization) at a time when they are actively involved in violence, then I cannot legitimately call myself a peace activist.

Martin Luther King was viciously accused of having ties with "communists", so the answer is obviously no. Replace "communists" with "terrorists" and you get pretty much the same sort of things you accuse ISM of.

You are moving the goalposts. We were talking about peace activists who are accused of supporting violence, not peace activists who are criticized by their ideological opponents.

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 01:19 PM

That is a total, complete lie on your part. Not that I expected anything better.

Any comment from you on the different wording from the statement of principles from the internet archive?

No?

Earthborn

8th March 2006, 02:14 PM

We were talking about peace activists who are accused of supporting violence, not peace activists who are criticized by their ideological opponents.No, we are talking about peace activists who are accused of supporting violence by their ideological opponents.

Manny

8th March 2006, 02:25 PM

Why would anyone support violence by their ideological opponents?

Jocko

8th March 2006, 02:38 PM

Apologies if someone has already noted this, but...

Isn't a "pancake breakfast" a startlingly tacky choice to honor someone flattened by a bulldozer?

mumblethrax

8th March 2006, 02:54 PM

It's a joke (posting to indymedia is about as difficult as posting to wikipedia).

How can you tell it's a joke? No self-respecting leftist would be caught dead in a Denny's.

Earthborn

8th March 2006, 03:43 PM

Why would anyone support violence by their ideological opponents?Okay, let me rephrase: Their political opponents accuse them of supporting violence.

Manny

8th March 2006, 03:44 PM

Okay, let me rephrase: Their political opponents accuse them of supporting violence.But they do support violence -- their website says so. There's no dispute about that. So I don't understand what you're saying here.

a_unique_person

8th March 2006, 05:39 PM

Apologies if someone has already noted this, but...

Isn't a "pancake breakfast" a startlingly tacky choice to honor someone flattened by a bulldozer?

It took you how many posts to work out that it's the whole point of the thread?

Cleon

8th March 2006, 05:40 PM

But they do support violence -- their website says so.

No, it doesn't. We've been through this.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 06:08 PM

But they do support violence -- their website says so. There's no dispute about that. So I don't understand what you're saying here.No, it doesn't. We've been through this.

About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/)

In April 2002, with help from Palestinians, international activists were able to outmaneuver the Israeli military during two of its biggest military operations, entering and providing support to those trapped inside the Presidential Compound in Ramallah and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

Who was "trapped inside the Presidential Compound in Ramallah" in 2002? Wanted terrorists is who. Who was trapped inside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002? 39 terrorists, including the 13 on Israel's most-wanted list.

Who entered and provided support to the wanted terrorists in both the the Presidential Compound in Ramallah and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002? ISM did per their About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/) page on their website.

About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/)

In April 2002, with help from Palestinians, international activists were able to outmaneuver the Israeli military during two of its biggest military operations, entering and providing support to those trapped inside the Presidential Compound in Ramallah and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

If ISM did not admit to providing support to Palestinian combatants then one could say with a straight face on a skeptics message board that ISM did not support terrorism.

[edited to add]

The one thing missing from the ISM website is they do not distiguish between Palestinian combatants and Palestinian non-combatants. In fact if one visits the ISM website (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/) there is no mention of Palestinian terrorism by Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. If one types in "terrorism" into their search function 0 relevant returns appear. Since Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are designated terrorist organizations recognized as such by the EU, US, Canada and Israel the omission of the very names of these groups on the ISM website is a huge red flag that ISM does not play on a level field.

Additionally:Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006102)

By Mr. Adler is a Ph.D. candidate in classical studies, and Mr. Langer is a Ph.D. candidate in history, at Duke University.

A new ritual on the American academic scene is the annual conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement. Over the past several years, the convocation has been held at Ohio State, the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley. In October, it was the turn of Duke University.

Altogether, some 90,000 signatures were gathered for an online petition denouncing the university's move.

The ISM specializes in sending European and American students to the West Bank and Gaza to work on behalf of the radical Palestinian cause. The group's co-founder George Rishmawi has candidly explained its purpose in recruiting these foreign students: "When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore. But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice." That was certainly the case with the ISM activist Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old student at Evergreen State College who was accidentally killed in 2003 while attempting to block Israeli bulldozers from uncovering terrorist smuggling tunnels in Gaza.

Moreover, and whether or not a university has a duty to license the unfettered expression on its campus of every venomous notion under the sun, the real issue at Duke was always the refusal of the licensing authorities to call such notions by their proper names--in this case, bald anti-Semitism and incitement to the murder of innocents.

Manny

8th March 2006, 07:25 PM

No, it doesn't. We've been through this.Yes, it does. You and Z-N are arguing about whether they support terrorism. You are free to argue about whether the definition of "legitimate armed struggle" (or just "armed struggle") includes blowing up busloads of children all the livelong day -- have fun. You are not free to redefine "armed struggle", "legitimate" or otherwise, to mean non-violence.

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 07:59 PM

No, we are talking about peace activists who are accused of supporting violence by their ideological opponents.

"Communism" is not incompatible with civil rights or peace activism.

Supporting violent actions of violent movements is incompatible with peace activism.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, everyone who was ever a public figure and did anything noteworthy has a critic who will say bad things about them. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly not different in this way, but that is not in any way the same as being able to point to a direct contradiction between ones stated principles and their actions. To claim that it is would be moving the goalposts.

One more time in a different way, just in case you still don’t understand:

First, let me remind you what your original question was:

”It would also be nice if you could present a single historical example of an organisation that is dedicated to using non-violent means that never got the same sort of criticism you are throwing at the ISM. I don't think there has ever been one.”

The sort of criticism I am throwing at the ISM is that they are not “peace activists” as they claim to be because they support violence. This is demonstratable in both their words and actions.

By contrast, the criticism you name that was leveled against Dr. King was essentially a false smear designed to discredit him. To claim that this counts as “the same sort of criticism” I was throwing at the ISM would essentially mean that any criticism leveled against Dr. King would prove your point.

RandFan

8th March 2006, 08:05 PM

http://kuranes.blogspot.com/corrie.jpg

All we are saying is to burn Israel's flag.
All we are saying is to incite division and enmity.
All we are saying is give Palestinians the right to violent means.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and kill his friend
If you do it in the name of heaven
You can justify it in the end

Apologies to John Lennon and Coven

It's so nice to see young people spreading peace. It brings a tear to my eye.

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 08:20 PM

Mark

8th March 2006, 08:26 PM

I understand how you feel Rik, but the humor here is not in Rachael Corries death, but in the unfortunate choice of memorials for her years later. My opinion is her death was a senseless tragedy. I certainly disagree with her politics, but she didn't deserve what happened to her.

196 posts later and you end up agreeing with me.

Life is weird.

zenith-nadir

8th March 2006, 08:26 PM

It's more like this Randfan.

About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/)

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles.

Resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles involves burning American flags infront of Palestinian children. (link (http://kuranes.blogspot.com/corrie.jpg))

Resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles is knowingly cooperating with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. (link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113302_shield20.shtml))

Resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles means attending the annual conference of the PSM & ISM where one can enjoy a reading of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel poetry or attend workshops on Israel's "racist ambitions" and how George W. Bush and John Kerry are on "auction to the Jewish lobby." ( link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006102) )

In fact resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles means supporting and strengthening the Palestinian resistance no matter if they happen to be combatants or designated terrorist organizations.

Earthborn

8th March 2006, 09:14 PM

But they do support violence -- their website says so.Okay, I guess I need to clarify more. Note that I took over the wording that Mycroft used when he said: "We were talking about peace activists who are accused of supporting violence."

It doesn't make much sense to accuse someone of something they readily admit such as "supporting the right to use violent means in legitimate armed struggle" (or some such vague nonsense that could mean just about anything). So I assumed that Mycroft meant "supporting violence by terrorists/suicide bombers."

So as far as I am concerned, we are talking about the ISM who are accused by their political opponents of supporting terrorism/suicicide bombing, something which their website specifically contradicts.

Mycroft could mean something else with "supporting violence", and I agree that for some possible interpretations of the words "support" and "violence" it can indeed be argued that they admit to "supporting violence".

"Communism" is not incompatible with civil rights or peace activism.Some people will disagree.

Supporting violent actions of violent movements is incompatible with peace activism.True, but you haven't shown any convincing evidence that the ISM does that. All anyone has ever shown up until now is that they disrupt the things the IDF considers "legitimate anti-terror measures". But that's the whole point of non-violent actions, isn't it; disrupting the things your political opponents consider legitimate when you do not. Non-violent actions do not necessarily mean making sure you don't walk in the way of the people you protest against.

Yes, everyone who was ever a public figure and did anything noteworthy has a critic who will say bad things about them.This time Mycroft (and a few others) happens to be that critic.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly not different in this way, but that is not in any way the same as being able to point to a direct contradiction between ones stated principles and their actions. To claim that it is would be moving the goalposts.I don't claim it is, so I am not moving the goalposts. I claim that just because you can find (or: are yourself) someone who says that there is a 'direct contradiction between ones stated principles and their actions' does not mean there a 'direct contradiction between ones stated principles and their actions'.

By contrast, the criticism you name that was leveled against Dr. King was essentially a false smear designed to discredit him.Is it? I can probably provide more evidence that he was a communist sympathiser than has been presented to prove that the ISM are terrorist sympathisers. So if it is still "a false smear", what does that tell you about the so called evidence against the ISM? Could it possibly be that that's also "false smear" ?

To claim that this counts as “the same sort of criticism” I was throwing at the ISM would essentially mean that any criticism leveled against Dr. King would prove your point.That's right. Any criticism against Dr. King proves my point: all non-violent activists are accused of all sorts of horrible things. Their critics always come up with tons of lowgrade evidence to prove their point. Their critics always try to interpret their words in the most negative way possible even if it easy to find a quote that contradicts that interpretation. If you cherry pick and take out of context enough, you can make everyone seem like a monster. Today you are such a critic. Tommorrow maybe I am, but I doubt it.

All we are saying is to burn Israel's flag.That's not an Israeli flag. I challenge you to prove that she ever burned an Israeli flag.

RandFan

8th March 2006, 09:34 PM

That's not an Israeli flag. I challenge you to prove that she ever burned an Israeli flag. Oh, well, excuse me. It's an American flag. How nice and peaceful.

I appologize. Let me correct the post.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3c/RachelBurnsFlag.jpeg/288px-RachelBurnsFlag.jpeg

All we are saying is to burn AMERICA'S flag.
All we are saying is to incite division and enmity.
All we are saying is give Palestinians the right to violent means.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and kill his friend
If you do it in the name of heaven
You can justify it in the end

You are so right. Much better and it is every so much more peaceful when a peace activist burns an American flag.

Thanks for the correction.

a_unique_person

8th March 2006, 09:39 PM

It's more like this Randfan.

Resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles involves burning American flags infront of Palestinian children. (link (http://kuranes.blogspot.com/corrie.jpg))

Resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles is knowingly cooperating with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. (link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113302_shield20.shtml))

Resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles means attending the annual conference of the PSM & ISM where one can enjoy a reading of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel poetry or attend workshops on Israel's "racist ambitions" and how George W. Bush and John Kerry are on "auction to the Jewish lobby." ( link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006102) )

In fact resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles means supporting and strengthening the Palestinian resistance no matter if they happen to be combatants or designated terrorist organizations.

From your link

The bulldozer was there as part of an effort to prevent terror-related activities," said Amir Segev-Sayag, a media officer for the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco. In this case, the bulldozer was attempting to clear away shrubbery to expose these tunnels, he said, and not trying to raze a home.

I don't know if I believe that.

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 09:40 PM

196 posts later and you end up agreeing with me.

Life is weird.

That far I agreed with you all along. However, I still think the pancake breakfast is funny.

Mycroft

8th March 2006, 09:59 PM

Okay, I guess I need to clarify more. Note that I took over the wording that Mycroft used when he said: "We were talking about peace activists who are accused of supporting violence."

It doesn't make much sense to accuse someone of something they readily admit such as "supporting the right to use violent means in legitimate armed struggle" (or some such vague nonsense that could mean just about anything). So I assumed that Mycroft meant "supporting violence by terrorists/suicide bombers."

I disagree. That they support violence on their website may not be common knowledge. Also, as you’ve seen here, even though it is there in black/white, you have people like Cleon who still argue it.

However, if supporting violence by terrorists/suicide bombers is your standard, then you should go back and re-read some of Zenith-Nadirs posts. He documents them carrying supplies to terrorists.

So as far as I am concerned, we are talking about the ISM who are accused by their political opponents of supporting terrorism/suicicide bombing, something which their website specifically contradicts.

They have added statements condemning suicide-bombing, that is true. However I doubt the sincerity.

This time Mycroft (and a few others) happens to be that critic.

So?

The issue shouldn’t be that the ISM receives criticism, the issue should be the validity of the criticism it receives.

I don't claim it is, so I am not moving the goalposts. I claim that just because you can find (or: are yourself) someone who says that there is a 'direct contradiction between ones stated principles and their actions' does not mean there a 'direct contradiction between ones stated principles and their actions'.

Then why are you wasting time with meaningless comparisons? If you doubt my assertions, then address them.

Is it? I can probably provide more evidence that he was a communist sympathiser than has been presented to prove that the ISM are terrorist sympathisers. So if it is still "a false smear", what does that tell you about the so called evidence against the ISM? Could it possibly be that that's also "false smear" ?

Your speculation tells me exactly nothing. Speculating that something could be true is not evidence that it is true. This is a skeptics board.

That's right. Any criticism against Dr. King proves my point: all non-violent activists are accused of all sorts of horrible things…

Then your point becomes meaningless. All public figures have critics, it’s a fact of being a public figure. The issue should be how valid the criticism is.

That's not an Israeli flag. I challenge you to prove that she ever burned an Israeli flag.

In her defense, I read that she burned the US flag after having refused to burn the Israeli flag. I’m not sure what the significance of that is, but it’s there if someone finds significance in it.

Cleon

9th March 2006, 04:21 AM

Yes, it does.

Repitition of a lie does not make it true, you know.

zenith-nadir

9th March 2006, 04:31 AM

However, if supporting violence by terrorists/suicide bombers is your standard, then you should go back and re-read some of Zenith-Nadirs posts. He documents them carrying supplies to terrorists.This is how the JREF game is played. I provided documentary and photgraphic evidence that ISM members A) burn flags, B) give support to designated terror groups and C) hold hardcore anti-semetic annual conferences - the lastest one at Duke University (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006102) - and the other side of the debate provides nothing but conjecture. I provided links with dates and names.

That is how the game is played on JREF which is highly ironic because one would think that on a s-k-e-p-t-i-c-s message board evidence would speak louder than conjecture.

In her defense, I read that she burned the US flag after having refused to burn the Israeli flag. I’m not sure what the significance of that is, but it’s there if someone finds significance in it.I would never burn anyones flag. Never. I especially would not make an American flag and burn it as an American infront of Palestinian CHILDREN. That symbolism is crystal clear - see: the cartoon jihad and Danish/Norwegian/US/Israeli flags. The 1001 ways that Rachel Corrie burning an American flag has been rationalized as being "not much" is really disturbing.

Burning your own countries' flag "infront of children" is as poor of an example of peace activism as I can think of.

9th March 2006, 04:52 AM

Good morning. I hope you are all well. I see some of us are off to an early start.

Jocko

9th March 2006, 07:54 AM

It took you how many posts to work out that it's the whole point of the thread?

Actually, I figured out right off the bat that there IS no point to this thread, which puts me considerably ahead of you. Again.

RandFan

9th March 2006, 08:22 AM

Burning your own countries' flag "infront of children" is as poor of an example of peace activism as I can think of. Burning symbols like flags and effigies of presidents is a valid form of protest and I have no problem with it however I think it a poor form of protest. But let's be honest. Burning flags isn't peace activism. To be credible a peace activist needs to stand for peace and tolerance on all sides. Otherwise you are just a partisan who can't bother to get your hands dirty.

When I see Rachel Corrie I see hatred and intolerance. Perhaps her hatred and intolerance are well founded. But what many of those who fan the flames of hatred don't get is that in the end the Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to live together. This is the salient point that Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King understood that made them credible peace activists. African-Americans certainly had reason to hate whites and the people of India had reason to hate the British. Yet these peace activists called for understanding. They called for peace. They wanted a relationship with those who some might argue they had every right to hate and despise.

Was Corrie just a pawn of others? Was she otherwise engaged in what she believed was a worthy cause? Perhaps but I for one think she has no credibility as a peace activist.

Manny

9th March 2006, 08:28 AM

Repitition of a lie does not make it true, you know.And I think we can all be thankful for that. Is there some definition of "legitimate armed struggle" not involving violence of which I am unaware? Maybe they're just recognizing the right of the Israelis and Palestinians to get their biggest guys together and have a massive arm-wrestling tournament to settle things? Or maybe they envision the Palestinians just walking around with guns but not firing them? Is "legitimate" a synonym for "un"? Tell us, Cleon, as you and ISM attempt to define the term to exclude substantially all of the operations in which Hamas has engaged, how the term also excludes violence generally.

Cleon

9th March 2006, 08:35 AM

And I think we can all be thankful for that. Is there some definition of "legitimate armed struggle" not involving violence of which I am unaware? Maybe they're just recognizing the right of the Israelis and Palestinians to get their biggest guys together and have a massive arm-wrestling tournament to settle things? Or maybe they envision the Palestinians just walking around with guns but not firing them? Is "legitimate" a synonym for "un"? Tell us, Cleon, as you and ISM attempt to define the term to exclude substantially all of the operations in which Hamas has engaged, how the term also excludes violence generally.

Well, that's a nice bit of spin. Unfortunately, it still doesn't wash.

The ISM says that they support the right to legitimate armed struggle.

Which is not the same thing as saying they support violence.

It's the same thing as saying that pro-abortion-rights does not mean pro-abortion.

Get it?

9th March 2006, 08:37 AM

And I think we can all be thankful for that. Is there some definition of "legitimate armed struggle" not involving violence of which I am unaware? Maybe they're just recognizing the right of the Israelis and Palestinians to get their biggest guys together and have a massive arm-wrestling tournament to settle things? Or maybe they envision the Palestinians just walking around with guns but not firing them? Is "legitimate" a synonym for "un"? Tell us, Cleon, as you and ISM attempt to define the term to exclude substantially all of the operations in which Hamas has engaged, how the term also excludes violence generally.

Near as I can tell, the Quakers are non-violent without the crap hypocracy of others.

http://www.quaker.org/

Jocko

9th March 2006, 08:56 AM

Well, that's a nice bit of spin. Unfortunately, it still doesn't wash.

The ISM says that they support the right to legitimate armed struggle.

Which is not the same thing as saying they support violence.

It's the same thing as saying that pro-abortion-rights does not mean pro-abortion.

Get it?

Suppose someone says they support the right to torture terror suspects, but not the torture itself. Does that wash?

a_unique_person

9th March 2006, 03:11 PM

Suppose someone says they support the right to torture terror suspects, but not the torture itself. Does that wash?

Cross that bridge when you get to it, I would say.

joobie

9th March 2006, 04:57 PM

Burning symbols like flags and effigies of presidents is a valid form of protest and I have no problem with it however I think it a poor form of protest.

agreed.

But let's be honest. Burning flags isn't peace activism.

because...?

To be credible a peace activist needs to stand for peace and tolerance on all sides...

and burning a flag is incongruent with that because...

a_unique_person

9th March 2006, 05:17 PM

Try Robert Manne, for example. He is Jewish, a supporter of Israel. But he views the occupation as something that was always going to cause trouble.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/robert-manne/when-jewish-loyalty-meets-the-brutality-of-israel/2004/12/05/1102182154280.html

I argued at this time that if Israel remained in permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza it would eventually be forced to decide whether or not to grant these Palestinians basic political rights. Enfranchising the Palestinians would, on demographic grounds, destroy the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. It would, therefore, not occur.
The logic of permanent occupation was permanent oppression. This would lead to an Algerian-style resistance movement and to the state of Israel coming to be seen as a neo-colonial regime.
These predictions have all turned out to be true. They required no expertise or perspicacity. Yet among the supporters of Israel they were angrily denied.
Ten years after Israel succumbed to the temptation of permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, a Palestinian uprising began. If anything, I was surprised by how long it took to come.

His phrasing is interesting, he does not support the uprising, but he knew very well it was going to happen, and he does not condemn them for it.

The basic, inherent instability of the situation is clear to him.

The logic of permanent occupation was permanent oppression.

The basic deceptions of Likud and other leaders were not at first apparent to him.

In the mid-1970s I went to Israel on an academic tour. Our group was assured that the "administered territories" were merely being held temporarily, as useful bargaining chips, in future peace talks with Israel's hostile neighbours. I dutifully believed what we were told.

Now they are. Robert Manne is not a nutcase, self hating Jew. He is moderately left, a supporter of Israel. But he can see the simple truth of the occupation for what it is. In a very short article, he lays it all out. He understands that the occupation has brought upon Israel what it was always going to bring. The worry for Israel is that the situation of an occupation, in which law, order, society, break down, is inherently unstable. Israel should not be surprised at whatever turns up. You only have to look at the crumbling Soviet Empire. Some states survived quite well, considering, others turned completely disfunctional. To complain that the Palestinians don't follow the rules of being occupied is bizarre, there are no rules.

So, the point is, does Robert Manne support the resistance?

RandFan

9th March 2006, 05:20 PM

RandFan: But let's be honest. Burning flags isn't peace activism.
joobie: because...?Because it is offensive, divisive and provocative.

RandFan: To be credible a peace activist needs to stand for peace and tolerance on all sides...
joobie: and burning a flag is incongruent with that because...(see above) What about burning a flag, an act that is very offensive, do you think is peaceful?

Honestly:

Will I inspire peace from the Palestinians if I burn their flag?
Will I inspire peace from Muslims if I burn an effigy of Mohammad?

Are you really asking these questions? You really don't know? Muslims are burning buildings because some people drew cartoons of Mohammad. Why do you think burning someone's flag will inspire peace.

Please, I'm dying to know?

a_unique_person

9th March 2006, 05:36 PM

It's a peaceful protest. The cartoons were peaceful, but offensive. If you want to say that she was offensive to Americans, then that is another issue.

RandFan

9th March 2006, 07:46 PM

It's a peaceful protest. The cartoons were peaceful, but offensive. If you want to say that she was offensive to Americans, then that is another issue.Do the cartoonists claim to be peace activists.

The point that you are not getting is that there are ways to effect change. Some of them are potentially provacative. Being provacative is counter productive to the goals of a peace activist.

Activist #1: "Hey dude, let's kill this guy."
Activist #2: "Cool but only if we do it peacefully."

Cleon

9th March 2006, 07:56 PM

Do the cartoonists claim to be peace activists.

The point that you are not getting is that there are ways to effect change. Some of them are potentially provacative. Being provacative is counter productive to the goals of a peace activist.

Effecting change is being provocative.

Activist #1: "Hey dude, let's kill this guy."
Activist #2: "Cool but only if we do it peacefully."

This isn't even remotely based on reality. It's not particularly funny, either...

RandFan

9th March 2006, 08:38 PM

Effecting change is being provocative. Sure but it doesn't inspire peace. If you spit on someone or flip them off you will provoke them but will you move them to acceptance or tolerance?

This isn't even remotely based on reality. It's not particularly funny, either...It's an extreme to prove a point. The fact that something is done peacefully doesn't make the act peaceful. Burning an American flag is NOT peaceful. It breads contempt and it is counter to tolerance.

Burning the American flag isn't funny either. :mad:

I support the right of anyone to burn an American flag. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend that it isn't rude and offensive.

a_unique_person

9th March 2006, 09:16 PM

Found this.

http://www.rachelcorrie.org/ism.htm

- A picture has been circulated that shows Rachel burning a drawing of the American flag. Trying to use this picture to somehow indicate that Rachel deserved to be run over by a bulldozer is an appalling act of demonization that infers that forms of protest which include flag burning are capital offences. In the words of Rachel's parents: "The act, while we may disagree with it, must be put into context. Rachel was partaking in a demonstration in Gaza opposing the war on Iraq. She was working with children who drew two pictures, one of the American flag, and one of the Israeli flag, for burning. Rachel said that she could not bring herself to burn the picture of the Israeli flag with the Star of David on it, but under such circumstances, in protest over a drive towards war and her government's foreign policy that was responsible for much of the devastation that she was witness to in Gaza, she felt it OK to burn the picture of her own flag. We have seen photographs of memorials held in Gaza after Rachel's death in which Palestinian children and adults honor our daughter by carrying a mock coffin draped with the American flag. We have been told that our flag has never been treated so respectfully in Gaza in recent years. We believe Rachel brought a different face of the United States to the Palestinian people, a face of compassion. It is this image of Rachel with the American flag that we hope will be remembered most."

a_unique_person

9th March 2006, 09:29 PM

In fact, it's worth reading the whole page http://www.rachelcorrie.org/ism.htm.

RandFan

9th March 2006, 10:39 PM

She was working with children who drew two pictures, one of the American flag, and one of the Israeli flag, for burning. Rachel said that she could not bring herself to burn the picture of the Israeli flag with the Star of David on it, but under such circumstances, in protest over a drive towards war and her government's foreign policy that was responsible for much of the devastation that she was witness to in Gaza, she felt it OK to burn the picture of her own flag. Blah blah blah.

Burning an American flag is highly offensive. It is spiting on those who cherish it. I would defend anyone's right to do it but I don't have to pretend that it is some nicety. It's not. And it certainly isn't peaceful.

Yeah, she refused to burn an Israeli flag as if that is somehow significant. The American flag well hell. Let's burn that.

http://inhonor.net/pictures/Rachel%20Corrie%20burning%20us%20flag.jpg

Her death was tragic. No question about it. I don't think she deserved her fate and if her death was intentional I hope the soldier rots in jail. But don't tell me this is the face of peace. It's ugly, it's divisive, it's intolerant.

If I did this with a Palestinian flag what do you think would be the response by the Palestinians? Anyone? Could I go over to Palestine, walk into a group and burn a Palestinian flag?

Mark

9th March 2006, 10:56 PM

Burning the American flag isn't funny either. :mad:

I support the right of anyone to burn an American flag. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend that it isn't rude and offensive.

No, you don't. Just be grateful that you live in a country where people can do it.

RandFan

9th March 2006, 10:58 PM

No, you don't. Just be grateful that you live in a country where people can do it.Damn straight!

Mark

9th March 2006, 11:04 PM

Damn straight!

Admit it...you love it when we agree! ;)

RandFan

9th March 2006, 11:07 PM

Admit it...you love it when we agree! ;):) Absolutely.

Skeptic

10th March 2006, 01:59 AM

She was working with children who drew two pictures, one of the American flag, and one of the Israeli flag, for burning.

Ah yes, the ISM's definition of a "peace activist": after Palestinian children draw American and Israeli flags for the expressed purpose of burning them, the "peace activist" only burned ONE of the flags in a face contorted with rage.

Note also the active sense: she was working with children who just happened to draw American and israeli flags for her to burn. A completely spontaneous event, not at all related to what these children are taught, of course. Shows quite a bit about the "peaceful educational activities" Corrie was involved with, doesn't it?

Once more, the ISM's "explanation" of how "peaceful" Ms. Corrie was makes her, if anything, look worse than she already does.

P.S.

In related news, the KKK had declared it is becoming a peace-activist organization.

It is true that there is a picture of their activist burning a effigy of a black man with a face contorted with hate and surrounded with cheering children, but they forget to to add that it was the children that drew and effigy of both a black and a jew in order to burn, completely spontaneously of course, and that the KKK man refused to burn the jewish effigy.

Now, that's what I call being peaceful.

a_unique_person

10th March 2006, 02:03 AM

Read Robert Manne, Skeptic. He can see what is happening, and why? He wonders why so many Israelis take your attitude.

zenith-nadir

10th March 2006, 03:05 AM

What a laugh. Seriously. JREFers are actually trying to rehabilitate the image of Rachel Corrie burning an American flag in front of children!

Did everyone just get alzheimer's and forget about the flag burning spree during the cartoon jihad recently? Come on, we are not idiots here, we all know what symbolism burning a flag represents in the Middle East. It means "down with America" and it doesn't mean:

About ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/about-ism/)

"resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles".

See this is exactly what the ISM wants. They want to send young people like Rachel into a war zone because if they get killed useful idiots - and liberals - around the globe go "oh my god, how could those eeeeevil Israelis kill an American!".

Let's face it Gaza and the West Bank aren't exactly a kegger in Florida during spring break. Gaza and the West Bank are dangerous - not becasue they are occupied - because there is a war going on between Israel and the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran...

Did Rachel Corrie go to protest the terrorism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Iran or Syria? Nope. She went into a war zone and was protesting against Israel and burning American flags.

Did Susan Barclay of the ISM go to protest the terrorism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Iran or Syria? Nope. She went into a war zone and knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113302_shield20.shtml) who had just blown up FIVE AMERICANS not a few months earlier as they ate lunch in the Hebrew University cafeteria.

So please....spare me the rehabilitation of a photograph which shows Rachel Corrie enraged while she is burning her own countries flag infront of children.

a_unique_person

10th March 2006, 03:07 AM

Yeah, should she die, I agree.

zenith-nadir

10th March 2006, 03:14 AM

Yeah, should she die, I agree.See a_u_p old pal that is a strawman. Nowhere in my post does it say Rachel Corrie deserves to die because she burns American flags. Nowhere.

My post points out the utter hypocrisy of labelling yourself a "peace activist" as you are photographed burning your own countries flag for Palestinian children. The symbolism is quite clear and the hypocrisy is 100% evident.

This is exactly what the ISM wants. They want to send young people like Rachel into a war zone because if they get killed useful idiots - and liberals - around the globe go "oh my god, how could those eeeeevil Israelis kill an American!".

{edited to add}

See it's a propoganda game a_u_p and ISM KNOWS IT. Because Rachel Corrie died in a war zone it totally takes the focus off the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and places the focus on the bulldozer which unfortunately ran over Rachel. Ironically the bulldozer was there because of the actions of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and not to simply run over activists like Rachel Corrie.

If half as many useful idiots protested against Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran as they do against Israel they would actually be helping to end the occupation instead of running cover for and being human sheilds for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran...

Mycroft

10th March 2006, 05:47 AM

Yeah, should she die, I agree.

http://waterthread.org/images/ktg/Straw_Man.jpg

10th March 2006, 06:09 AM

See this is exactly what the ISM wants. They want to send young people like Rachel into a war zone because if they get killed useful idiots - and liberals - around the globe go "oh my god, how could those eeeeevil Israelis kill an American!".

I wonder. If I recall correctly, at the time of this event folks I knew thought she was deranged. Perhaps in the collective minds of ISM she is some sort of martyr but I think that more generally, and outside the world of woo, she was viewed, at the time, as a nut and now not at all. Not exactly a PR success.

zenith-nadir

10th March 2006, 06:26 AM

I wonder. If I recall correctly, at the time of this event folks I knew thought she was deranged. Perhaps in the collective minds of ISM she is some sort of martyr but I think that more generally, and outside the world of woo, she was viewed, at the time, as a nut and now not at all. Not exactly a PR success.I was speaking more in general terms. There is no bigger PR scam than using foreigners as human shields in war zones.

See my core objection to this entire event was that ISM is not in Palestine to protest terrorism by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran, they are there to protest against Israeli responses to the terror of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran.

I wonder how Australians would feel if ISM was in Indonesia working with Jemaah Islamiah burning Australian flags after the Bali bombing or if ISM was in Afghanistan working with Al Queda and the Taliban burning American flags after 9-11. But put ISM in Gaza and the West Bank working with Hamas and Islamic Jihad burning American flags and how dare you insult the ISM. :eek:

It is so absurd that HRW and Amnesty International joined in with ISM on a boycott of the US-based Caterpillar Inc. (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n08/HRWAndAmnestyPromoteCaterpillarBoycott.htm) because its sells bulldozers to Israel.

The world is insane.

10th March 2006, 06:35 AM

It is so absurd that HRW and Amnesty International joined in with ISM on a boycott of the US-based Caterpillar Inc. (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n08/HRWAndAmnestyPromoteCaterpillarBoycott.htm) because its sells bulldozers to Israel.

The world is insane.

Would they, I wonder, boycott a non-us company?

RandFan

10th March 2006, 07:40 AM

The problem I have with Rachel Corrie is that she did not act like a peace activist. She acted like a partisan. Ok, she practiced non violence. So what? Without demanding tolerance and non-violence on all sides you are just a partisan who views non-violent struggle as limited and personal thing. Who cares?

She has been compared to Dr. King and Gandhi. To be sure she had little in common with them. Did they take sides? To an extent they did. Gandhi was and advocate for India and King an advocate for African-Americans. However both were advocates of non-violence for all not just themselves. Both were also advocates of the human race. Both cared deeply about the people with-whom they struggled against. They didn't call for non-violence for only themselves. They called for non-violence on all sides.

I think a non-violent solution could work in Palestine. But to be effective the suicide bombing would have to stop. You see, when you recruit people to strap on a bomb and indiscriminatly kill human beings, when you cause such death and destruction you lose the moral high ground.

Oh, FWIW, I have and will continue to condemn the crimes and violence of the Israelis.

Any organization that calls for the cessation of ALL violence is an organization that promotes peace in my book.

I suppose that I'm in danger of commiting the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ok, Rachel Corrie was a peace activist but she wasn't a credible one beyond those who agreed with her.

A credible peace activist in my eyes is one who condemns the violence and crimes on all sides. A credible peace activist in my eyes is one who respects all human life and doesn't advocate the rights of one side of a struggle while remaining silent about the other.

Where have all the peace activists gone?

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. --Dr. Martin Luther King

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

The law an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Peace is its own reward.

Non-violence does not signify that man must not fight against the enemy, and by enemy is meant the evil which men do, not the human beings themselves. --Gandhi

10th March 2006, 07:51 AM

Ok, Rachel Corrie was a peace activist but she wasn't a credible one beyond those who agreed with her.

The peace she advocated, evidentially, was the peace of the grave.

Where have all the peace activists gone?

You want me to burst into song?:D

RandFan

10th March 2006, 08:06 AM

You want me to burst into song?:D :D Actually yeah, to the tune of a Paula Cole song (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paula-cole/106206.html).

RandFan

10th March 2006, 08:09 AM

:D Actually yeah, to the tune of a Paula Cole song (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paula-cole/106206.html).Oh wait, Peter Seeger (http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/flowers-gone.shtml) would perhaps be more appropriate.

mumblethrax

10th March 2006, 08:31 AM

Burning an American flag is highly offensive. It is spiting on those who cherish it. I would defend anyone's right to do it but I don't have to pretend that it is some nicety. It's not. And it certainly isn't peaceful.
Yes, to some people, burning an American flag is offensive. So offensive, in fact, that they feel compelled to post the same two or three pictures of an American flag being burned several times each within one thread.

Here are some things I find offensive: torture, terrorism, genocide, and running over people with militarized bulldozers. I find them so offensive, in fact, that I won't post pictures of those acts or their aftermaths on the internet.

So why, I wonder, do those who find flag-burning so offensive systematically distribute pictures of flag-burning, particularly of flag-burning intended for an audience which doesn't consider it offensive? Hmm.

My guess here is that these people are attempting to manufacture a controversy to draw support to their cause. The parallels to the recent cartoon debacle are striking.

Here's another thing I find offensive: periodically exhuming Rachel Corrie and spinning accusations against her because some people don't like that the world has sympathy for her. But I also think most people will see it for what it is, so feel free to continue.

RandFan

10th March 2006, 08:45 AM

...so feel free to continue. Cool, thanks for the permission mumblethrax. I appreciate your sentiments. As rhetoric goes it is no better and no worse than anyother. However, do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? Is there reason why Corrie should be viewed as a peace activist and not simply as a Palestinian partisan? Is there a reason why we shouldn't view her motives as cynical and counter to the spirit of non-violence promoted by Dr. King and Gandhi?

Jocko

10th March 2006, 08:52 AM

Here's another thing I find offensive: periodically exhuming Rachel Corrie and spinning accusations against Israel because some people don't like that the world has sympathy for a population that doesn't incite genocidal violence on a daily basis. But I also think most people will see it for what it is, so feel free to continue.

Fixed that for you. Since you don't like Rachel's precious memory being dug up for one reason, I'm sure you're equally disgusted by other reasons. Right?

mumblethrax

10th March 2006, 09:12 AM

Cool, thanks for the permission mumblethrax.
Anytime.

Is there reason why Corrie should be viewed as a peace activist and not simply as a Palestinian partisan? Is there a reason why we shouldn't view her motives as cynical and counter to the spirit of non-violence promoted by Dr. King and Gandhi?
Here's a good reason to consider her a peace activist: she was an activist for peace. She used non-violent methods to oppose what she considered to be an unjust occupation. Surely, those who supported Indian independence and the civil rights movement in the US were also 'partisans'; balance is not required for activism. You might disagree with her goals or her assessment of the situation, but that's a separate question. I'll say it again; to the extent that she encouraged and engaged in non-violent methods of resistance, she was doing good work towards peace.

mumblethrax

10th March 2006, 09:18 AM

Fixed that for you. Since you don't like Rachel's precious memory being dug up for one reason, I'm sure you're equally disgusted by other reasons. Right?
No. Digging up her precious memory in the context of how Israel conducts operations of the sort that led to her death seems legit. Digging up her memory to spin lies against Israel isn't. Here again we have this insidious notion of 'balance', as if truth is found in mediating between lies.

RandFan

10th March 2006, 09:23 AM

Here's a good reason to consider her a peace activist: she was an activist for peace. She used non-violent methods to oppose what she considered to be an unjust occupation. Surely, those who supported Indian independence and the civil rights movement in the US were also 'partisans'; balance is not required for activism. You might disagree with her goals or her assessment of the situation, but that's a separate question. I'll say it again; to the extent that she encouraged and engaged in non-violent methods of resistance, she was doing good work towards peace. Was she really an activist for peace? I just don't see it. So what if she used non-violent methods? Did her actions or her stance contribute to peace or tolerance from all. Demanding that the opposition be peaceful while ignoring atrocities committed by those you are working on behalf of is incoherent at best.

You are correct, those who supported Indian independence and the civil rights movement in the US were partisans. Here is what you fail to grasp and what I demonstrated in my earlier posts. The peace activists like Dr. King and Gandhi condemned all violence not simply the violence of the opposition.

I'm happy to accept that she was an advocate for the Palestinian cause. I'm happy to concede that she herself was committed to non-violence in her efforts on behalf of Palestinians. I can respect her for that.

Beyond that I can find no reason to call her a peace activist since her calls for peace were one sided.

zenith-nadir

10th March 2006, 09:28 AM

Beyond that I can find no reason to call her a peace activist since her calls for peace were one sided.Agreed. That is why I posted earlier:

If half as many useful idiots protested against Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran as they do against Israel they would actually be helping to end the occupation instead of running cover for, and being human sheilds for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, PLFP, PLFP-GC, Abu Reish Brigades, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran...

Cleon

10th March 2006, 09:28 AM

The problem I have with Rachel Corrie is that she did not act like a peace activist. She acted like a partisan. Ok, she practiced non violence. So what? Without demanding tolerance and non-violence on all sides you are just a partisan who views non-violent struggle as limited and personal thing. Who cares?
RandFan, you actually said it best in another thread:

"We fancy ourselves political wonks but in reality we are just armchair pseudo intelectuals drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence."

I think that really applies to the comments I've seen you and others make about what Rachel, her family, etc. I see everyone being very, very certain that their armchair psychoanalysis of Rachel is correct--she supported violence, she was no peace activist, etc. etc. No actual evidence behind these claims, just plenty of conjecture.

Here's the thing: I know the Corries. As in, personally. Rachel's cousin, who she grew up with, is a close friend of mine. I've had dinner with Rachel's parents and spent time with other members of the family. I see comments like "she acted like a partisan," "the only peace she advocated was the peace of her grave," etc. and I contrast that with what I *know* about her family and what they (people who knew Rachel intimately all her life) say about her.

And quite frankly, whether you agree with her actions or not, the more certain you are of your pronouncements about Rachel's character the more difficult it is for me to take your opinions seriously. In no other thread does your statement "we are just armchair pseudo intelectuals drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence" ring more true than this one. You (collective "you") really don't know much about Rachel, what she thought, who she was, etc., but you (again, collective) seem determined to paint her in the worst light possible. It's not even anecdotal--it's supposition and conjecture..

I suggest taking your own words to heart, RF.

RandFan

10th March 2006, 09:44 AM

RandFan, you actually said it best in another thread:

"We fancy ourselves political wonks but in reality we are just armchair pseudo intellectuals drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence."

I think that really applies to the comments I've seen you and others make about what Rachel, her family, etc. I see everyone being very, very certain that their armchair psychoanalysis of Rachel is correct--she supported violence, she was no peace activist, etc. etc. No actual evidence behind these claims, just plenty of conjecture.

Here's the thing: I know the Corrie's. As in, personally. Rachel's cousin, who she grew up with, is a close friend of mine. I've had dinner with Rachel's parents and spent time with other members of the family. I see comments like "she acted like a partisan," "the only peace she advocated was the peace of her grave," etc. and I contrast that with what I *know* about her family and what they (people who knew Rachel intimately all her life) say about her.

And quite frankly, whether you agree with her actions or not, the more certain you are of your pronouncements about Rachel's character the more difficult it is for me to take your opinions seriously. In no other thread does your statement "we are just armchair pseudo intelectuals drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence" ring more true than this one. You (collective "you") really don't know much about Rachel, what she thought, who she was, etc., but you (again, collective) seem determined to paint her in the worst light possible. It's not even anecdotal--it's supposition and conjecture..

I suggest taking your own words to heart, RF.Thanks Cleon, I mean that in all sincerity. It's not fair of me to speak to her character. I don't know her. My quote you posted was harsh and if I had to do over I would change it slightly.

I'm happy to accept that she was an advocate for the Palestinian cause. I'm happy to concede that she herself was committed to non-violence in her efforts on behalf of Palestinians. I can respect her for that.

However I can confidently state that her actions, while perhaps sincere, did not contribute to peace. Change cannot simply come from the Israelis. Such thinking is simply naive at best or willfully ignorant at worst. Demanding the Israelis act unilaterally is a non-starter. The Palestinians call for the destruction of Israel. The Palestinians are currently indiscriminately killing Israeli citizens. That's not peaceful.

I will respect as peace activists those who feel for the death and destruction caused by both sides. Those who acknowledge that Israelis and Palestinians are both humans, no more no less. That both have the right to exist and to live free from hatred and violence.

That is my view of a peace activist.

zenith-nadir

10th March 2006, 10:27 AM

In no other thread does your statement "we are just armchair pseudo intelectuals drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence" ring more true than this one. You (collective "you") really don't know much about Rachel, what she thought, who she was, etc., but you (again, collective) seem determined to paint her in the worst light possible. It's not even anecdotal--it's supposition and conjecture.

You are correct Cleon, none of us "know" Rachel personally, what we do "know" is she:

belonged to an organization whose purpose is to obstruct Israeli defense forces but not to obstruct Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
taught Palestinian children the correct way to burn an American flag.
had to know that interfering with military operations in a war zone could prove fatal.
used her body as a human shield and crouched in front of a bulldozer which was attempting to destroy tunnels through which terrorists imported weapons and explosives.

Life is about personal responsibility. If you have the freedom to make choices; you best have the integrity to deal with the consequences. She made her choice and this is what got her. Rachel deliberately placed herself in harm's way, and as a result, died for it. That doesn't make her bad or evil, just another dead radical activist.