"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0307052318.1ae590cd@posting.google.c om...
> "The Pervert" <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<X6ENa.14384$Ey6.5352@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et>...
> > "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:95f168b0.0307050235.3448afbd@posting.google.c om...
>
> >
> > > STAN said:
> > > She was a spoiled college kid, whose parents didn't have the
> > > common sense to tell her that the rest of the world doesn't go out of
> > > their
> > > way to protect the feelings of naive busybodies such as herself...
> > >
> > > I'm sure they did, but she wasn't phased by that. Brave girl.
> >
> > Even if she was brave, she was also very, very foolish. To not
recognize
> > that is also foolish.
> >
> > > > By contrast with you, she honored the best traditions in American
> > History.
> >
> > Perhaps. But there is also a tradition of being responsible for the
> > consequences of your actions. While not defending Israel and its heavy
> > handed policies, It might also be appropriate to not the foolish actions
of
> > this girl... if you want to be at all balanced.
>
> I don't accept her actions were foolish, in a broad sense.

She's dead, isn't she... tell us how fucking smart that is. :O|

> As her
> parent, I'd have encouraged her to contribute to humanity by recourse
> to less dangerous activity, but that would probably reflect my desire
> to see her live to a ripe old age -- in short, me being selfish. But
> at the end of the day, it's a judgement that she made, and I guess
> someone has to take on the difficult cases. What do you think of the
> now nameless guy who stood before the tank at Tien an Men Square in
> 1989? Dumb or heroic? Standing in front of tanks isn't generally
> considered wise either -- particularly given the nature of the Chinese
> Government.

The guy standing in front of a tank in Tienanmin was involved in a political
struggle in HIS OWN COUNTRY, he was quite familiar with the situation, and
he knew what the risks were. He was also calculating to know enough that the
presence of journalists in the are would improve his odds of carrying it
out. In contrast, Rachel Corrie went charging off half-cocked to another
country to stick her nose in their internal affairs, didn't know what the
hell was going on, and was more interested in grandstanding to massage her
own ego about how she was "changing the world" than truly standing of
against an oppressor (BTW, a little more research indicates that the
bulldozer was uprooting tunnels, NOT bulldozing some doctor's house).

In addition, the Chinese student was smart enough to stand so he was in
direct line of sight with the tank commander in the hatch - NOT behind an
obstruction like a depressed turret or a bulldozer blade.

> > > By struggling for justice when she might have lived the good life in
> > > hometown USA. By rejecting the safe and easy course alongside the
> > > bully and siding with the victims.
> >
> > You neglected to address her provocative actions. Why is that?
>
> Because it's not relevant

It IS relevant, and for you to deny it is just another example of the type
of distortion and spin the left does in the media. All you Lefty Liberals
are working overtime to protray her as some idealistic, well-meaning young
lady who just went over there to "observe" with a group of "peace advocates"
when she suddenly noticed an evil Israeli trying to destroy some poor
Palestian doctor's house with a bulldozer. She ran over there to tell him to
stop in, and the mean, nasty Israeli ran over brave Rachel with his
bulldozer. I know it makes a good story-line for the granola-munching,
goo-goo liberals back home, but it's a crock of shit, on several points:

(1) The ISM is NOT a neutral "peace advocacy group" - it's a
marxist/socialist, pro-Palestinian political advocacy group, in league with
groups like Al-Awda http://www.al-awda.org/index.php?page=Who%20We%20Are .
It identifies itself as Palsolidarity http://www.palsolidarity.org/ , so
it's quite clear we are talking a partisan group with a particular agenda,
which doesn't help it's credibility much.

(2) Regardless of whether ISM is a partisan group or not, the fact that they
were caught harboring suidice bombers, and one at least one occasion tried
to make themselves human shields for Yasser Arafat, makes their "peace
mission" suspect to begin with:
"While the IDF has expressed sorrow at the chain of injuries, it claims ISM
activists increasingly cross the line of neutrality. One example occurred on
March 27, when IDF forces launched a manhunt for a top Islamic Jihad
terrorist in Jenin. Intelligence information led the IDF to believe that
Shadi Sukia was being hidden in a Jenin compound that holds a bank, a Red
Cross office and the ISM office. After combing the entire building and
finding nothing, the soldiers asked two ISM activists if they could search
their offices. ISM coordinator Susan Barcley refused. The soldiers insisted,
forcing their way in. The intelligence information proved correct: Sukia had
taken shelter with the ISM. Both he and Barcley were arrested. Wallace
claims that Barcley found Sukia wet and shivering outside the ISM office,
"and asked the boy to come in." According to the IDF, Sukia is no boy. "He
is a grown man, one of the highest ranking members of the Islamic Jihad in
Jenin, responsible for recruiting several suicide bombers, planning bombings
himself, laying mines and sniping," an IDF official said."
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.a...rmy+a t+odds&
intcategoryid=1

(3) Rachel did NOT travel to Gaza as an "observer" - she went as a willing
participant to actively engage in political activities, including
demonstrations and flag-burnings.
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000636.html

(4) The ISM claims that the IDF indiscriminately bulldoze houses in Gaza for
purposes of intimidation and collective punishment. The fact is that
individual houses are targeted when they belong to known terrorists and/or
supporters, and the purpose is to eliminate facilities that have been often
modified or improved to support military or terrorist activities. On the day
that Rachel Corrie died in Rafah, IDF soldiers were looking for tunnels used
for hiding and smuggling weapons from Egypt.
http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/0211-3.stm They told ISM memmbers what
they were doing, and warned them to stay away.

(5) The ISM claims that the Israeli bulldozer operator clearly saw Rachel
and deliberately ran her over. This contradicts some other accounts of what
happened, as well as plain common sense. For starters, a 5' tall woman is
not easy to spot in front of a Cat D-9 blade under even normal conditions.
Now add engine noise and ear-protection to dull the driver's ability to
hear; armor,dust and the driver's personal protection gear to inhibit the
driver's ability to see, and the general pandemonium of a bunch of idiot
college students playing "chicken" (yes, ISM types admit that did this), and
try to tell me that the driver has a clear field of view - not likely.
There's a reason why intelligent people don't get in front of heavy moving
equipment, something that apparently was beyond that abilities of Rachel's
buddies to comprehend.

(6) Various ISM sources claim that the bulldozer either "ran her over" and
"backed up", or buried her alive. Not likely, given that those dozers weigh
between 50-60 tons with their protective armor. If that were the case,
Rachel would have looked like roadkill for sure, but based on the photos,
http://www.geocities.com/rachav/Rach...ropaganda.html it looks more
like she's pretty much intact albeit for some nasty lacerations to the head.
She didn't die at the scene either, but was transported away to a local
hospital where she died later. Most likely is that she tripped in front of
the blade or stumbled due to a partial collapse of the soil (tunnel, etc)
from the weight of the dozer and got rolled a bit. As for the laceration, it
could have either been from striking her head on the blade or a rock, or fro
m flying debris (concrete, etc) from the blade. In any case, she certainly
wasn't crushed or buried.


> AND because they are provocative only to
> those who think that patriotism means always endorsing the policy of
> the government. In fact, broader values, such as tolerance of
> difference, siding with the weak against the bully, are also a part of
> what patriotic Americans believe in. Indeed, the right to burn "Old
> Glory" (or a reasonable facsimile) is a reasonable benchmark of one's
> attachment to freedom of speech.

And others have the right to assume that people who burn flags aren't "peace
protesters", but agitators for violence - works both ways, sister.

> > If she is going to be confrontational, it is not completely unreasonable
for
> > those she confronts to push back. Again, I do not seek to ignore the
IDF
> > actions, but I do believe some responsibility for what happenned has to
be
> > assigned to Ms. Corrie's ill-advised actions.
>
> She "confronted" by escorting kids to school, resisting arbitrary
> house demolition and collective punishment in general.

It wasn't "arbitrary house demolition" - it was a search for tunnels by
individuals known to be in collusion with terrorists.

> Yes, she has to accept the consequences. She has suffered them. And we
> are still entitled to wish that it had not come to that.

Personally, it's probably the best thing that could have happened - she was
clearly a lost cause, but perhaps some brighter ones will learn, and think
twice before they charge off to some foreign country and get over their
head...

> Particularly
> as the IDF attitude at her funeral indicated that it was no accident.
> They paraded the bulldozer before the mourners and fired stun grenades
> at them.

Links?

> The message was entirely clear. We can and will kill anyone
> who raises their voice in protest.

And your message is clear: you will believe whatever ill-documented and
unsubstantiated propaganda you want in order to push your stupid agenda.

> > > > Decent people everywhere can claim her as one of their own. Genuine
> > > > heroes always provoke controversy, as they must make fine and
> > > > difficult judgements that often upset people in positions of power
and
> > > > privilege, and who are in a strong position to slander them.
> >
> > There are decent people on both sides. She isn't a hero at all. She
was a
> > spoiled kid who tried to force an issue to fit her parameters. She lost
and
> > paid dearly for her foolishness.
>
> But this admission shows the opposite. Spoiled kids, by definition,
> have better options than living in some hell-hole on the border of
> Egypt and helping people who can never compensate you. That's love for
> love's sake, pure and simple.

Wrong again. She's spoiled because she was some self-centered activist
playing the usual activist games. She was more concerned with asserting her
own (mistakenly assumed) moral and intellectual superiority than considering
the consequences of her actions, which included protecting
terrorists."Activism" as practiced by the Left is a way of gaining instant
moral self-gratification while letting somebody else pay the price for your
actions, hardly an honorable pursuit.

> > > STAN said:
> > > >>I find it hilarious how you portray nutcase lefties like Rachel as
> > somehow
> > > >>"rebels" against authority, when in fact she was the biggest
> > conformist
> > > >>around - she swallowed the Lefty Liberal tenets of her profs and
> > classmates
> > > >>lock, stock, and barrel, without any question. That type of mindless
> > > >>behavior is what led to her being killed.
> > >
> > > We leftists are the real non-conformists here.

Don't make me laugh - you are so caught up in your own hyperbole and
propaganda that you can't even analyze the facts and think for yourself.

> > > It's so much easier to
> > > be a right-winger when ever pore of the public media and polite
> > > society oozes a sickening but repressive combination of lies, threats
> > > and banal verities. Youy pass too gently over the fact that you lot
> > > are in power.
> >
> > I don't agree. When you don't feel a part of the way the world works,
it is
> > very easy for those who feel out of place to band together to create
some
> > feeling of belonging to something... anything! Notice how you drag out
the
> > usual cliches and rhetoric. Sure, some on the other side have their own
> > cliches and rhetoric as well. But notice that you brought up the
element of
> > not being in power. There might be a reason that the same types are
more
> > likely to feel powerless and take foolish actions to overcome that. On
the
> > other hand, there also might be a reason that others might feel for
inclined
> > to find their place in a system that works and is productive (is in
power,
> > if you will). While not being in lockstep with any particular
philosophy, I
> > do tend to gravitate toward those things that work rather than those
that
> > don't.
>
> I'm not sure of your point here,

I'm sure you wouldn't... those of us who actually have responsibilities in
our life don't seek to throw our weight around in an effort to 'change the
world' when the changes are just as likely to be for the worse...

> > > > Rachel on the other
> > > > hand decided for herself what she thought and how she might act,
based
> > > > on the demands of justice and fairplay.
> >
> > > STAN said:
> > > Turned out she was wrong, and paid the price.
> > >
> > > Sadly, she was right, but still paid the price.
> >
> > Right or wrong (I happen to believe she was wrong), her actions were
foolish
> > and thoroughly self-indulgent, and she paid a terrible price.
>
> Self indulgent would be doing liberal courses and living comfortably
> in hometown USA with no greater concern than whether the low-slung
> jeans she'd just bought made her ass look big.

Self-indulgent is running around saying "LOOK HOW IMPORTANT I AM AS I GET MY
PICTURE IN THE NEWS" when you don't even know the whole fucking story. At
least the bimbette with the lard-ass jeans doesn't have the conscience of
dead Israeli schoolchildren on her mind because she the "peace organization"
she belonged to thought that hiding suicide bombers from the authorities was
the trendy thing to do... :O(


> And while I
> > certainly do not exonerate the IDF (if you've read anything I've written
> > you'll know that I am strongly against Israel's actions), trying to make
> > Rachel Corrie into anything lofty and heroic doesn't wash, either.
>
> I disagree, evidently, but you're entitled to your view. I've said
> plenty on this subject, but I always get angry when I hear people
> bad-mouthing the dead, particularly when, misguided or ill-advised or
> not, their motivation was worthy.

Sorry, but I don't find protecting terrorists to be a particularly worthy
motivation.

> Such comments say much more about
> those issuing them than about Rachel. I hate suffering wherever it
> arises.

Then why do you sympathize with those who make excuses for it?

> Apparently, some in this place take pleasure in it. Sadly,
> governments everywhere are full of such people, and these news groups
> are a magnet for their hangers on -- the "me too" brigade who parade
> their attempts to be part of the consensus as some courageous act of
> dissent.

And that's precisely what Rachel Corrie did - she adopted the left-of-center
sentiments of academia and pretended she was a dissenter, when in fact she
was the worst type of conformist.

> It shows how ill-informed and sociopathic they really are.

People who protect known terrorists are the ill-informed and sociopathic
ones, Fran.

> You seem a little less pre-possessed by animus towards Rachel than the
> others, and I don't know anywhere near enough about you to evaluate
> your ethics, so I won't make a judgement about you. But in my view
> people with rachel's courage and capacity to set aside her own
> interests so as to advance those of others are the precious leaven
> that humanity needs if it is to achieve a just world.

People in "just worlds" don't protect terrorists, you clueless woman.

"NBT" <Fuel@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Fuel-CCDA14.19513006072003@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <rv%Na.84228$Io.7557037@newsread2.prod.itd.earthli nk.net>,
> "Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> [snip]
>
> >In contrast, Rachel Corrie went charging off half-cocked to another
> > country to stick her nose in their internal affairs, didn't know what
the
> > hell was going on, and was more interested in grandstanding to massage
her
> > own ego about how she was "changing the world" than truly standing of
> > against an oppressor (BTW, a little more research indicates that the
> > bulldozer was uprooting tunnels, NOT bulldozing some doctor's house).
>
> [snip]
>
> I think you have mistaken Bush with Corrie...

Thanks for proven that you have no clue either. Are you one of those nimrods
who thinks she was murdered? Let's hear your take, so we can all have a good
laugh. :O|

"The Pervert" <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Ph%Na.51529$926.5837@sccrnsc03>...
> >
> > I don't accept her actions were foolish, in a broad sense. As her
> > parent, I'd have encouraged her to contribute to humanity by recourse
> > to less dangerous activity, but that would probably reflect my desire
> > to see her live to a ripe old age -- in short, me being selfish. But
> > at the end of the day, it's a judgement that she made, and I guess
> > someone has to take on the difficult cases.
>
> Fine. Don't accept it. She made a judgement to confront a belligerent
> force with her own belligerence and paid the price. Personally, I think
> going head to head with a big multi-ton iron bulldozer and thinking you can
> do anything but lose is a foolish move. Even you describe her activity as
> dangerous. People sometimes get hurt when they do dangerous things. And
> when they poor judgement in their choice of dangerous activities, their
> chances of injury or worse increase exponentially. While everybody would
> prefer that she not have died, but in that she did as a result of her choice
> of action, obviously her choice was not the best.
>
> > What do you think of the now nameless guy who stood before the
> > tank at Tien an Men Square in 1989? Dumb or heroic? Standing in
> > front of tanks isn't generally considered wise either -- particularly
> given
> > the nature of the Chinese Government.
>
> There is a totally different dynamic in China (of course) where the military
> has always enjoyed a reputation as being a friend to the people. That's not
> always the case in non-democratic countries. Yes, the picture was great.
> One individual standing in front of a tank holding flowers. Dangerous?
> Absolutely. Would I have done it? Not a chance. Was it the smartest thing
> to do? Probably not.
>
Yet here is the nub of the question is it not? Objectively, what this
character did was probably 100 times more foolhardy than what Rachel
did. The soldiers had been encouraged to think they were confronting
some sort of insurrection ala Eastern Europe, the man was not an
American but a Chinese citizen, the Chinese government is not an ally
of the US or any other western government, and the man was not
immediately protecting anyone or anything. He hadn't been there for
hours, but had just turned up. It was just pure in your face "I dares
you! ... I double dares you!" It was a tank not a bulldozer. Had he
been squashed flat nobody would have been slightly surprised. But do
you think even one person from among the "Stan" brigade would have
been puttting him up for the "Darwin Award" or talking about mailing a
model tank to his family, or saying snidely that his parents ought to
have taught him that you can't confront a tank and come off OK? I
think not.

We'd have said pretty much what we say now. The guy was incredibly
brave. He ranked his own safety behind his desire to prevent a
horrible massacre. His action forced that soldier to take ownership of
what he(?) was doing BEFORE he was in the position of confronting
hundreds and maybe panicking and killing some people. Although each of
us would like to think that our ethical principles are paramount in
determining our behavior, that we do not put a price on doing the
right thing (even our lives) he can claim to have demonstrated that to
be true in practice. That was, and is inspirational. It is an antidote
to the prevailing wisdom that says that we are all greedy and selfish
and without hope. It is not about venerating him (or Rachel for that
matter) but of affirming the potential of every human.


> > > > By struggling for justice when she might have lived the good life in
> > > > hometown USA. By rejecting the safe and easy course alongside the
> > > > bully and siding with the victims.
> > >
> > > You neglected to address her provocative actions. Why is that?
> >
> > Because it's not relevant AND because they are provocative only to
> > those who think that patriotism means always endorsing the policy of
> > the government. In fact, broader values, such as tolerance of
> > difference, siding with the weak against the bully, are also a part of
> > what patriotic Americans believe in. Indeed, the right to burn "Old
> > Glory" (or a reasonable facsimile) is a reasonable benchmark of one's
> > attachment to freedom of speech.
>
> Obviously her provocative actions were completely relevant, said provocation
> contributing to her being killed. And your notion that "patriotism" means
> always endorsing the policiy of the government is also innaccurate. We have
> a two party system in the U.S. Are the Democrats in Congress unpatriotic
> when they disagree with the White House? Of course not. In a free society
> such as our, dissent and disagreement are *part* of the system. Then again,
> Ms. Corrie was not in he U.S. nor subject to American laws and attitudes.
> She was in a hostile environment with rules that are not as we would have
> here. Tolerance of difference is not one of those conditions enjoyed by the
> people in that region. Is thata good thing? Of course not. But it is
> reality. But by foolishly not dealing with the circumatances of the reality
> of the situation there, she paid a terrible price for her arrogance.

She was misguided in one important respect, though I wouldn't describe
it as arrogance. She believed herself to be the beneficiary of a kind
of "white skin/first world privilege". Believing that all humans ought
to be treated equally, she tought that this was a benefit to which she
had no fair claim. Accordingly, she sought to "share" that benefit
with those who did not enjoy it. But her premise was wrong. Being in
the first world does get you some privileges while you stay there. It
may even increase your safety in some circumstances when you're in a
place where your enemies are allies of your country (if they know).
But that privilege in a place like Gaza is tiny. She thought being an
American would afford her much greater protection when confronting the
IDF and that this protection could be extended to Palestinians through
proximity. She was wrong, but her motivation was a generous one.

>
> You can burn a facsimile of an American flag here and all you need
> reasonably expect are taunts and jeers from Americans. But she wasn't in
> Oshkosh.
>
> > > If she is going to be confrontational, it is not completely unreasonable
> for
> > > those she confronts to push back. Again, I do not seek to ignore the
> IDF
> > > actions, but I do believe some responsibility for what happenned has to
> be
> > > assigned to Ms. Corrie's ill-advised actions.
> >
> > She "confronted" by escorting kids to school, resisting arbitrary
> > house demolition and collective punishment in general. I'd say that
> > was pretty much what you'd hope a right thinking American would do. I
> > guess though, many "right" thinking Americans think that American
> > allies have a right to run their own wars as they see fit without any
> > constraints. That would be a revision of what most people think of the
> > American ethos. They also don't believe the government should do our
> > thinking for us.
>
> She wasn't in Nebraska, fer cryin' out loud! She was is a hostile
> environment! Those idiots, on both sides, don't subscibe to our way of
> doing things. Expecting them to is the epitome of foolishness. There's
> that notion of "foolishness" again. You see, when a single female armed
> with only a bullhorn goes up against a big iron machine, the big iron
> machine is guaranteed to win, whether you approve of it or not, or whether
> we agree with, or approve of the motives ascribed to either party or not.
>

Quite right, assuming the machine operator regards her with the same
attitude as the rubble he is clearing. In my view, the much greater
risk to Rachel was from the fundamentalist loonies who hate Americans
and aren't too keen on anarchists, atheists and women who are vocal
either, and certainly have an interest in discouraging Palestinians
from thinking that Americans are anything but the embodiment of evil.
As it stands, those Palestinians who knew her are now aware that being
American does not entail hating Arabs or supporting the IDF. Being a
woman does not entail being inferior to men. That may save a few
Americans and a few women in the long run. Consequently, had she not
died under a bulldozer, there was a fair chance that some Jihadi would
have helped her find some less heroic but untimely end. Again, as her
parent, I'd have been making this point strongly to her.



> > Yes, she has to accept the consequences. She has suffered them. And we
> > are still entitled to wish that it had not come to that.
>
> Fine. We all wish that she hadn't been killed.
>
> > Particularly as the IDF attitude at her funeral indicated that it was no
> accident.
> > They paraded the bulldozer before the mourners and fired stun grenades
> > at them. The message was entirely clear. We can and will kill anyone
> > who raises their voice in protest.
>
> Yes, they can. So once again, the element of foolishness is abundantly
> evident. No, I am not voicing approval of the IDF actions. I am, however,
> cognizant of the reality of the situation, and the foolishness of her
> actions.
>
> > > > > Decent people everywhere can claim her as one of their own. Genuine
> > > > > heroes always provoke controversy, as they must make fine and
> > > > > difficult judgements that often upset people in positions of power
> and
> > > > > privilege, and who are in a strong position to slander them.
> > >
> > > There are decent people on both sides. She isn't a hero at all. She
> was a
> > > spoiled kid who tried to force an issue to fit her parameters. She lost
> and
> > > paid dearly for her foolishness.
> >
> > But this admission shows the opposite. Spoiled kids, by definition,
> > have better options than living in some hell-hole on the border of
> > Egypt and helping people who can never compensate you. That's love for
> > love's sake, pure and simple.
>
> You definition is flawed. While spoiled kids do have better options, she
> chose a poor option and my guess is that she thought she could get away with
> her foolish actions. Was there an element of love in her foolish actions?
> Probably. Who hasn't done something stupid in the name of love? But again,
> she has to be responsible for the consequences of her actions. She paid the
> price for her foolishness. Sad? Of course. Avoidable? In many, many ways
> on both sides.
>

Fair enough. Though I think there is a qualitative and ethically
important difference between making an idiot of yourself over some
attempted liaison than trying to improve the life chances of someone
with a life expectancy of about 15.

>
> > > > > Rachel on the other
> > > > > hand decided for herself what she thought and how she might act,
> based
> > > > > on the demands of justice and fairplay.
>
> > > > STAN said:
> > > > Turned out she was wrong, and paid the price.
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, she was right, but still paid the price.
> > >
> > > Right or wrong (I happen to believe she was wrong), her actions were
> foolish
> > > and thoroughly self-indulgent, and she paid a terrible price.
> >
> > Self indulgent would be doing liberal courses and living comfortably
> > in hometown USA with no greater concern than whether the low-slung
> > jeans she'd just bought made her ass look big.
>
> That would be true only if worrying that her ass looked big gave her more
> pleasure or satisfaction. Self indulgent, by definition, indulges in the
> desires of the self.

Your definition is semantically defensible, but as a matter of
practical usage, I think I'd like to reserve the notion of
self-indulgence to things that are not largely altruistic. Otherwise
every action can arguably be seen as "self-indulgent" and we might as
well not have the concept at all. We'd still want a term for people
who set jeopardise their own immediate interests and life chances in
order to serve some greater cause.

> Sometimes it is to the detriment of the self, and very
> often at the inconvenience of others. If she got more ego satisfaction out
> of doing what she considered beneficial to the Palestinians, that would be
> the self indulgent act. Obviously that is not to say that all self
> indulgence is bad. But in her case, said self indulgence cost her her life.
>

But when it is used here it is meant as a criticism, rather than a
banal observation according to the terms you propose.

> > >And while I
> > > certainly do not exonerate the IDF (if you've read anything I've written
> > > you'll know that I am strongly against Israel's actions), trying to make
> > > Rachel Corrie into anything lofty and heroic doesn't wash, either.
> >

Not Corrie, so much as her desire to do right.


> > I disagree, evidently, but you're entitled to your view. I've said
> > plenty on this subject, but I always get angry when I hear people
> > bad-mouthing the dead,
>
> I'll bad mouth Timothy McVeight from here to eternity and not have the
> slightest twinge of conscience for bad mouthing somebody that person who is
> dead.
>

Timothy McVeigh was motivated by pure malice towards other humans. He
was a sociopath and a psychopath, and thus in social (rather than
biological) terms not a human being at all. I have no regard for him
at all. Again though, we examine motivation (and by extension, social
being) in making a judgement.


> >particularly when, misguided or ill-advised or not, their motivation was
> > worthy. Such comments say much more about those issuing them than
> > about Rachel.
>
> McVeigh, in his twisted, angry mind thought his motivation was worthy.
> Motivation of the perpetrator, then, is not always an mitigating factor, is
> it?
>

Yes but we, not the person, are the final arbiters of the
reasonableness of each person's motivation. We look at the context and
the data and ask, could a fair-minded person believe that? Was it was
fair for Rachel to think that the policy of the IDF of arbitrary
destruction of orchards and houses, of ripping up roads and drains, of
shooting randomly into people's houses was wrong? Yes, fair-minded
people could think that. Was it reasonable for Rachel to think that by
going there and escorting children to school, trying to discourage
such IDF actions by obstruction might have made a difference? Some
might think so. It has a kind of Gandhi/Martin Luther King quality
about it. Did her action involve any breaches of broader human
principles like the sanctity of human life? No they did not. She
didn't attack or threaten anyone. Nor did she defend or assist those
who did. You need not agree with her conclusions or regard her actions
as feasible, to conclude that her motives were worthy and a reasonable
exercise of judgement. Timothy McVeigh, by comparison, chose a course
that no reasonable person could take. He planned mass murder as part
of a war against an entirely fanciful enemy -- one that existed
nowhere but in his mind and those of his similarly unhinged fellow
travellers. There is no equivalence.

> >I hate suffering wherever it arises.
>
> Good for you. So do I. See? Even though we have points of contention, we
> can also find points of agreement. And we can find ways to express our
> disagreement in appropriate and relatively constructive ways.
>

It's a fine thing, I agree.


> > Apparently, some in this place take pleasure in it. Sadly,
> > governments everywhere are full of such people, and these news groups
> > are a magnet for their hangers on -- the "me too" brigade who parade
> > their attempts to be part of the consensus as some courageous act of
> > dissent. It shows how ill-informed and sociopathic they really are.
>
> It is not only governments who display callous attitudes and behavior.
> Surely you have no empathy with the suicide/homicide bombers who kill
> innocents, do you? I highly doubt it.
>

None whatever. But I condemn ALL actions and causes that foster the
development of such "people". That someone can seriously hold that the
intentional killing of non-combatants is not only defensible, but
worth giving up one's own life to accomplish shows the existence of a
profoundly genocidal sociopathology. Such things do not arise from
nowhere. One cannot condemn homicide bombers without struggling
energetically to abate the conditions that foster them -- that is both
pragmatic and ethical. The first thing one must do is to attempt to
make life more attractive than death, to those who think it's the
other way about, and who, having concluded that they will surely die
by another's hand, if not their own, that they at least die a hero's
death and secure their place in heaven. In her own small way, Rachel
was trying to do that. But on a grander scale, it underlines how
urgent it is to try to create some sense of normal life in the West
Bank and Gaza, to distinguish between criminals and non-combatants
(even if this is more risky for IDF personnel) to encourage people to
think of themselves looking fondly at their grandchildren and so
forth.

> > You seem a little less pre-possessed by animus towards Rachel than the
> > others, and I don't know anywhere near enough about you to evaluate
> > your ethics, so I won't make a judgement about you. But in my view
> > people with rachel's courage and capacity to set aside her own
> > interests so as to advance those of others are the precious leaven
> > that humanity needs if it is to achieve a just world. It is that,
> > rather than the the quality of her risk management that I mourn.
> >
> > FRAN
>
> Thank your for the qualified compliment. I am not pre-possessed about all
> that much, nor do I have any inherent antipathy toward the young woman.
>
> I don't believe Rachel's actions were all that courageous, and that she was
> an angry and fairly troubled young lady, said conclusions from the pictures
> I've seen of her and the descriptions of her actions (from both
> perspectives). I do believe her actions were self indulgent and that she
> was most definitely acting in her own interest (which is not always a bad
> thing), even if that self interest was to strengthen her sense of self and
> desire to do what she thought was good. I do believe her actions, while
> maybe honorably motivated, were very, very foolish. I do *not* believe she
> should be venerated for her foolishness.
>
> I think that mourning the loss of a potentially more full life is
> appropriate. Mourning the loss of a friend, loved one or daughter is
> absolutely appropriate. Admiring her apparent motivation is good, too.
> Perhaps from our non-invective exchange, you might also come to know that
> not everybody sees motivations the same way, and that foolish actions can
> have very unpleasant consequences, whether those consequences are deserved
> or not.
>

I think there is a component in assessing motivation that predisposes
us to look more sympathetically on motivations that are in accord with
our own. Thus someone whose motivation was not in accord with our own
is likely to get shorter shrift from most if some evil befalls them. I
think there is an element of that going on in the debate on Rachel
Corrie (given the "flag-burning" stuff, the alliance with Israel), but
as most think open partisanship ignoble in matters of life and death,
they pretend to themselves as much as here that it's all about her
recklessness, and being a "spoiled brat" and a "busy body".

> You present your case well. Keep arguing for the good things you believe
> in.




Thank you for conducting your case rationally. I can see that you are
not to be confused with those displaying malice towards Rachel or her
parents. I also wish you well.

FRAN

"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote in message news:<vghdtfqccnvn33@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:95f168b0.0307052318.1ae590cd@posting.google.c om...
> > "The Pervert" <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<X6ENa.14384$Ey6.5352@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et>...
> > > "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:95f168b0.0307050235.3448afbd@posting.google.c om...
> > I don't accept her actions were foolish, in a broad sense.
>
> Playing chicken with a bulldozer is not a foolish action.
> Trying to prevent a military force from destroying terrorist locations is
> not a foolish act.

The location she was trying to protect wasn't a "terrorist location".
She wasn't playing chicken with a bulldozer. No tunnels or terrorists
were identified at that location. Indeed the IDF claims that at the
time of her death, they weren't actually trying to demolish the house,
but merely clearing some lines of sight. Rachel thought otherwise, and
she was trying to discourage its driver from destroying the house of a
doctor and his children.

On balance, this was antithetical to her safety, and was in this sense
"foolish", but it's not uncommon for people to take risks to achieve
things of value. When soldiers die, it's rare for them to be described
a as "foolish". What would you say about those soldiers who during the
trench warfare in France in WW1 jumped out of their trenches on orders
and advanced directly into massed rifle fire, only to be cut down in
appalling numbers? I'd say the balance between risk and reward was far
worse than that applying in Rachel's case, but you know, I can't think
of a single example of any public figure calling them "foolish". In
fact, those that tried to desert, in order to avoid being butchered
for no greater purpose than to satisfy some boffin's theory about
battle strategy were often court-martialled and shot. Presumably,
those that followed orders were "sane" and "brave".

Objectively, those that followed the orders were surely foolish. Yet I
think they thought they were doing the right thing, and confronting
their families with the news, I think its the latter that I'd have
told them rather than the former.

I don't think I'd have told the parents that they should have taught
their children that walking into machine gun nests was bad for their
health. It probably wouldn't have occurred to me to refer them to
Charles Darwin, or to explain that they should have "found out the
facts first" before messing in "someone else's conflict". Had I done
so, I imagine the reception might just have turned a little ugly.

PE

"Paul Esposito" <humanityfirst@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af187846.0307062116.46042df8@posting.google.c om...
> "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote in message
news:<vghdtfqccnvn33@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:95f168b0.0307052318.1ae590cd@posting.google.c om...
> > > "The Pervert" <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<X6ENa.14384$Ey6.5352@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et>...
> > > > "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:95f168b0.0307050235.3448afbd@posting.google.c om...
> > > I don't accept her actions were foolish, in a broad sense.
> >
> > Playing chicken with a bulldozer is not a foolish action.
> > Trying to prevent a military force from destroying terrorist locations
is
> > not a foolish act.
>
> The location she was trying to protect wasn't a "terrorist location".

Yes it was.

> She wasn't playing chicken with a bulldozer.

She sure as hell was.

"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote in message news:<vgi3s3kahctnc6@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Paul Esposito" <humanityfirst@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:af187846.0307062116.46042df8@posting.google.c om...
> > "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote in message
> news:<vghdtfqccnvn33@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:95f168b0.0307052318.1ae590cd@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "The Pervert" <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<X6ENa.14384$Ey6.5352@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.n et>...
> > > > > "Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:95f168b0.0307050235.3448afbd@posting.google.c om...
> > > > I don't accept her actions were foolish, in a broad sense.
> > >
> > > Playing chicken with a bulldozer is not a foolish action.
> > > Trying to prevent a military force from destroying terrorist locations
> is
> > > not a foolish act.
> >
> > The location she was trying to protect wasn't a "terrorist location".
>
> Yes it was.
>
> > She wasn't playing chicken with a bulldozer.
>
> She sure as hell was.


Oh I see, this is "Gainsaying 101". This is how it is played. I say
something and then you say "no it isn't" and I say "yes it was" ...
Well let's just save the bandwidth shall we? If you're not going to
challenge on fact with some evidence, or challenge on interpretation
your just doing schoolyard squealing.

It reminds me of a skit from Monty Python ...

"I came here for an argument ... "

"No you didn't"

"Yes I did"

"Didn't ..."

"Look, the mere gainsaying of one's statements isn't an argument.
Argument consists of a series of connected statements designed to
establish a proposition ..."

"No it isn't ..."

"Yes it is ..."

Dana, your nick suggests and anagram ... "Nada" ... that's what you've
contributed here.

PE

"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0307061906.3b496996@posting.google.c om...
> "The Pervert" <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Ph%Na.51529$926.5837@sccrnsc03>...
> > >
> > > I don't accept her actions were foolish, in a broad sense. As her
> > > parent, I'd have encouraged her to contribute to humanity by recourse
> > > to less dangerous activity, but that would probably reflect my desire
> > > to see her live to a ripe old age -- in short, me being selfish. But
> > > at the end of the day, it's a judgement that she made, and I guess
> > > someone has to take on the difficult cases.
> >
> > Fine. Don't accept it. She made a judgement to confront a belligerent
> > force with her own belligerence and paid the price. Personally, I think
> > going head to head with a big multi-ton iron bulldozer and thinking you
can
> > do anything but lose is a foolish move. Even you describe her activity
as
> > dangerous. People sometimes get hurt when they do dangerous things.
And
> > when they poor judgement in their choice of dangerous activities, their
> > chances of injury or worse increase exponentially. While everybody
would
> > prefer that she not have died, but in that she did as a result of her
choice
> > of action, obviously her choice was not the best.
> >
> > > What do you think of the now nameless guy who stood before the
> > > tank at Tien an Men Square in 1989? Dumb or heroic? Standing in
> > > front of tanks isn't generally considered wise either -- particularly
> > given
> > > the nature of the Chinese Government.
> >
> > There is a totally different dynamic in China (of course) where the
military
> > has always enjoyed a reputation as being a friend to the people. That's
not
> > always the case in non-democratic countries. Yes, the picture was
great.
> > One individual standing in front of a tank holding flowers. Dangerous?
> > Absolutely. Would I have done it? Not a chance. Was it the smartest
thing
> > to do? Probably not.
> >
> Yet here is the nub of the question is it not? Objectively, what this
> character did was probably 100 times more foolhardy than what Rachel
> did.

Not really. As Stan pointed out, notice that the man was standing in very
clear view of the tank driver. He was not engaged in any belligerent
actions at all (unless he was carrying a lethal bouquet of flowers), and he
was facing his own countrymen, not a hostile force.

> The soldiers had been encouraged to think they were confronting
> some sort of insurrection ala Eastern Europe, the man was not an
> American but a Chinese citizen, the Chinese government is not an ally
> of the US or any other western government, and the man was not
> immediately protecting anyone or anything. He ha