advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Jimbo-C
Date: March 19, 2006 06:58PM
What the heck was her problem? Anyone?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 19, 2006 09:00PM
She suffered from a rare and often fatal condition - she had a conscience.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 19, 2006 11:32PM
This is what I consider to be a sane and rational view of the matter.

[www.haaretz.com]

...as opposed to what you usually see from Loki or his foils.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: RgrF
Date: March 20, 2006 12:13AM
Jimbo-C Wrote: RgrFs a dupesh!t



"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 12:14AM by RgrF.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: RgrF
Date: March 20, 2006 12:13AM
Jimbo-C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the heck was her problem? Anyone?

JIMBO - YOU KNOW YOU AREN'T ALLOWED OFF THE RESERVATION WITHOUT A PASS!

Before you go any further, show us the pass.





"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: RgrF
Date: March 20, 2006 12:21AM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is what I consider to be a sane and rational
> view of the matter.
>
>
>
> ...as opposed to what you usually see from Loki or
> his foils.

It sounded a bit apologistic but thats better than the G'man take. Thanks for the post.




"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 12:23AM by RgrF.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 12:23AM
Sane and rational? I'd say blatantly partisan:
"Consider, instead - accept, for the moment - only the conclusions of the IDF probe, which found that the D9 driver could not have seen Rachel Corrie in front of him...."

She was clearly visible to the operator, and yelling at him through a bullhorn.
[www.texemarrs.com]

It was murder.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 01:15AM
Yes, Loki.

How dare the author offer a hypothetical. How awful to request that you consider another view for a moment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 01:57AM by MacMagus.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: RgrF
Date: March 20, 2006 01:26AM
Murder doesn't happen in political contexts.

Assinations, collateral damage, incidental damage, friendly fire incidents, inadvertenant crossfires (tough @#$%& Pat), misdirection of armaments and misplaced fireing may occur on rare occations, but murder





----never.




Wars are always political so there is no room to call a soldier a murderer and those who would are so short sighted as to be a joke.

If ever experienced professional soldiers are given a choice about policy, wars might actually end.



"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 06:08AM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Loki.
>
> How dare the author offer a hypothetical. How
> awful to request that you consider another view
> for a moment.

You were the one that posted that vile excuse for murder, Maggie, suggesting that it comprised a "sane and rational view" when it clearly, from the pics at the link I posted, was a blatant lie. The operator could clearly see her standing there, saw her fall, and certainly by the time he ran over her could see that she hadn't escaped to the side.

Yet he held his blade down and back-bladed over her. There was NO excuse for this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for having suggested the operator might not have seen her. That's impossible and you know it.

Haaretz says "anyone who has been inside the cab of an IDF D9, fitted as it is with double-glazed bulletproof slit window ports obscured by giant piston lifters and, often as not, a coating of silt, has good reason to believe the testimony of the bulldozer driver who he said he couldn't see Rachel Corrie."

The pics clearly show the operator AND Rachel in the same view, so OBVIOUSLY he COULD see her, and your attempts to bolster the big LIE demean you more than you do me. The windows are clearly not "covered with silt" as Haaretz suggests and the operator had a clear view. Other soldiers were nearby, and even if hiding in their vehicle from snipers must have had radio communications with him. If he couldn't see out any better than Haaretz theorizes then he could have blundered and run over them otherwise.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 06:29AM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 06:14AM
RgrF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Murder doesn't happen in political contexts.
>
> Assinations, collateral damage, incidental damage,
> friendly fire incidents, inadvertenant crossfires
> (tough @#$%& Pat), misdirection of armaments and
> misplaced fireing may occur on rare occations, but
> murder
> ----never.

> Wars are always political so there is no room to
> call a soldier a murderer and those who would are
> so short sighted as to be a joke.
>
> If ever experienced professional soldiers are
> given a choice about policy, wars might actually
> end.

So you don't call what happened at My Lai murder? You don't call what happened at Abu Ghraib and Baghram murder? Murder is intentional killing. If you know that the 500# bomb you're dropping on a residential neighborhood has a kill radius of 400 meters, and you know that innocent families live next door to the "terrorist" (resistance fighter) you want to eliminate, then you are intentionally killing innocent people, which most civilized people would define as murder. That you apparently do not shames you as well. War is just organized murder done with state sanction. According to the UN 90% of the victims of ANY modern war are non-combatants. War is terrorism and war IS murder.

There is no "e" in "firing" and the word is spelled "assassinate," though your spelling appropriately describes your post.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 06:27AM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 06:24AM
RgrF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If ever experienced professional soldiers are
> given a choice about policy, wars might actually
> end.

So Gen. Wesley Clark must not be a "professional soldier" in your opinion?

"As William Blum suggests, Clark bombed Serbia with "an almost sadistic fanaticism," making profligate use of deadly cluster bombs and depleted uranium, of the sort still ravaging Iraq. The Washington Post reported Clark "would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!’""
[www.opednews.com]

Those who make excuses for murderers are their accomplices.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Effin Haole
Date: March 20, 2006 11:02AM
I vaguely remember this incident and my comments are based only on viewing the links provided on this thread.

Looking at the pictures in the link one would think that she was in full view of the dozer operator. However, having worked in a large construction zone under ideal conditions, the view is not always a good one.

Be that as it may...

Under such a high pressure situation, I am sure the last thing the operator was worrying about was folks purposely standing in the way. More likely he was worryng about getting shot at or bombed. A lot of distractions to be sure.

Anyways, a lot of the responsibility of Corrie's death lays at her own feet. She had no real business being there. While I admire her fortitude to do something "right" and to help, she was way in over her head, perhaps naively so.

When you go to a seriously dangerous place, you should really consider the reasons and the consequences of going into hot zones, especially war zones. You are going there against all advice and probably better judgement. You're only security is what you can provide for yourself.

If a foreigner had come to the US "to check it out for themselves" and tried to get in the way of the FBI at Waco and was killed in a similar manner, would there be any uproar?

Not likely.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 11:15AM
> The pics clearly show the operator AND Rachel in the same view

Actually, they don't.

At best, they show the top of the cab. I can't see the driver in those pic's, which means that in all likelihood the driver couldn't see anyone at the position of the camera.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the driver couldn't see someone right in front of him.

But having driven a Caterpillar a few times, I can attest that it's bloody hard to see right in front of the machine. And when I look at photos that aren't selected just to incite, I see that she was, in fact, standing in front of debris piles when the blades were raised high enough to obscure her presence.



She was, perhaps brave. She was certainly stupid.


> your attempts to bolster the big LIE demean you more than you do me.

I give all parties the benefit of the doubt when the facts are not settled.

It's too bad that you're blinded by your hate and bile.

...And BTW: The site that you posted to is the hate-site of a religious nut trying to squeeze money out of the gullible. That you trust what that guy says tells a lot about your character.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 11:29AM
Effin Haole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More likely he was worryng about getting shot at or bombed.

For God's sake, Effin - look at the pictures again. He's in an armored tank, and from the text another armored vehicle with armed soldiers within was standing nearby. Another of Rachel's friends is shown standing with her, praying. There was no active fighting going on, nor any other activity in the area to distract him. He clearly saw her, was in no danger himself, and had NO excuses for this.

> Anyways, a lot of the responsibility of Corrie's
> death lays at her own feet. She had no real
> business being there.

Nor did Hugh Thompson when he set his Huey chopper down between GI's and their intended civilian victims at My Lai. But without people brave enough to put themselves on the line, like Hugh, Rachel, Martin Luther King, & S. Brian Wilson the world would be a much poorer place. The destruction of Palestinian homes is recognized as illegal by the UN, and only the US veto power has kept sanctions from being applied for refusal to obey those resolutions for 35 years. Yet we attack and destroy Iraq for refusing to obey sanctions, which in fact they had, but not proven to our satisfaction, in the same manner if I were to bring an ATF squad to your house and threaten to tear it down if you didn't prove you weren't in possession of any banned weapons, then after you'd allowed us to search everywhere said "they must be buried on your property somewhere or you sent them to your brother's house in Canada so we're going to attack you anyway." This is so bogus.

While I admire her fortitude
> to do something "right" and to help, she was way
> in over her head, perhaps naively so.

And yet who else was going to protect the right of that family to their home? Certainly not the US throttled UN, much less the Israel biased US itself. Rachel answered the question in time of desperate need "if not me, who, and if not now, when?"

> When you go to a seriously dangerous place, you
> should really consider the reasons and the
> consequences of going into hot zones, especially
> war zones.

And yet we all are complicit, as tax payers, in the illegal actions of Israel. They wouldn't be able to buy those armored house destroyers without our aid. They wouldn't be able to stand against UN sanctions without our complicity. Her fault was in believing that all human beings have a decent and life-respecting core, and would not kill an innocent person intentionally. She was wrong, but that doesn't excuse the Israeli soldier's actions.

> If a foreigner had come to the US "to check it out
> for themselves" and tried to get in the way of the
> FBI at Waco and was killed in a similar manner,
> would there be any uproar?

You mean if a woman had come out of the Waco compound and stood in front of the bulldozer and it ran her over and ground her into the dirt you wouldn't have been outraged? I envy you, in a way. Living without a conscience definitely makes life easier, but I doubt it will do the same for your afterlife. Rachel's conscience was so strong that she could not stand by and watch evil go unchallenged. She is better off now than any of you posting vile and contemptuous lies about her will be when you meet her on the other side.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 11:57AM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At best, they show the top of the cab. I can't see
> the driver in those pic's, which means that in all
> likelihood the driver couldn't see anyone at the
> position of the camera.

You can't see the driver's silhouette in this pic?


Clearly he could see her and she'd positioned herself to be visible to him. She was no fool and was using an amplified bullhorn to implore him to stop, and was wearing the brightest high-visibility garment made. If the operator couldn't see her he might very well have run over his comrades.

> She was, perhaps brave. She was certainly stupid.

She was a good student at Evergreen State College, and not "stupid." She knew there were innocent people in that house who would be killed perhaps if she didn't stop the beast driving that machine.

> It's too bad that you're blinded by your hate and
> bile.

My anger is against this bulldozer operator (and those like you who justify his action) who took an innocent life because of their hatred for Palestinians. For a bigot and murderer's advocate like you to comment on my "hate and bile" is obscene.

> ...And BTW: The site that you posted to is the
> hate-site of a religious nut trying to squeeze
> money out of the gullible. That you trust what
> that guy says tells a lot about your character.

I posted the first site I came to in Google that had several pics of the incident. I know nothing of the preacher. The pics speak for themselves to any one who can see well enough to read these words. That you will not see is a symptom of a greater blindness than can be measured by a simple eyechart, however.

Haaretz is perhaps right - few if any in Israel remember her, but many in Rafah will never forget her.
[www.criticalconcern.com]

Someday the bulldozer may arrive outside your house to destroy it because of something your child has done, and then you may wish Rachel was there to defend you, too. You deserve to be made homeless and have all your possessions destroyed. That is perhaps the only way you will learn value for what Rachel tried to do.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 12:07PM
As with all things on the internet, I'm sure the pictures tell the whole story.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Furiously Stylish
Date: March 20, 2006 12:45PM
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 12:46PM
> You can't see the driver's silhouette in this pic?

If you're referring to the shadowy thing in the middle, that's not the driver. That's the back of the Cat.

If you're going to rely totally on photos from that site, take another look at this one shortly after she was run over...



Where's the driver?


> She was a good student at Evergreen State College, and not "stupid."

Her friends testified that she climbed onto a pile of rubble as it was being bulldozed.

That's a really good definition of stupid.


> My anger is against this bulldozer operator (and those like
> you who justify his action) who took an innocent life

I reiterate: I do not justify his action. I don't know what he did or did not do with deliberation. I reserve my opinion as to whether it was an accident, a murder or a suicide.

> For a bigot and murderer's advocate like you to comment on my "hate and bile" is obscene.

So far, you're the only one in this thread spouting bigotry.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 01:00PM
"And sometimes, an entire nation can be persuaded, through satanic philosophies, maniacal religion and political ideology, to engage in heinous criminal acts and genocidal atrocities."

Yes, those darned Jews and their darned satanic philosophies. Hellbound, they are.

argle bargle bargle satanically energized messiah blah zionist kingdom argle racist Jewish talmud blah blah
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 01:04PM
Ooh! George Bush is a Zionist double agent!

argle bargle George W. Bush is a Jew blah satanic blah bad Photoshop jobbie argle Jewish Jew Jew Jew Jew

Hey, ArtScroll does make nice stuff, though.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 01:10PM
Last one!

"All Hail the Jewish Master Race!"

argle bargle convinced they are the Master Race blah blah argle the Jew Lewis Wasserman blah de blah argle eleven top Jewish gangsters

Boy, you just can't beat this site for picking up information.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 01:27PM
Greg the dogsitter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "And sometimes, an entire nation can be persuaded,
> through satanic philosophies, maniacal religion
> and political ideology, to engage in heinous
> criminal acts and genocidal atrocities."

This could equally be applied to the United States, and as proof I offer the other posts in this thread.

This is the pic I was referring to Magus.


The "shadowy object" is the driver's head. There is no headrest, as the driver must be able to turn to look behind him when backing. Clearly he saw her and she maneuvered to maintain eye contact as he advanced, which naturally required her to step on and over the debris he was pushing. It was then that she fell, and as the operator of the machine it was his responsibility to stop out of respect for human life. Apparently you suffer from the same lack of the essential element of humanity that he did.

The root cause of your lack of concern for her death is most likely found in your racism.
Jews good. Arabs bad. That's what it comes down to, isn't it? Israel can do no wrong.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 01:34PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The root cause of your lack of concern for her
> death is most likely found in your racism.
> Jews good. Arabs bad. That's what it comes down
> to, isn't it? Israel can do no wrong.

Non sequitur.
Straw man.
Ad Hominem.

The site from where you got your information, however, remains vile.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 01:42PM
Thanks for the links, Greg. I'd never heard of Marrs before I went looking for pics of Rachel. He helps explain why the dozer operator could so cavalierly kill her. She was a Christian, and hence subhuman and in need of extermination.

"The famous Jewish rabbi, Maimonides, acclaimed by Christian apologists and defenders of Zionism as "a great man of God," encouraged Jews to kill all Christians. In the Talmud (Hilkoth Akrum, X, 1), Maimonides says, "Do not have pity for them. Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see one in difficulty of drowning, do not go to his help... it is right to kill him by your own hand by shoving him into a well or in some other way.""

I know nothing of Maimonides either, but if this is true then it would appear he'd have a lot in common with the most vicious of the radical Islamists. Isn't it amazing how so many people on the planet can hate each other over matters of faith for which they can offer no empirical proof?

As for myself, if there is a God that spoke to Abraham He's mighty disappointed how his progeny have built walls between each other. Perhaps this is how the world will end, in hatred derived from quarrels over who best represents a god of love.

"Homo sapiens" should be removed from the language and replaced with "Homo Horribilus."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 01:45PM
Actually, most of my high school Jewish education consisted of explanations about how Christians were of Satan and Arabs were even lower. Afterwards, we worshipped pictures of Maimonides and sharpened our knives. Sometimes, we had recess.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 02:00PM
> The "shadowy object" is the driver's head.

No, it's not. There's a steel frame and a window in the back of the cabin and you're looking at the stack silhouetted against the frame of the window. It's easy to make that mistake if you don't know the equipment.

Here's a different angle of a similar Cat:




> This is the pic I was referring to Magus.

Yes, but that's a picture from 2-3 hours BEFORE the incident by the timeline on that site. And it shows a smaller Cat than the one that hit her. The better picture to judge from is the one right after the accident that portrays the actual vehicle.


> The root cause of your lack of concern for her death is most likely found in your racism.

You are a vile POS to even make that accusation.

G-man and everyone else, you have my formal permission to do whatever the heck you want to Loki. Go ape on him. I'm not going to defend him anymore.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 02:14PM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it's not. There's a steel frame and a window
> in the back of the cabin and you're looking at the
> stack silhouetted against the frame of the window.
> It's easy to make that mistake if you don't know
> the equipment.

Look at the last pic you posted. The stack extends up over the roof. What my arrow points at is inside the cab and clearly has daylight over it.

> Yes, but that's a picture from 2-3 hours BEFORE
> the incident by the timeline on that site. And it
> shows a smaller Cat than the one that hit her. The
> better picture to judge from is the one right
> after the accident that portrays the actual
> vehicle.

That's the same cat, just from a different perspective distorting proportions.

> The root cause of your lack of concern for
> her death is most likely found in your racism.
>
> You are a vile POS to even make that accusation.

And your denigration of the death of this beautiful and compassionate young woman makes you any less vile? LOL. Why else would you justify destroying innocent peoples homes if not because you revile their race?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 02:16PM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 02:20PM
> Why else would you justify destroying innocent peoples homes if not because you revile their race?

Jeezus! G-man is right about you.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 02:20PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And your denigration of the death of this
> beautiful and compassionate young woman makes you
> any less vile? LOL. Why else would you justify
> destroying innocent peoples homes if not because
> you revile their race?

Why else would you not be able to stay on topic and avoid insulting other posters if not because your arguments lack merit and you have trouble thinking issues through without resorting to groundless charges of racism? LOL.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 02:40PM
> That's the same cat

No, it's not.

Look at where the lights are mounted. One's got spots on the roof and the other has them just above the cabin, but below the roof-line.

And the one that hit her had a rebar debris-cage around the cab.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 02:41PM
Greg the dogsitter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why else would you not be able to stay on topic
> and avoid insulting other posters if not because
> your arguments lack merit and you have trouble
> thinking issues through without resorting to
> groundless charges of racism? LOL.

Maggie started it. :-)

"This is what I consider to be a sane and rational view of the matter.
[www.haaretz.com]
...as opposed to what you usually see from Loki or his foils."

His "sane & rational view" consisted of insane justification for murder, and introduced so many false elements that it disqualifies itself as "rational," e.g. the cat windows were "covered with silt." BS, as any one can see in the pics.

He then slammed me in an ad hominem attack. I tried to stay on topic and he returned a personal attack. No biggie, but get your facts straight about who is "insulting other posters" Greg. He states that what I pointed at was the stack, when clearly it wasn't, so if my "arguments lack merit" at least I'm not alone in this thread.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 02:51PM
> His "sane & rational view" consisted of insane justification
> for murder, and introduced so many false elements that it
> disqualifies itself as "rational," e.g. the cat windows were
> "covered with silt." BS, as any one can see in the pics.

Loki's right, of course.

See how clean the truck was?



Clearly anyone who thinks the truck was dirty is an insane racist murderer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 02:52PM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at where the lights are mounted. One's got
> spots on the roof and the other has them just
> above the cabin, but below the roof-line.

The pics are taken from different angles, but the lights in all the above pics are identical. The shot before is taken from an angle slightly above Rachel, and the one after she's been run over from a crouching position. Look at the shape of the blade, and the way the rain-cap on the stack is silhouetted in the lower pic. It's the same cat, just shot from a lower angle.

Nowhere in any of the literature, including the link you posted from Hatretz, is it suggested there were two armored bulldozers there that day, only reference to a single D9.

> And the one that hit her had a rebar debris-cage
> around the cab.

There's a brush screen welded to the top of the blade that intersects your view of the cab when the blade is raised.

It's the same cat.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 02:56PM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Loki's right, of course.
>
> See how clean the truck was?

What truck? If you're pointing out the dirt on the cat's blade, then of course this happens, but any of the pics of the windows show they were clean.

> Clearly anyone who thinks the truck was dirty is
> an insane racist murderer.

You've really lost all touch with reality now. Now write on the blackboard 100X:

"Trucks have wheels. Bulldozers have tracks."

Got it?






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 02:57PM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 03:00PM
> "Trucks have wheels. Bulldozers have tracks."

"Truck" is a generic term for any vehicle designed for construction or cargo-transport.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 03:03PM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Truck" is a generic term for any vehicle designed
> for construction or cargo-transport.

Come off it. You know that tractors are more racist than trucks; you're just trying to hide the truth.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 03:09PM
> you're just trying to hide the truth.

You're right. I was trying to hide the fact that I'm a truck bigot by using that word when I really should have said BULLDOZER.

BULLDOZER

BULLDOZER!

BULLDOZER!!

There! I said it and I can't take it back.

I just hope that the 'dozing community can forgive me the use of that loaded word.

We would all be better to resign such language to our nation's filthy racist past.

smiling smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 03:15PM
> Nowhere in any of the literature, including the link you
> posted from Hatretz, is it suggested there were two armored
> bulldozers there that day, only reference to a single D9.

I never said anything about armored bulldozers, but now that you mention it, there were at least TWO bulldozers there that day...

[en.wikipedia.org]

"[Between 13:00 and 13:30, activists] noticed that two Israeli Army bulldozers and one tank [had] entered onto Palestinian civilian property near the border and [were] demolishing farmland and other already damaged structures. ... [Between 14:00 and 15:00], Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer..."

Two bulldozers.

Whooda thunk?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 03:22PM
I'd like to say that I'm going to work "satanic philosophies" into as many conversations as possible.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 03:37PM
> I'd like to say that I'm going to work "satanic philosophies" into as many conversations as possible.

I see.

So you're deliberately ignoring vietnam veterans and cuddly kittens to promote your own pro-satan agenda.



It's clear from your statements that you and your Bush-cronies are responsible for my plumbing problems.

Why do you hate Amerikan Standard?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 03:45PM by MacMagus.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 03:50PM
Greg babbled:
>"Truck" is a generic term for any vehicle designed for construction or cargo-transport.

Go to any construction site and tell them you want a "truck" to push dirt with, and let me know how long it takes them to stop laughing at you. I've never heard a cat referred to as a truck, but that may be just a California thing.

MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never said anything about armored bulldozers,
> but now that you mention it, there were at least
> TWO bulldozers there that day...

Only one bulldozer was involved in Rachel's death, and that's what we're discussing, not the other dozer tearing up Palestinian fields, or wrecking any other homes. Try to stay focused here. I know it's difficult with all these complex and confusing issues, like the difference between tracked an wheeled vehicles.

>" Rachel and
> two other activists began interfering with the
> other bulldozer..."

That's the one we're talking about. Your source makes no mention of her interfering with two bulldozers, which was your original contention. That was false.

Btw: your Wiki source says:

"The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was not engaged in a demolition;
Yet the pics clearly show it pushing towards structures.
that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt;
Gee, they must have been awful shallow tunnels if a cat was going to uncover them.
and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer."
Look at those pics again. Do you see anything there that could have fallen on her?

She was only confronting one bulldozer. No cigar.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 20, 2006 03:56PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg babbled:
> >"Truck" is a generic term for any vehicle
> designed for construction or cargo-transport.
>
> Go to any construction site and tell them you want
> a "truck" to push dirt with, and let me know how
> long it takes them to stop laughing at you. I've
> never heard a cat referred to as a truck, but that
> may be just a California thing.

That wasn't me, though I'm glad to see my Jewish satanic philosophies are finally having initial success in clouding the thoughts of men.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 04:10PM
My apologies Greg. I read your quote of Maggie's words and by the time I'd scrolled down I'd forgotten who wrote what. Blame it on the Ambien. That's what Condi does.

Time for me to go outside. Talk amongst yourselves.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Effin Haole
Date: March 20, 2006 05:51PM
Watch the Helfighters and you see John Wayne get pinched between 2 dozers and those were experienced operators.

Why do you hate John Wayne so much?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 06:00PM
John Wayne was a cowardly bully who could have gone in the military but chose not to for career reasons. He liked to play tough soldier types, but when given the opportunity he demured, then to make up for it became this nation's number one shill for war.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 06:43PM
> Go to any construction site and tell them you want
> a "truck" to push dirt with, and let me know how
> long it takes them to stop laughing at you.

That's something they do to torture new guys.

When the chief says "move that truck" and he's pointing at a steamshovel, nobody laughs.


> Only one bulldozer was involved in Rachel's
> death, and that's what we're discussing

I said that you had a picture of the wrong vehicle. You said there was only one such vehicle there. I showed that there were, in fact two similar vehicles there. You now pretend that wasn't what we were talking about.

Stop covering up. You made a mistake.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 20, 2006 07:14PM
MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop covering up. You made a mistake.

Your contention was that the bulldozers in the pics were of two different machines. You made a mistake. Your own source stated:
" Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer..."

She was not photographed or interacting with both dozers. The pics posted above which include her are of the same machine. When I said there was only one bulldozer "there" I was referring to the scene captured in those photos, not "in the neighborhood."


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 20, 2006 07:19PM
So you continue to lie.

Fine.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rachel Corrie
Posted by: bruceko
Date: March 20, 2006 07:24PM
Her problem was she was brainwashed by going to Evergreen State College. I know several people that went there and came out so screwed up they couldn't make a clear decision if the thier life depended it. As was her case.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 137
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020