1) Should she have been there (and should the Israelis have gone over her)?

2) Is the American media going to make a big thing of this? Should it? (Could this be the trigger for some actual pressure on Israel?)

You know, there's a very valid point in these comments about human shields, that had escaped me til now:

Human shields are a tactic used against us and the Israelis. NOT against the Palestinians and the Iraqi secret police.

what does it tell you, when even the leftwing whackjobs know that the threat of the loss of innocent life is a valid threat against us, but not them?

That we are somewhat moral, and they are not.

Sometimes, it really is that simple.

<i>US cizitizen run over byan Isreali Bulldozer while protesting for Palestien.</i>

Somehow I think this makes a wonderful metaphor for US foriegn policy in the Isreal-Palestien dispute.

1) Should she have been there (and should the Israelis have gone over her)?

2) Is the American media going to make a big thing of this? Should it? (Could this be the trigger for some actual pressure on Israel?)

she was moving towards it yelling stop and then slipped into its path. If she'd been blatantly standing in front of it, well, I still don't think she should have been run over, but I think the action is worse when she accidentally fell into its path.

do you feel like expanding on that, or shall we all just assume what it is you're trying to say here?

I would first like to say to tigerjez that one of the links (the first one) you provided was very clearly on a rightwing site. How do they justify calling Ms. Corrie's worldview skewed? Because it doesn't match their's? Because she may happen to believe that Israel is not necessarily in the right in the Israel/Palestine conflict? I had to blink a couple of times and read it again. Also, what proof exactly is there that the photo is of Ms. Corrie? The photo looked to me to be of somebody quite a bit older then 23, and I'm not inclined to believe it's her.

That said, I don't think it'll cause any pressure on Israel, mostly because the Bush and the rest of his administration is so bloody caught up in Iraq right now, and also because his administration is so pro Israel, that the fact that a single American, who was not military and not from one of America's big rich/political families, got killed is going to spark any real action.

you don't have to be "right wing" to make the connection that her world view was skewed. the post i quoted at the end encapsulates it perfectly.

however, she is putting her life on the line for a house-- not a person, but a house. a house where a militant islamist hides guns and ammo to arm suicide bombers in a culture which shows no regard or deterrence for innocent life. in fact, they target it specifically. they target it specifically because the ascribe to the very worst views in the Third Reich. she is aiding this directly.

how is teaching CHILDREN to burn the american flag promoting peace?

she is capitalizing on the fact that israel and the US do take innocence into account. she is also capitalizing on the fact she is a white woman. she is doing all she can to prevent actual stabilization in the region.

ok, since it has been a while since i was here, i am going to curb my tone a bit, but come on.

what is the US government going to say? the girl was at best naive and stupid. at worst, she was an actual traitor. i actually wouldn't be surprised if she was from a wealthy family. her actions are typical of john walker lindh, whose father was a pretty powerful man.

that is a cheap cop-out.

this does not a skewed worldview make. this a view that is significantly different from yours or theirs makes.

prove this to me.

she's not teaching them to burn people or fire guns is she? i personally see that as teaching them that america isn't God and isn't perfect and isn't necessarily the way to go.

how was she capitalizing on the fact that she's white? and again, your definition of stabilization may not be the same as hers. perhaps the side you believe to be in the right is not the same. you're arguing one sided here.

I will have to look up john walker lindh, but jesus, if she was from a rich and powerful family, you'd have heard about it already.

Naive and stupid for standing up for something she believes in? I think you're calling her that because she was standing up for the side you think is wrong.

Traitor? How? Where does it say that if you disagree with US policy and do something non violent against it, you are a traitor? find that, and then I'll think about her being a traitor. Calling her a traitor is a really cheap cop out.

1. she is defending a society (palestine) which rejects outright the morals that US or israel or western society in general has: innocent lives should be spared in a war.

Okay, I read your entire post, but i honesly lost the will to argue after I read this.

I have a) yet to see that Israel has tried overmuch to spare so many innocent lives

and b) do not believe that The Western World's or more specifically the US's morals (because this seems to be the place you are arguing from) are universally right.

I agree that innocent lives should be spared, but. . if israel is so intent up on that, why did they roll right over her? I know in your eyes she was not innocent because she's not fighting for the USA, but she was noncombatant and peacefully protesting. In my eyes that makes her very very innocent.

Bisone, Federica, "Killing a fly with a cannon: the American response to the embassy attacks,"

In Defense of "Assassination"
by Charles Krauthammer - August 27, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what if Timothy McVeigh had not been captured but had escaped to Mexico? what if Mexico had a virulently anti-American government dedicated to using any means to reclaim Texas? And what if McVeigh, under Mexican protection, was dispatching gunmen, suicide bombers and assorted terrorists to kill American civilians in U.S. border towns?
what would the U.S. do? Would it exercise "restraint," stay its hand, refuse to act lest it engage in a "cycle of violence"? Hardly. This hypothetical is not as hypothetical as it seems. Just three years ago, President Clinton ordered cruise-missile attacks on bases where Osama bin Laden, the terrorist believed to be behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (among other outrages), was said to be hiding. The obvious objective was to try to kill him. Or if that failed, to kill enough of those around him either to slow him down or deter his operation.

Yet now that Israel is facing the same threat--a virulent terrorist campaign operating out of Yasser Arafat's Palestine and directed against innocent Israeli civilians--the wrath of the world has descended upon Israel for daring to respond by "assassinating" those who are running the terrorist operation.

Terrorist groups acting openly under Arafat's protection proudly send young men into Israel to kill and maim. One suicide bomber murders 21 innocent youths at a Tel Aviv discotheque. Another chooses a Jerusalem pizzeria densely packed with young families, killing 15 and horribly maiming dozens of others with nails embedded in the bomb for precisely that purpose.

what is Israel to do? Israel has no great desire to go hunting terrorists. (The current media convention of calling these people militants is a travesty. If the word terrorism does not apply to sending a young man to blow up 21 kids outside a disco, what possible meaning can the term have?) Israel wanted these people arrested and jailed. That is why the Israeli government gave Arafat a list of the ringleaders.

How did Arafat respond? He's let them loose. Having launched a guerrilla war last year after rejecting Israel's Camp David peace offer, he has unleashed every weapon in his arsenal: drive-by shootings, mortars, snipers and a green light to suicide bombers. There is a war going on. Why would he deprive himself of his most murderous weapons?

Again: what is Israel to do? Arrest the terrorist leaders? Israel would have to invade Palestinian cities and kill hundreds of civilians along the way. The entire suggestion--serving terrorists with subpoenas--is ludicrous. what country in wartime tells its soldiers not to shoot back at those trying to kill them, but instead to cross enemy lines and try to apprehend them for trial?

Israel has responded the only way it can, and precisely as any other country would. When, in 1986, the U.S. found Libya responsible for a terrorist bombing that killed American soldiers in a Berlin discotheque, it did not send Muammar Gaddafi a subpoena. It bombed his barracks.

The object of such attacks is twofold. If you're lucky, you get the chief perpetrator. And if you're not, you have sent a MASSAGE? that the enemy cannot operate with impunity, bringing a measure of deterrence to his calculation.

Israel's counterterrorism campaign has already prevented several attempted suicide bombings. Of course, it cannot stop them all. But even one mass murder pre-empted is justification enough.

Israel was severely criticized when two boys were accidentally killed in a rocket attack on a Hamas building. That indeed was tragic. But no military campaign--not the NATO bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo war, not the U.S. bombing of Baghdad in the Gulf War, not the current Israeli attacks on Palestinian terrorists--has ever been conducted without accidental deaths. There is, moreover, an ocean of difference between a targeted attack on terrorists that inadvertently harms civilians and the deliberate murder of civilians, which is the specialty of the very Palestinian terrorists Israel is targeting.

On the other hand, there is not an iota of moral difference between sending a suicide bomber into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to kill indiscriminately large numbers of innocent civilians and sending V-1 and V-2 missiles to terrorize London and Antwerp during World War II. Would anyone argue that it would have been wrong for the Allies to "assassinate" those Nazis who were producing, targeting and launching the V-1s and V-2s?

what country would not do as Israel is doing? How did Russia, guarantor of international norms as a charter member of the Security Council, respond to the bombing of apartment buildings in Moscow, allegedly by Chechen terrorists? By practically destroying Chechnya, razing its capital and killing thousands.

In contrast, Israel's response to unrelenting terrorism has been extraordinarily restrained, as precisely targeted at the guilty as possible. The abuse Israel has suffered for this scrupulous exercise of self-defense--in a war it did not start--is yet another example of the outrageous double standard applied to it by a cynical, complicit world.

palestine was caught a few weeks ago receiving a shipment of 50 TONS of weapons.

1. she is defending a society (palestine) which rejects outright the morals that US or israel or western society in general has: innocent lives should be spared in a war.