In the memory of Rachel Corrie.

[Legion]

Are you trying to tell me this:

running over a young woman only did this:

Here is what the arab propaganda website claims:

Picture taken at 4:45PM on 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Other peace activists tend to Rachel after she was fatally injured by the driver of the Israeli bulldozer (in background). This photo was taken seconds after the bulldozer driver dragged his blade over her for the second time while reversingback over her body. He lifted the blade as seen in the photo only after he had dragged it back over Rachel's body.This image clearly shows that had he lifted his blade at any time he may have avoided killing her,as the bottom section of the bulldozer is raised off the ground. Photo by Richard Purssell. (ISM Handout)

Oh? Then how was he dragging her if he were pushing earth around? THose pictures don't clearly show anything.

 

[Clashman]

That jedimaster page does the same bad reporting and claims the one picture with her standing in front of the smaller bulldozer with the bullhorn is "moments before", when it clearly isn't the same bulldozer that killed her.

Notice the jedi page isn't reporting but is posting an AP story about the event. The AP are the ones who screwed it up, not the ISM. This was documented in the media misconceptions article I linked to earlier.

Christ, it isn't like this is the only time the IDF has lied about killing a Westerner. Check out Justice For James Miller, who was shot and killed whilst filming in nearly the same area as he and his film crew were waving white flags, wearing helmets that said 'TV' on them, and calling out "We're British journalists". You can see it on video. And the IDF initially claimed they were shot by Palestinians, and then said they intruded into the middle of a pitched battle, when it is painfully obvious in the video that there was nothing even remotely resembling a battle going on.

http://www.justice4jamesmiller.com/video-window-main-bis.htm
Check under both the Killing Zone, as well as the BBC reports at the bottom.

The IDF has a history of downplaying events and telling outright lies to get it's story across. And yet you people take their words as if they were written on gold. It's ridiculous.

 

[Legion]

Notice the jedi page isn't reporting but is posting an AP story about the event. The AP are the ones who screwed it up, not the ISM. This was documented in the media misconceptions article I linked to earlier.

Notice this isn't relevant to the topic at hand wrt to "driving over" and intent.

I'd say the misconceptions here are being formed by the AP. The EI website you posted claims its photographs clearly demostrate A or B when there is no indication if said is true. Infact, we aren't provided a way of checking the order of the pictures or those the author left out.

Christ, it isn't like this is the only time the IDF has lied about killing a Westerner. Check out Justice For James Miller, who was shot and killed whilst filming in nearly the same area as he and his film crew were waving white flags, wearing helmets that said 'TV' on them, and calling out "We're British journalists". You can see it on video. And the IDF initially claimed they were shot by Palestinians, and then said they intruded into the middle of a pitched battle, when it is painfully obvious in the video that there was nothing even remotely resembling a battle going on.

And palestinians have certainly lied about events in Isreal. Heaven knows westerners have more than likely been killed in thier terror attacks. So why should we assume the ISM is telling the truth and if so, about what? Deliberate attempt by the driver to murder this woman? A plot by the IDF to wipe out western instrusion? Looking at the history of both i'd say the arabs are the ones who are best portrayed at attacking westerns.

shall we play the "guilty by association game"?


-the Miller site rather bothers me. None of the videos they filmed directly correspond with what they suggest happened. Also, there is a heafty amount of intercutting other incidents to reinforce a point. That point is the IDF is irrational and irresponsible. These videos strike me as propaganda at Miller's expense.

 

[Clashman]

And palestinians have certainly lied about events in Isreal. Heaven knows westerners have more than likely been killed in thier terror attacks. So why should we assume the ISM is telling the truth and if so, about what? Deliberate attempt by the driver to murder this woman? A plot by the IDF to wipe out western instrusion? Looking at the history of both i'd say the arabs are the ones who are best portrayed at attacking westerns.

Yeah, Palestinians have lied, but what difference does that make when the IDF is caught in a bald-faced lie over killing a Westerner? We're not talking about Palestinians, here. We're talking about the ISM and it's conduct in the occupied territories. As to the intent of the soldiers, I'd say there's definately some hostility between them, but I don't think the driver got into his/her cab saying "I think I'm gonna kill a protestor today". More likely what happened was he/she was playing a game of chicken with Corrie, one that should have ended with the Israeli driver stopping, because said driver should acknowledge the fact that if he/she doesn't, someone is going to die. However, this point becomes difficult to drive home when it's obvious that Israeli soldiers are virtually never prosecuted for their crimes.

 

[Clashman]

the Miller site rather bothers me. None of the videos they filmed directly correspond with what they suggest happened. Also, there is a heafty amount of intercutting other incidents to reinforce a point. That point is the IDF is irrational and irresponsible. These videos strike me as propaganda at Miller's expense.

How does it not correspond? They show them filming the bulldozers throughout the day. They then show them wearing said gear. It is silent at night when they are filming. There is no battle going on. It shows James carrying a torch, and another person carrying a white flag. It shows them calling out "We are British journalists!" repeatedly, in the quiet of the night. They have the one warning shot. They stop, and repeat that they are journalist. The second shot hits James and kills him. The shots are very distinct, and very measured. It is painfully obvious that there is not a battle going on. The Israeli Military had initially claimed it was Palestinians had shot him. When the rounds came back Israeli, they backtracked and said they were in the middle of a pitched battle, and he just got caught in the crossfire, which it is painfully obvious didn't happen. I don't know what more evidence you need.

Also, at least one of those links shows the video in it's entirety, without cuts. The cuts in the video I pointed towards made the cuts so that people could explain exactly what was happening during those times.

 

[Legion]

Yeah, Palestinians have lied, but what difference does that make when the IDF is caught in a bald-faced lie over killing a Westerner?

I wouldn't call it a "bald faced lie at all." infact i would go as far to say there's probably quite a bit Miller's group aren't showing us. There's just a lot in those videos that doesn't add up with what they filmers are suggesting.

We're not talking about Palestinians, here. We're talking about the ISM and it's conduct in the occupied territories.

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led activist organization that recruits civilians from Western countries to participate in accompaniment and non-violent acts of resistance against Israeli occupation. The ISM is devoted to ending the Israeli occupation via non-violent activity, however, they do "recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle" and have engaged in at least one act of sabotage.

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

As to the intent of the soldiers, I'd say there's definately some hostility between them, but I don't think the driver got into his/her cab saying "I think I'm gonna kill a protestor today". More likely what happened was he/she was playing a game of chicken with Corrie, one that should have ended with the Israeli driver stopping, because said driver should acknowledge the fact that if he/she doesn't, someone is going to die. However, this point becomes difficult to drive home when it's obvious that Israeli soldiers are virtually never prosecuted for their crimes.

I honestly can't say wrt to Miller. The whole reconstruction stinks. To much regarding the videos is to dark to see (especially the gun fire).

The evidence we have simply doesn't point to "playing chicken" with Corrie. Its more likely she ran infront of it and the driver simply couldn't see her.

 

[Legion]

How does it not correspond? They show them filming the bulldozers throughout the day.

There is a lot that doesn't

First there is the issue with the gunfire

We have no way of providing for the direction or distance. Futhermore no ballistics tests were suggested to indicate the bullet came from a gun of an IDF soldier. Considering the nature of the fire i'd be more willing to wager the bullet came from a rifle with a scope.

The whole matter concerning the stretcher sounds like straight up propaganda. They claim the IDF soldiers threw it in the mudd after a while of pleaing from Miller's crew? Where is the video of this? Why was that left out?

Did the palistinians engage in fire with the IDF APCs? The video simply doesn't show this nor does it dispute it.

They then show them wearing said gear. It is silent at night when they are filming. There is no battle going on.

Not at the time they show us the video no.

It shows James carrying a torch, and another person carrying a white flag. It shows them calling out "We are British journalists!" repeatedly, in the quiet of the night. They have the one warning shot. They stop, and repeat that they are journalist. The second shot hits James and kills him.

allow me to elaborate:

There was one shot followed by a major delay. Then two within a few seconds of each other.

Which direction was the first shot heading in? What about the second and third? Who's rifle did they come from?

The shots are very distinct, and very measured.

How do you gather this from the video? I can not see any muzzle flash or tracer rounds. That says to me the bullets came from a long distance away (of course assuming the cam was facing the right direction).

It is painfully obvious that there is not a battle going on. The Israeli Military had initially claimed it was Palestinians had shot him. When the rounds came back Israeli, they backtracked and said they were in the middle of a pitched battle, and he just got caught in the crossfire, which it is painfully obvious didn't happen. I don't know what more evidence you need.

I can not say anything is obvious at all. I am wondering how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Clashman]

Ballistics tests:
http://www.justice4jamesmiller.com/ballisticsreport.htm
There seems to be a fair probability that the bullet that killed him came from and American or Israeli made firearm, leading one to believe that it is fairly likely that an IDF soldier fired the round. Furthermore, the ballistics test indicated that the bullet entered through the front of his neck and exited through his back. Given the fact that they were approaching the IDF APC, that would seem to indicate that the bullet that killed him came from the APC, and not from the Palestinian side. At least enough that there should be a complete and public inquiry into James Miller's death.

I agree that it probably came from a rifle with a scope, which is precisely why this is so disturbing. This means that the death was intended, and premeditated.

Did the palistinians engage in fire with the IDF APCs? The video simply doesn't show this nor does it dispute it.

If it doesn't show it, shouldn't that be just a slight indication that maybe it wasn't there? I would think the near total silence would be indicative of a lack of battle. I've seen enough military videos and talked to enough people to know how soldiers react when they come under fire. Guns are blazing, and there is no chance that they'd respond with just a sniper. Zero. None. It just wouldn't happen.

There has been zero evidence procurred thus far that the Israelis were under any sort of attack. All of those shots did in fact appear to be coming from the same direction. This wasn't a rookie film crew that didn't know what the hell they were doing. They had been through this before, and given the silence, and the fact that they were shouting out "We're British Journalists", there should have been no reason for him to be killed. The only reason they would have stepped out into the dark would be because they knew nothing was going on. When there is a battle going on, you try as much as you can to stay out of the line of fire. It's absolutely inexcusable. There should without question be a public inquiry and trial regarding this. And if it's shown that an Israeli soldier(s) is responsible, they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. I don't see why this is such a huge problem.

If things are this difficult to come by for relatively "priviledged" British and American citizens, justice has to be next to impossible for Palestinians. It's no wonder that they think non-violence won't work.

Also, the part about the ISM recognizing the right of Palestinians to armed struggle is directly related to International law. Which means that they may violently resist an occupying force, namely IDF soldiers, with minimal impact on civilians. It does not justify direct attacks on civilian targets.

 

[Sabastian]

Of course you shouldn't get in the way of heavy machinery if you can avoid it.

I think this about sums up my opinion. Ever work on a construction site? Dangerous as hell. I believe the woman in question could have indeed avoided her untimely death. I think the act was suicidal.. or at best it was foolhardy.

 

[Legion]

Ballistics tests:
http://www.justice4jamesmiller.com/ballisticsreport.htm
There seems to be a fair probability that the bullet that killed him came from and American or Israeli made firearm, leading one to believe that it is fairly likely that an IDF soldier fired the round.

Among others. They suggested that two variations were the M-16 and Galil. A number of other rifles use 5.56 rounds which include the AK47/74.

V. Accurate measurement of the engraved lands/ grooves of the rifling showed that several types/ models of commercial and military weapons shared the dimensions. Amongst the possible weapons were M-16 military rifles of American design (and derivatives).

Furthermore, the ballistics test indicated that the bullet entered through the front of his neck and exited through his back. Given the fact that they were approaching the IDF APC, that would seem to indicate that the bullet that killed him came from the APC, and not from the Palestinian side. At least enough that there should be a complete and public inquiry into James Miller's death.

We are told they were approaching the APC we do not know from what direction or the way James was facing when he was hit. All we have is a video of an "eye witness" who claims to have been standing near James when he was hit. In the darkness i'd question his capacity to know exactly the direction james was facing.

Also if they were facing the APCs why doesn't the camera pick up muzzle fashes and tracer rounds?

Keep in mind it was completely dark outside. Why would anyone be using a standard scope on a Galil?

-edit:

Frederich Mead (from your website) states the bullet most likely entered from the lower front left part of James' neck and exited under his right shoulder. What was the angle and direction from which James was approaching the APC for the bullet to have a downward path through his front left such that the bullet would exit from under his right shoulder?

I agree that it probably came from a rifle with a scope, which is precisely why this is so disturbing. This means that the death was intended, and premeditated.

You only agree for reasons of bolstering your case. I doubt you would have made my point which was that the shots indicated rifle fire and not machine gun.

If it doesn't show it, shouldn't that be just a slight indication that maybe it wasn't there?

Or maybe they cut it out like the incident with the strecher?

I would think the near total silence would be indicative of a lack of battle.

Why? If they were taking sniper hits they may have moved for cover.

I've seen enough military videos and talked to enough people to know how soldiers react when they come under fire. Guns are blazing, and there is no chance that they'd respond with just a sniper. Zero. None. It just wouldn't happen.

I doubt this highly. You don't run out with guns blazing in sniper fire. That would be stupid.

There has been zero evidence procurred thus far that the Israelis were under any sort of attack.

So you mean to say no one scoured the area with a comb in search of 5.56 rounds that may have come from sniper fire?

All of those shots did in fact appear to be coming from the same direction. This wasn't a rookie film crew that didn't know what the hell they were doing.

How do you come to this conclusion? I saw no tracer fire nor muzzle fashes.

why do you choose the word "appear"?

They had been through this before, and given the silence, and the fact that they were shouting out "We're British Journalists", there should have been no reason for him to be killed.

How far away was the APC? Could we see it? Could they hear from the APC or in APC? Again, if the journalists were heading in toward the APC and the rifles were fired directly at them why don't we see a muzzle flash and tracer rounds?

The only reason they would have stepped out into the dark would be because they knew nothing was going on.

Or trying to gather more "sensational" footage to bolster their montage of propaganda.

When there is a battle going on, you try as much as you can to stay out of the line of fire. It's absolutely inexcusable. There should without question be a public inquiry and trial regarding this. And if it's shown that an Israeli soldier(s) is responsible, they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. I don't see why this is such a huge problem.

Subject, relative. Where is the battle taking place. How far away?

If things are this difficult to come by for relatively "priviledged" British and American citizens, justice has to be next to impossible for Palestinians. It's no wonder that they think non-violence won't work.

Nonsequitor. You assume from this incident that all palestinians must be likewise treated brutally. Does this serve as your rational for palestinian violence against jews? Non wonder they go around blowing up jewish people. The jews treate them horribly and deserve it...

Also, the part about the ISM recognizing the right of Palestinians to armed struggle is directly related to International law. Which means that they may violently resist an occupying force, namely IDF soldiers, with minimal impact on civilians. It does not justify direct attacks on civilian targets.

Who stated anything justifies a direct attack on civilians?

 

[Legion]

Of course you shouldn't get in the way of heavy machinery if you can avoid it.

I think this about sums up my opinion. Ever work on a construction site? Dangerous as hell. I believe the woman in question could have indeed avoided her untimely death. I think the act was suicidal.. or at best it was foolhardy.

definately. This machine was hardly moving around quickly. If she were fast enough to get infront of it she was fast enough to move.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Among others. They suggested that two variations were the M-16 and Galil. A number of other rifles use 5.56 rounds which include the AK47/74.

AK47 is a 7.62 mm weapon. The AK74 is 5.45.

<edit> I should mention that there are russian weapons that will chamber 5.56 nato rounds (ak108). But your two examples were not among them.

 

[Legion]

Among others. They suggested that two variations were the M-16 and Galil. A number of other rifles use 5.56 rounds which include the AK47/74.

AK47 is a 7.62 mm weapon. The AK74 is 5.45.

<edit> I should mention that there are russian weapons that will chamber 5.56 nato rounds (ak108). But your two examples were not among them.

Are you sure there are no AK47s that 5.56? Not even the eqyptian MADDI?

I may have been thinking about the MAK-90

what about the AKM-47?


If the IDF were snipping them they'd more than likely be using a Galatz which uses 7.62 mm rounds.

 

[Clashman]

<edit> I should mention that there are russian weapons that will chamber 5.56 nato rounds (ak108). But your two examples were not among them.

And if you look at the bottom of the analysis in the footnote the ballistics expert seems to discount the NATO rounds.

 

[Legion]

<edit> I should mention that there are russian weapons that will chamber 5.56 nato rounds (ak108). But your two examples were not among them.

And if you look at the bottom of the analysis in the footnote the ballistics expert seems to discount the NATO rounds.

So he's insinuating some kind of proprietary 5.56?!

If so i couldn't rightfully tell you what gun shot James. The Tavor and Galil use 5.56 NATO. The Galatz uses 7.62.

 

[Clashman]

So he's insinuating some kind of proprietary 5.56?!

If so i couldn't rightfully tell you what gun shot James. The Tavor and Galil use 5.56 NATO. The Galatz uses 7.62.

63. Armalite rifles were a commercial design which, later, was adopted for military procurement on a very large scale. The cartridge which was used was originally unique to Armalite rifles.

64. Later, the cartridge was selected for use by NATO in rifles of its own national armies. However, the original cartridge pattern did not meet NATO requirements and a new bullet pattern was adopted in a cartridge of essentially the same size.

65. Bullets for this new cartridge had to be stabilised at a greater rotation than the original bullet and, rifles for the NATO pattern, have an increased twist to the rifling. The altered bullet and rifling require different sights on their respective rifles, although, physically, either pattern of rifle can fire either pattern of cartridge.

66. For convenience, it might be useful to think of the original pattern of bullet, rifle and rifling as being ?first generation? and the NATO bullet, rifles and rifling as being ?second generation?.

67. The bullet under consideration in this matter is an M 193 bullet of the ?first generation?.

 

[Legion]

i'll do a search for weapons that use 55 grain bullets then...


the m193 are NATO 5.56. Just an earlier version i believe. The bullets aren't proprietary. They could be interchanged. Both standards of grain mentioned can be fired from a gun that uses the same form of rounds.


The more i read wrt to James Miller the more fishy the matter becomes.

 

[Clashman]

Even if they were the same bullet, the amount of evidence presented here should be enough for at least a public inquiry. Furthermore, with regards to telling who shot him, If you watch the video several times you can tell which way his body fell, which was towards the camera. In a good portion of cases, I would say, when you are shot, the kinetic energy of the bullet knocks you back. Given the area of the wounds, and that he fell back towards the camera, it seems likely that the shooter would have come from opposite the Palestinian area. As for why muzzle flashes might not have been seen, it was very dark, and the camera seems substandard for night shooting. Huge floodlights on the bulldozers are barely visible in the video, and so I don't think it's out of the question that a muzzle flash might not have lit up the area.

Yet for some reason nothing can seem to shake you from the belief that everything the IDF says is true, that there was this big gunfight that cannot be documented in any way, shape or form, that a veteran camera crew walked out right into the middle of it, that they were shot by some phantom Palestinian gunmen, who the friends and family of the deceased are now protecting by engaging in a huge, drawn out battle against completely and totally innocent Israelis.

 

[Clashman]

The more i read wrt to James Miller the more fishy the matter becomes.

The reason it becomes "more fishy" to you is that nothing can shake you from the completely illogical belief that the IDF is totally innocent. So with each piece of evidence that mounts against the IDF, you become more and more convinced that it's just a huge conspiracy from his friends, family, and coworkers out to "get" the IDF. It's really ridiculous, and this is just one example of why it's almost always impossible to have a real dialog with you.

 

[Legion]

Even if they were the same bullet, the amount of evidence presented here should be enough for at least a public inquiry.

Why? The arabs who call themselves palestinians have access to a number of guns from NORINCO (including the MAK90) which use 5.56 rounds.

What about the matter concerning the bullet path?

Furthermore, with regards to telling who shot him, If you watch the video several times you can tell which way his body fell, which was towards the camera.

Which means what? He was hit from the left front at an upward angle (such that the bullet exits under his right shoulder). That to me seems rather extreme.

In a good portion of cases, I would say, when you are shot, the kinetic energy of the bullet knocks you back. Given the area of the wounds, and that he fell back towards the camera, it seems likely that the shooter would have come from opposite the Palestinian area.

Or beyond the APCs, perhaps in a building in order to achieve an upwards angle.

As for why muzzle flashes might not have been seen, it was very dark, and the camera seems substandard for night shooting.

Huge floodlights on the bulldozers are barely visible in the video, and so I don't think it's out of the question that a muzzle flash might not have lit up the area.[/quote]

I would say its also quite possible the shooter was off camera.

Yet for some reason nothing can seem to shake you from the belief that everything the IDF says is true, that there was this big gunfight that cannot be documented in any way, shape or form, that a veteran camera crew walked out right into the middle of it, that they were shot by some phantom Palestinian gunmen, who the friends and family of the deceased are now protecting by engaging in a huge, drawn out battle against completely and totally innocent Israelis.

Its not a matter of shaking me. Its a matter of certain bits of their accussations not adding up with their video. I think it is perfectly possible they were hit by an IDF trooper. However, i doubt this is apart of some IDF conspiracy. Shooting westerns, especially the press would be terrible for them.

What concerns me is that you are trying to use this matter to justify your feelings wrt to the palestinians - a nonsequitor.