i gotta admit i am surprised that all of them are not testifying behind a curtain...
edit... upon second reading, i misread the posted article...why did the supreme court refuse to hear the appeal? do they fear that the family will attack one of them or pay someone to have them attacked? that said, i am not really surprised by the fact that they refused to hear the appeal...the corries have faced obstacle after obstacle in their search for truth...the family should be allowed to face these men in court..not have them hide behind a curtain like they have been hiding for so long...in our justice system, even when someone is falsely accused they testify in plain view of the victim's family...
at least one of them will testify in plain view, even if it was only because he had made himself known in that tv interview prior to these proceedings.
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
You think people are getting paid to argue with you on this site?!
whether you are getting paid or not, you post like a hasbarat. wh4ether its offoicial qnd your paid to spread lie, or you on our own spreading them anayway, makes no diference. your doing their job for the,m, pay or not. conclusion, uou are a hasbarat, for all intents and ppuposes
and on this board, overa;l, your record is atrocious.
and now you seem to be bowing out. after wqatching it unfold in front of me i can honestly say fighting a losing battle, has gotta be touhg........the situation iws clear. isral is s very m illitant state bent om expansion. fuck peace, they want expansion.
'
comes a time when ou might want question some of those things y0u have been fightijng fo fo so lomng and realiize. the world thinks waht you do to be a criime. you are brealking innationlaw.
isrea; stamds alone agasinte th4e worldwith the US,,,,,,how long tiol tht ends?
shou;lb be ,msaking plans to sercure whawts youtrs., tehy may not be forevpre safe.
You think people are getting paid to argue with you on this site?!
whether you are getting paid or not, you post like a hasbarat. wh4ether its offoicial qnd your paid to spread lie, or you on our own spreading them anayway, makes no diference. your doing their job for the,m, pay or not. conclusion, uou are a hasbarat, for all intents and ppuposes
and on this board, overa;l, your record is atrocious.
and now you seem to be bowing out. after wqatching it unfold in front of me i can honestly say fighting a losing battle, has gotta be touhg........the situation iws clear. isral is s very m illitant state bent om expansion. fuck peace, they want expansion.
'
comes a time when ou might want question some of those things y0u have been fightijng fo fo so lomng and realiize. the world thinks waht you do to be a criime. you are brealking innationlaw.
isrea; stamds alone agasinte th4e worldwith the US,,,,,,how long tiol tht ends?
shou;lb be ,msaking plans to sercure whawts youtrs., tehy may not be forevpre safe.
I'm a bad typist....but damn are you drunk or just really upset and typing very fast? That was a bit of a mess to read.
You're so right. The only reason I could possibly cut back on my posting here is that in the face of your overwhelmingly persuasive arguments ("I'm right and you're a hasbarat!") I have realized it's a losing battle. It couldn't possibly be that I have better things to do than argue politics endlessly on a Pearl Jam fan site (which has got to be the least important and impactful venue for these discussions).
Sometimes it's interesting to see what opinion on the fringes looks like. After a while though, it always becomes a little tedious.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You think people are getting paid to argue with you on this site?!
whether you are getting paid or not, you post like a hasbarat. wh4ether its offoicial qnd your paid to spread lie, or you on our own spreading them anayway, makes no diference. your doing their job for the,m, pay or not. conclusion, uou are a hasbarat, for all intents and ppuposes
and on this board, overa;l, your record is atrocious.
and now you seem to be bowing out. after wqatching it unfold in front of me i can honestly say fighting a losing battle, has gotta be touhg........the situation iws clear. isral is s very m illitant state bent om expansion. fuck peace, they want expansion.
'
comes a time when ou might want question some of those things y0u have been fightijng fo fo so lomng and realiize. the world thinks waht you do to be a criime. you are brealking innationlaw.
isrea; stamds alone agasinte th4e worldwith the US,,,,,,how long tiol tht ends?
shou;lb be ,msaking plans to sercure whawts youtrs., tehy may not be forevpre safe.
You're so right. The only reason I could possibly cut back on my posting here is that in the face of your overwhelmingly persuasive arguments ("I'm right and you're a hasbarat!") I have realized it's a losing battle. It couldn't possibly be that I have better things to do than argue politics endlessly on a Pearl Jam fan site (which has got to be the least important and impactful venue for these discussions).
Sometimes it's interesting to see what opinion on the fringes looks like. After a while though, it always becomes a little tedious.
seriously guys, do we have to resort to bickering in a thread that was designed to honor Rachel Corrie's memory? this thread is the only resource that keeps me informed on the happenings with her family's ordeal.
we fight in every other thread, can't we have ONE THREAD that is civil in nature?
seriously, please have some fucking respect.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Gimme, I hear you, I really do. But I don't feel all that respected myself when I'm basically being called a rat. Respect has got to go both ways.
we all have our opinions on each other. and i will not let that get in my way of having a civil discussion in this thread. this is Rachel's thread. take the accusations and fighting somewhere else. and i am deadly serious about that. have a little respect for a woman who lost her life trying to prevent a crime, and have a little respect for her family who has endured so much pain in order to only get some answers.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Except that you posted it only after I had responded (which indicates to me that Commy referring to me as a HasbaRAT didn't warrant your attention), and by framing your post as a response to my message it seemed to me that your comments were really aimed my way.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
So Commy baiting people isn't an issue for you, but people responding to explicit insults directed at them is?
this is what was said. "the silence of the hasbarats lately is telling. maybe even getting paid to fight a losing battle is too much."
you chose to take it as a shot at you by saying this "You think people are getting paid to argue with you on this site?! "
you didn't have to reply with the emoticons, but you did, and by your post i read it as you were looking for a fight. and look what happened. you were not forced to reply in that manner, or even at all.
i said it goes for everybody. i have said what i wanted to say. now move on.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"We should be inspired by people... who show that human beings can be kind, brave, generous, beautiful, strong-even in the most difficult circumstances."
Rachel Corrie
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Sometimes I sit down to dinner with people and I realize there is a massive military machine surrounding us, trying to kill the people I'm having dinner with."
Rachel Corrie
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"I spent a lot of time writing about the disappointment of discovering, somewhat first-hand, the degree of evil of which we are still capable. I should at least mention that I am also discovering a degree of strength and of basic ability for humans to remain human in the direst of circumstances."
Rachel Corrie
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
You're so right. The only reason I could possibly cut back on my posting here is that in the face of your overwhelmingly persuasive arguments ("I'm right and you're a hasbarat!") I have realized it's a losing battle. It couldn't possibly be that I have better things to do than argue politics endlessly on a Pearl Jam fan site (which has got to be the least important and impactful venue for these discussions).
poor yosi, always the victim. some things never change.
if you have better things to do than argue politics endlessly then maybe you shouldn't have come into this thread last week with this smart ass comment which was purely designed at trying to instigate an argument.
i noticed you never came back. what, you didn't have anything to say to my reply? of course you didn't, you just came into the thread to try and fire people up.
It seems to me that "overbroad" is a pretty subjective term, especially since the article is from the Rachel Corrie Foundation, which is pretty clearly not an objective source of information on this case (doesn't mean they're wrong per se, but they clearly have a strong stake in the case's outcome).
A question: what would your reactions be if the trial does not find in favor of the Corries? I ask because everyone commenting here seems to have made up their minds along time ago about the "truth" of what happened, so it seems to me that rather than looking to the court to establish the truth (as one would normally do with a trial) you are looking to the court to affirm what you have already decided to be true.
the trial update is accurate. prove it's not yosi.
and if the court doesn't rule in favor of the Corries after all of the evidence is presented then i'll just keep doing what i'm doing now. nothing will change.
i'll keep demanding that the international community and the US government stop simply condemning Israel's brutal and illegal blockade of Gaza, the settlement expansion in the west bank, the murdering of peaceful civillians, and keep campaigning against their offering of unconditional support to Israel until they actually start doing something to end it.
Rachel's death will never be in vain. there's too many people who are actively keeping her memory alive.
regarding the Supreme Courts decision to allow the bulldozer driver to testify behind a screen, i'm yet to see a fair and reasonable argument as to why this was granted.
the Corrie family has spent so much time publicly advocating for justice, freedom, security and economic viability for both Israelis and Palestinians. they've spent years battling in Israeli courts since Rachel died and their only motivation is to seek truth, justice and accountability to hopefully give them some closure. why don't the Corrie family get the chance to look their daughter's killer in the eye in court?
T, if you're really interested in talking (rather than just having a public argument for the sake of it) I reached out to you through IM, and I'm still waiting to hear back from you.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
T, if you're really interested in talking (rather than just having a public argument for the sake of it) I reached out to you through IM, and I'm still waiting to hear back from you.
really???
why would you ever publicize something like that? unless you're trying to make her look bad for the sake of it..
pms are supposed to be private...
i think that is pretty low to state that publicly, but that is just me....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Gimme, I was responding to what she said in this thread regarding my non-responsiveness to her comments. I'm not sharing what was said through IM, only that I reached out and have heard nothing but silence in response (as you said, IMs are meant to be private). I don't think this is inappropriate given that it is in response to the claim that I am only here to hijack threads and "fire people up" and not to actually try to have a constructive dialogue. I don't reach out to everyone. I reached out to T because I feel that her heart is in the right place, and that it would be better for us to hash out our disagreements privately. I would still like to do that, if she's willing to engage with me.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Gimme, I was responding to what she said in this thread regarding my non-responsiveness to her comments. I'm not sharing what was said through IM, only that I reached out and have heard nothing but silence in response (as you said, IMs are meant to be private). I don't think this is inappropriate given that it is in response to the claim that I am only here to hijack threads and "fire people up" and not to actually try to have a constructive dialogue. I don't reach out to everyone. I reached out to T because I feel that her heart is in the right place, and that it would be better for us to hash out our disagreements privately. I would still like to do that, if she's willing to engage with me.
well it reads like you are calling her out and i think to point out publicly that she did not write back is inappropriate. suppose i would have pmd you and you did not reply, i would never post that here in attempt to make you look bad because it is nobody's business.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
T, regarding your request that I prove that the trial update is inaccurate...I don't believe that I said that it was inaccurate to begin with. What I said was that the source for the information is not reliably objective since they clearly have a stake in the outcome/perception of the proceedings. I simply suggested that the information conveyed by this source should be viewed critically before being accepted as "fact" (which is actually true of most all information).
I also suggested that when the article you cited called the court's ruling "overbroad" they were going beyond the mere reporting of facts, and making an editorial (i.e. subjective) comment on the proceedings. I'm sure that the presiding judge doesn't feel his ruling to be "overbroad." Again, this doesn't mean that the interpretation presented by the article is necessarily false. My aim was simply to to point out a distinction between opinion and fact.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
"In asking for the highly unusual protective measures, state attorneys argued that they were necessary to protect the soldiers' safety and prevent their images from being circulated. They based the request on an overbroad security certificate issued by Defense Minister Ehud Barak in 2008, but did not provide concrete evidence to substantiate their concerns for the soldiers' safety or security."
if they did not provide justification or evidence for protecting these people's identities when those same standards are not applied to everyone across the board can be interpreted as overbroad. i did not write that article, and i will bet that most reasonable people would agree that protecting their identity and not allowing at least the family to face those responsible for Rachel's death is "overbroad".
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
i gotta admit i am surprised that all of them are not testifying behind a curtain...
edit... upon second reading, i misread the posted article...why did the supreme court refuse to hear the appeal? do they fear that the family will attack one of them or pay someone to have them attacked? that said, i am not really surprised by the fact that they refused to hear the appeal...the corries have faced obstacle after obstacle in their search for truth...the family should be allowed to face these men in court..not have them hide behind a curtain like they have been hiding for so long...in our justice system, even when someone is falsely accused they testify in plain view of the victim's family...
at least one of them will testify in plain view, even if it was only because he had made himself known in that tv interview prior to these proceedings.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and on this board, overa;l, your record is atrocious.
and now you seem to be bowing out. after wqatching it unfold in front of me i can honestly say fighting a losing battle, has gotta be touhg........the situation iws clear. isral is s very m illitant state bent om expansion. fuck peace, they want expansion.
'
comes a time when ou might want question some of those things y0u have been fightijng fo fo so lomng and realiize. the world thinks waht you do to be a criime. you are brealking innationlaw.
isrea; stamds alone agasinte th4e worldwith the US,,,,,,how long tiol tht ends?
shou;lb be ,msaking plans to sercure whawts youtrs., tehy may not be forevpre safe.
I'm a bad typist....but damn are you drunk or just really upset and typing very fast? That was a bit of a mess to read.
-Rachel Corrie
Sometimes it's interesting to see what opinion on the fringes looks like. After a while though, it always becomes a little tedious.
:arrow: :thumbup:
we fight in every other thread, can't we have ONE THREAD that is civil in nature?
seriously, please have some fucking respect.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm also perplexed why you seem to have no problem with others using this thread to insult me, but as soon as I respond it's an issue for you.
my original post on the matter went for all of you.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
this is what was said. "the silence of the hasbarats lately is telling. maybe even getting paid to fight a losing battle is too much."
you chose to take it as a shot at you by saying this "You think people are getting paid to argue with you on this site?!
you didn't have to reply with the emoticons, but you did, and by your post i read it as you were looking for a fight. and look what happened. you were not forced to reply in that manner, or even at all.
i said it goes for everybody. i have said what i wanted to say. now move on.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Rachel Corrie
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Rachel Corrie
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Rachel Corrie
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if you have better things to do than argue politics endlessly then maybe you shouldn't have come into this thread last week with this smart ass comment which was purely designed at trying to instigate an argument.
i noticed you never came back. what, you didn't have anything to say to my reply? of course you didn't, you just came into the thread to try and fire people up.
the Corrie family has spent so much time publicly advocating for justice, freedom, security and economic viability for both Israelis and Palestinians. they've spent years battling in Israeli courts since Rachel died and their only motivation is to seek truth, justice and accountability to hopefully give them some closure. why don't the Corrie family get the chance to look their daughter's killer in the eye in court?
for anyone who might like to know more about the Corries. from Cindy Corrie, a year or so after Rachel was killed. it speaks for itself.
http://www.nimn.org/Perspectives/other_ ... p?section=
why would you ever publicize something like that? unless you're trying to make her look bad for the sake of it..
pms are supposed to be private...
i think that is pretty low to state that publicly, but that is just me....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
lil bit drunk.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I also suggested that when the article you cited called the court's ruling "overbroad" they were going beyond the mere reporting of facts, and making an editorial (i.e. subjective) comment on the proceedings. I'm sure that the presiding judge doesn't feel his ruling to be "overbroad." Again, this doesn't mean that the interpretation presented by the article is necessarily false. My aim was simply to to point out a distinction between opinion and fact.
if they did not provide justification or evidence for protecting these people's identities when those same standards are not applied to everyone across the board can be interpreted as overbroad. i did not write that article, and i will bet that most reasonable people would agree that protecting their identity and not allowing at least the family to face those responsible for Rachel's death is "overbroad".
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."