Israeli army bulldozes, kills American protester.

March 16, 2003 6:44 PM

Israeli army bulldozes, kills American protester. Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Washington was killed in the Gaza Strip on Sunday when an Israeli Army bulldozer ran her over while trying to destroy a house in the Palestinian settlement of Rafah. Rachel was one of eight Palestinian Solidarity volunteers from the US and Great Britain at the scene, who were gathered in front of the house of Dr. Samir Masri, which was slated for demolition. Rachel Corrie was a leading organizer of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace, and was a senior at Evergreen State College, majoring in International Studies. She was also a talented writer, documenting her experiences in Palestine and Gaza.
posted by insomnia_lj (189 comments total)

Rachel Corrie, from Olympia's Procession of the Species festival last year. (Photo by Mike Salsbury/The Olympian)

From an email of Corrie's, in an article from The Olympian:

'Corrie painted a picture of the perilous life of International Solidarity Movement volunteers, recounting a Feb. 14 confrontation with the Israelis.

"The internationals stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house," Corrie wrote. "The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demolishing one side of the house with the internationals inside. The driver then dropped a sound grenade out of the cab of the bulldozer, and continued to demolish the house, at which point the activists were able to escape, amid gunfire from the tank."

“We can only imagine what it is like for Palestinians living here, most of them already once-or-twice refugees already, for whom this is not a nightmare, but a continuous reality from which international privilege cannot protect them, and from which they have no economic means to escape.”
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:50 PM on March 16, 2003

Darwin wins again.
posted by mischief at 6:57 PM on March 16, 2003

For sensitive clickers, be aware that insomnia_lj's first link includes graphic photos of Rachel mortally injured.

And those on troll watch can just ignore mischief.
posted by arielmeadow at 6:57 PM on March 16, 2003

Mischief isn't the only one trying to call this an act of darwinism, rather than a protester being killed. There is little doubt that the Israeli forces knew the protesters were there. They were determined to force the issue once again, but this time an American was killed.

The soldiers were well aware of protesters in the area -- a half an hour before the fatal incident, another activist had been hurt by a bulldozer, who was hurled into a pile of barbed wire.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:02 PM on March 16, 2003

Oh well, just some dumb hippie getting in the way again.
/sarcasm
No comment from the White House, I suppose?
posted by oflinkey at 7:05 PM on March 16, 2003

The very fact she was willing to stand in front of a bulldozer would imply to me that she was prepared for the consequences. (Namely being bulldozed).

It's horrible and tragic and so very avoidable. Democracy works when you use it. If the majority of people supported her there would be no issue.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:10 PM on March 16, 2003

ironic.
posted by quonsar at 7:10 PM on March 16, 2003

Oops. Here's the link for those kind, sensitive Americans over at the Free Republic's discussion forums...

I wonder what the same people thought about this guy...

posted by insomnia_lj at 7:11 PM on March 16, 2003

Tragedy after tragedy, on all sides.
posted by AlexSteffen at 7:13 PM on March 16, 2003

So insomnia, are you suggesting that the Israeli Government stop acting on its stated policies because a few people voluntarily put themselves in harm's way? People who aren't even (at least not all) citizens? I'm saddened by the death of anyone, certainly, but this person made a conscious choice to be in a dangerous place.
posted by billsaysthis at 7:15 PM on March 16, 2003

I am stating that the Israeli Government kills people who get in the way of their stated policies, which are a violation of international laws and UN declarations too numerous to go into in a short post.

This time, Israel killed an American.

As such, they should be held accountable.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:18 PM on March 16, 2003

Well insomnia, the sad part is that this kind of international reaction occurs when an American is killed, but when the people who actually live in the paths of Israeli bulldozers are affected, no-one raises an eyebrow.
posted by Jimbob at 7:21 PM on March 16, 2003

The bulldozer guy should be charged with murder. If they really really wanted to bulldoze that badly, these kids could have been arrested or something-at least long enough to get them out of the way. Even if it was false imprisonment, it sure beats the hell out of what happened to that kid.
posted by konolia at 7:22 PM on March 16, 2003

Irregardless of what we thought about him, the gentleman in that photo is almost certainly dead himself. If one considers the Israelis as barbaric about human rights as the Chinese Communists, then one is at best foolish to try and stop them non-violently, because one is going to die, as the massacre at Tiananmen Square showed. If one considers the Israelis better than that, then one ought to pursue a some way of allowing them to extricate themselves from the situation they're in vis a vis the Palestinians rather than simply sitting in front of bulldozers.

Frankly, I think the guy ought to be put on trial for manslaughter, at the least. It really turns on the question of whether you think he intended to kill her, or whether he was merely reckless about whether his actions would kill her or not.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 7:25 PM on March 16, 2003

well, this kind of thing happens to palistineans all the time. I don't see why her being an american should make this all 'worse'
posted by delmoi at 7:25 PM on March 16, 2003

I am not, incidentally, saying that Rachel Corrie's death in an act of protest was any more noble than any of the numerous innocent Palestinian protesters who were killed by the Israelis... all of them should count. Instead, we blame the protesters for putting themselves in danger, rather than those who put the protesters in danger.

Whether you believe in her cause or not, Rachael Corrie was an American with a distinct voice and unique gifts. Sometimes, just sometimes, Americans stand up and take notice when one of their own gets killed without cause.

They certainly did in the case of 9/11...
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:25 PM on March 16, 2003

Well, that tears it. Suicide bombings are definitely justified now. They killed an American, so Israelis are pigs and Palestinians should be free to explode indiscriminately.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:28 PM on March 16, 2003

It's too bad that Yassir can't learn from this soon-to-be-shitstorm.

The best way to get whatever you want, from whomever you want, is to get in harms way and stay there. It worked for Ghandi and it worked for Dr. King and it would surely work for the palestinians. There are 200 or so newspaper and TV bureaus in Jerusalem. If Yassir would bring 500,000 people to Jerusalem to peacefully protest (i.e., get shot at with rubber bullets and arrested by IDF soldiers), he'd get his way. He'd get a state in weeks, not years. Israel would be powerless -- all of the military might they've got is nothing against children being clubbed and tear-gassed and arrested on TV.
posted by zpousman at 7:28 PM on March 16, 2003

Yes, exactly. Based on the events of that day and the knowledge that there were protesters all over the area, the person in charge of that bulldozer should have at least called in the Israeli army to round up the protesters and take them away from the scene.

The driver should, at minimum, be charged with manslaughter for the wreckless, irresponsible behavior on their part that led to Rachel Corrie's death. This appears to be an institutionalized situation, too, based on prior actions. If the soldier driving the bulldozer was under orders to behave in this manner, then whoever gave the orders should also be charged.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:31 PM on March 16, 2003

Yes Mayor Curley, we all agree totally. That's just the exact point we were all trying to make. Your leap of logic summed it all up very nicely.
posted by Jimbob at 7:37 PM on March 16, 2003

Well, that tears it. Suicide bombings are definitely justified now. They killed an American, so Israelis are pigs and Palestinians should be free to explode indiscriminately

thank you for that illuminating dichotomy. obviously, one either supports suicide bombings or can not bothered by a tank rolling over a person. shame on everyone else for looking at this as a complex situation involving real, worthwhile lives.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 7:37 PM on March 16, 2003

"Well, that tears it. Suicide bombings are definitely justified now. They killed an American, so Israelis are pigs and Palestinians should be free to explode indiscriminately."

And the logical basis for this incredibly inane "either/or" argument is...?!

Nobody here is justifying the illegal, immoral destruction of anyone's life, thanks. The death of Rachel Corrie is worthy of a charge/charges of manslaughter under Israeli law. It is illegal.

For that matter, so is the act of knocking down Palestinian houses in this manner. As I said previously, it violates both international law and UN declarations.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:39 PM on March 16, 2003

Let's see: Subject dies pointlessly as a result of an obviously stupid stunt, pointless in that she died trying to save a house, not someone's life but an inanimate structure. That she was a citizen of the US will not influence the policies of either the Israelis nor Shrub's administration.

She is a textbook candidate for a Darwin, sweeties.

The deaths of protestors do not count for much because they can do so much more good by staying alive.
posted by mischief at 7:48 PM on March 16, 2003

mischief - look out your window; the sappers have attached charges to blow up your house and the bulldozers have arrived to clear away the rubble of your building, and the wreckage of everything you once possesed. Get a move on it! What, do you want to do - be an idiot and die, or something?
posted by troutfishing at 7:55 PM on March 16, 2003

Heck, people have died trying to save trees.

I'm wondering-are there ever any middleaged or older protestors doing this sort of thing? I have to admit to wondering if some of these young people are simply incredibly naive when it comes to the harsh realities of the world-not to mention that just because one is American does not mean one is made of teflon.
posted by konolia at 7:58 PM on March 16, 2003

For those who are interested in more of a background on this, there is an excellent site here on what is happening in Rafah, where Rachel Corrie died.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:58 PM on March 16, 2003

The punishment for her death will depend on the circumstances.

The bulldozer operator would be the one to be charged. Either for manslaughter, or an accidental manslaughter.

She fell down, in the path of the bulldozer. If the driver intentionally ran her over, then he commited a crime.

The intelligence of her actions is not an issue. She fell down, she didn't stand up to a bulldozer, being run over in the process.

She will be (and already has been) used as a martyr for the Palestinean cause. Preferably, the retaliation from the Palestineans should be non-violent. There is always a small chance that some violence will break out.

I do question the OP linking from the PalSolidarity. Sure, they will make claims. But, you have to recongize the possible bias from the site of a group that she was a part of.

We'll see the facts of this matter.

It's a shame if anybody dies. American, Palestinean, Israeli. Violence begats Violence. From both sides. Neither side really gets it.
posted by RobbieFal at 7:59 PM on March 16, 2003

"I have to admit to wondering if some of these young people are simply incredibly naive when it comes to the harsh realities of the world-not to mention that just because one is American does not mean one is made of teflon."

Really? You think?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:03 PM on March 16, 2003

"I do question the OP linking from the PalSolidarity."

The link to PalSolidarity was the most informative link, and the only one with pictures from the actual scene of the accident. It cited the most witnesses, too.

If I had the choice between linking to the coverage of Rodney King with a video of the beating or without the video and with no named witnesses, I would pick the one with the video.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:08 PM on March 16, 2003

Insomnia, I don't see the connection.

If you are trying to say that the US military thinks it is Teflon, all I can say is that I live in a town jampacked with soldiers and none of them think they are bulletproof. Their spouses certainly don't think that either.
posted by konolia at 8:08 PM on March 16, 2003

The fact that she died is terrible, but that she died is niether a reflection of Israel or the Palestinians. It was her choice to stand there, and the drivers choice (or not... I don't really know all the facts from the situation) to hit her. The driver of the bulldozer does not represent Israel, and that woman did not represent the Palestinians.

Any action taken by either of these two sides excepting an investigation and possibly a trial, depending on what the investigation discovers, is wrong and uncalled for, including protests in this woman's name by the Palestinians.
posted by dazed_one at 8:09 PM on March 16, 2003

Israeli soldiers and the practices they follow on a routine basis don't represent Israel?

By that standard, it doesn't matter what US soldiers do in Iraq, even under orders, because they do not represent us.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:13 PM on March 16, 2003

I didn't see any evidence of the driver being issued an order to run her over, Insomnia.
posted by dazed_one at 8:16 PM on March 16, 2003

This site belongs to the an organization committed to "confronting and challenging illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies. "

A story in the post says that the girl was kneeling in front of the bulldozer, sure it would stop, but that the driver couldn't see her because the bulldozer windows provided little visibility.

Not that the matter is settled. Its a shame this woman died. Maybe the attention given to her will help convince some to decide to protest using non-violent means.
posted by xammerboy at 8:31 PM on March 16, 2003

Their may not be a formal order issued, but this type of thing has happened before and Israel's lack of care could be considered guilt.
posted by destro at 8:31 PM on March 16, 2003

xammerboy- rather it would convince some to decide to protest using violent means. nonviolent very obviously did not work for her. its situations like this that lend evidential fodder to fields of thought which believe the only way to protest is to blow yourself up along with scores of innocents.
posted by oog at 8:32 PM on March 16, 2003

"I didn't see any evidence of the driver being issued an order to run her over.

Absolutely. There was no such order. However, there appears to have been orders in the past to take very aggressive actions with the bulldozers that have previously endangered lives. Israel could have ordered soldiers in to round up the protesters and force them from the scene. They didn't do this. They *chose* to behave in a very agressive manner.

If a military commander from a country ordered their pilots to "buzz" commercial planes on a routine basis, and if one such attempt led to the death of hundreds of people, who would be legally responsible? The pilot of the plane that followed the order or the officer(s) that gave them the order? The answer is both. This isn't me saying this either... this is standard law.

"If you are trying to say that the US military thinks it is Teflon, all I can say is that I live in a town jampacked with soldiers and none of them think they are bulletproof."

So, are you saying then that when high school kids are approached by recruiters for the first time when they are 16 or 17, none of them are "naive when it comes to the harsh realities of the world" ?

Clearly, from her own writings, Rachel wasn't naive. She was an experienced non-violent protester. She knew the risks, which is why she probably wore a bright orange jacket in the first place. You only get that kind of knowledge through experience, and it is naive to think that non-violent protesters are inexperienced. Many of them train in a significant manner for what they do, in order to do it as safely as possible.

Why, then, do they keep doing it? Is it naivety... or an act of conscience?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:35 PM on March 16, 2003 [1 favorite]

trout: IOW, the inhabitants had plenty of warning to leave.
posted by mischief at 8:35 PM on March 16, 2003

mischief- when given a warning you disagree with, you can either immediately obey it or you can choose to do everything you can in order to preserve your way of life, including protesting. including what this young woman did. its a pretty popular act of conscience for billions of people in the world, from ghandi to three-year-olds. what it is NOT is stupid, and an example of darwinism. please let people have their voices.
posted by oog at 8:39 PM on March 16, 2003

pseudoephedrine: (to my chagrin)

One entry found for irregardless.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.


sorry to derail.
posted by pinto at 8:43 PM on March 16, 2003

So, are you saying then that when high school kids are approached by recruiters for the first time when they are 16 or 17, none of them are "naive when it comes to the harsh realities of the world" ?

Actually I was more wondering what it was that kept older people from standing in front of bulldozers. I wonder if older protesters are more inclined to search out different strategies, and if this can be attributed to having had more life experience.
posted by konolia at 8:46 PM on March 16, 2003

oog: She has no voice by being dead.
posted by mischief at 8:47 PM on March 16, 2003

A quick thought experiment should resolve this confusion:

What if the Israel military issued guidelines for bulldozer drivers which amounted to orders that they should "stop the bulldozer if there is any possibility that civilians might be hurt or killed." Well......

Civilian protesters would quickly bring the bulldozers to a halt.

So:

1) IDF 'bulldozer policy' must, necessarily, be calibrated so that a few civilians will be run over by bulldozers.

2) Proving the existence of such a policy will be nearly impossible.
posted by troutfishing at 8:47 PM on March 16, 2003

Israel's military bulldozers have incredible amounts of armour attached to them (it is common for the IDF to send bulldozers into areas considered too dangerous for most other armoured vehicles, and even into known minefields). One of the consequences of this is that the operator of the bulldozer is generally looking through several small blocks of very thick bulletproof glass, not through the big clear sheet of plate glass you'd normally see on a bulldozer, so visibility is quite poor. Between that and the bulldozer's blade, I'd imagine it is quite conceivable (not certain) that a protestor who was lying (not standing; Rachel had fallen just then) in front of the blade would be pretty much invisible.
posted by kickingtheground at 8:51 PM on March 16, 2003

Insomnia: Your comparison of this incident to that of military jets buzzing civilian aircraft is very poor. She chose to stand in front of the bulldozer. Your analogy would perhaps make more sense if it went as follows:

A commercial airliner protests the flights of military planes by "buzzing" them. The airliner gets too close and crashes and many people die. Who would be legally responsible? The pilot of the commercial airliner.

The bulldozer driver (or the pilot of the military jet, to continue our earlier comparison) should only be held responsible should evidence be found to prove that he/she saw the protestor and did not attempt to stop.

I am not supporting Israeli demolition squads. I am merely pointing out that Israel, as a country, and the IDF are not to blame for this woman's death.
posted by dazed_one at 8:52 PM on March 16, 2003

Mischief - As I said: (to elaborate) The sappers have attached charges to your building, and the bulldozers are here. Or maybe it will be just bulldozers this time (if your building is small). No matter - You have been given ample 30 minute warning. Flee or die.
posted by troutfishing at 8:53 PM on March 16, 2003

To anyone who spouts off about 'Darwinism'. Tragic.
posted by letterneversent at 8:59 PM on March 16, 2003

kickingtheground - thanks for that clarification. It sounds as if the IDF bulldozers are designed to do their job regardless of human interference and that human obstacles, or individual human lives, are really quite incidental to the bulldozing imperative.
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on March 16, 2003

troutfishing: You are in your favorite shop. In walks a man. He has a bomb under his jacket. He blows it up. You recieve no warning. You die.
posted by dazed_one at 9:01 PM on March 16, 2003

trout: Whatever your point is, I'm not getting it.
posted by mischief at 9:02 PM on March 16, 2003

I read about her this morning, and it's incredibly sad. It's inspiring, however, how much moral strength someone like that has. It's easy to sit around online and post snarky comments to MeFi. It takes much more to be aware of injustices in the world and then go and stop them.

She didn't just read about IDF tanks bombarding Palestinian refugee camps and think "How horrible," she went these and put herself between the bulldozers and the houses. That bespeaks a much higher level of awareness and moral strength than most of the armchair theorists here.

It also seems like most of the people here are fairly uneducated regarding nonviolent movements:

"The very fact she was willing to stand in front of a bulldozer would imply to me that she was prepared for the consequences. (Namely being bulldozed).

It's horrible and tragic and so very avoidable. Democracy works when you use it. If the majority of people supported her there would be no issue."

She was indeed prepared for the consequences, and yet her death is still a tragedy. As far as democracy goes, I'm sure at least a plurality of Palestinians would vote against bulldozing houses (or indeed, to Israeli occupation in general), should an election be held. Unfortunately they're under military occupation and don't have the democratic representation you're assuming.

Since we're talking about democracy, it turns out that nonviolent insurrections are a great way to overthrow violent regimes and replace them with democratic institutions (see the Philipines, under Gen. Marcos; or Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution).

So insomnia, are you suggesting that the Israeli Government stop acting on its stated policies because a few people voluntarily put themselves in harm's way? People who aren't even (at least not all) citizens? I'm saddened by the death of anyone, certainly, but this person made a conscious choice to be in a dangerous place.

I suggest that the Israeli government stop acting on its stated policies because they are morally wrong (as well as the fact that they violate international law). It doesn't require a citizen to speak truth to power.

You're thinking about this in terms of coercion, which is the wrong way to look at nonviolent action. Nonviolent results come about in three ways (according to Gene Sharp, at Harvard):

Conversion - A change of heart, if you will. The opponent stops their repressive action because the voluntary suffering of the nonviolent participants illustrates the inherent immorality of the opponent's behavior.

Accomodation - The opponent sees both the wrongness of their action and the political damage it causes and stops.

Coercion - The opponent's legitimacy is withdrawn by the people (a la social contract), and they fade into irrelevancy.

Accomodation is a mix of the other two.

Now, the way you frame your question implies that Israel would only stop their razing of houses if they were blackmailed with bad publicity or human hostages. Nonviolent protestors are not hostages, they are agents of change trying to get the people involved in the razing of these houses to stop, at whatever level.

The best way to get whatever you want, from whomever you want, is to get in harms way and stay there. It worked for Ghandi and it worked for Dr. King and it would surely work for the palestinians. There are 200 or so newspaper and TV bureaus in Jerusalem. If Yassir would bring 500,000 people to Jerusalem to peacefully protest (i.e., get shot at with rubber bullets and arrested by IDF soldiers), he'd get his way. He'd get a state in weeks, not years. Israel would be powerless -- all of the military might they've got is nothing against children being clubbed and tear-gassed and arrested on TV.

This is a bit closer to the truth. In fact, the Golani Druze (the Druze in the Golan Heights [which used to be Syria]) successfully resisted Israeli occupation using nonviolent noncooperation. The IDF can only function when its members percieve the Palestinians to be actual threats. Military occupation of nonviolent, noncooperating civilians has yet to work (like Czechoslovakia's Prauge Spring, for example, in which .cz resisted the Soviet army in 1968 for 8 months).

The first Intifada, interestingly enough, was very nonviolent and provoked serious and lasting changes in both sides. The IDF's new policies, like collective punishment (illegal under international law, BTW) make nonviolent organizing that much harder, however.

Let's see: Subject dies pointlessly as a result of an obviously stupid stunt, pointless in that she died trying to save a house, not someone's life but an inanimate structure. That she was a citizen of the US will not influence the policies of either the Israelis nor Shrub's administration.

She is a textbook candidate for a Darwin, sweeties.

The deaths of protestors do not count for much because they can do so much more good by staying alive.

She didn't commit suicide, man. She was killed by the IDF while trying to prevent the demolition of a house. To say she's a candidate for the Darwin Awards is incredibly spiteful and ignorant. To look at areas in which atrocities are being committed as "no go" zones is an acceptance of the atrocities themselves. You should be ashamed of your complicity.

I'm wondering-are there ever any middleaged or older protestors doing this sort of thing? I have to admit to wondering if some of these young people are simply incredibly naive when it comes to the harsh realities of the world-not to mention that just because one is American does not mean one is made of teflon.

Actually, some of the most influential nonviolent organizers are pretty old (70s?): Jean and Hildegard Goss-Mayr come to mind. They helped found SERPAJ (Servicio Paz y Justicia), which is the most important nonviolent organization in Latin America and was crucial in ousting Gen. Pinochet in Chile as well as ousting Gen. Marcos in the Philipines (via AKKAPKA). Naive, or a crucial link in the overthrow of not one but two military dictators with horrendous human rights records? You be the judge.

Sorry for the long and overimformative post, but this is right in the middle of the community I've slowly been joining over the years, not to mention my univesrsity studies. If there's one thing about this post I'd like people to carry away is that nonviolence works. Sometimes people have to die, and that's sad, but to die protecting freedom is the best death one can ask for.
posted by Coda at 9:03 PM on March 16, 2003 [1 favorite]

From the Washington Post article.

It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her.

If the driver did in fact back up over her then I'm fairly sure it wasn't an accident, as the Israeli army is claiming.
posted by futureproof at 9:04 PM on March 16, 2003

troutfishing - I was in Israel in 2000, before the current conflict broke out, and saw these bulldozers being used quite extensively on the lebanese border, clearing minefields and working on the border fence. They were not designed for use in palestinian towns, and so to say that they're design is based on disregard for human life isn't quite accurate.

Also, if you take the IDF policy on destroying homes to be a given (even though it's a policy I personally disagree with in many cases), a bulldozer is probably one of the safer ways to destroy a house. Certainly, if the house next door to me was to be destroyed by an occupying army, I'd rather they use bulldozers than, say, helicopter strikes or tank shells.
posted by kickingtheground at 9:08 PM on March 16, 2003

If you could not see and did not realise that you had run over someone, but people were shouting at you that you had, would you not reverse, thinking that you may not have completely crushed that poor person and by reversing might get off of them? Or would you, futureproof, put the pedal to the metal and keep on driving straight forward, despite the cries of alarm from the people around you?
posted by dazed_one at 9:09 PM on March 16, 2003

She didn't commit suicide, man.

She went into what is essentially a war zone. If that is not suicidal, what is?

nonviolence works

Maybe at one time and/or under certain conditions, but at one time also, a boxcutter could hijack a jet.
posted by mischief at 9:10 PM on March 16, 2003

dazed_one (re: "troutfishing: You are in your favorite shop. In walks a man. He has a bomb under his jacket. He blows it up. You recieve no warning. You die.") OK, this can go on ad-infinitum, as in: "You are called up to serve your time in the IDF (with great moral reservations, even) as a tank crew member. Your tank fires a shell at a Palestinian bulding. A pregnant woman dies." - So what do you propose to end this vicious cycle?

"But back to the post's main point: did the IDF intentionally kill Rachel Corrie? Well...........

A quick thought experiment should resolve this confusion:

What if the Israel military issued guidelines for bulldozer drivers which amounted to orders that they should "stop the bulldozer if there is any possibility that civilians might be hurt or killed." Well......

Civilian protesters would quickly bring the bulldozers to a halt.

So:

IDF 'bulldozer policy' must, necessarily, be calibrated so that a few civilians will be run over by bulldozers.
posted by troutfishing at 9:13 PM on March 16, 2003

I have rarely been so disappointed in the MeFi community as I have been while reading this thread.

It's time for some of the people represented here to get up from the keyboard and interact with the world.
posted by scarabic at 9:15 PM on March 16, 2003

mischief, you say she has no voice because she's dead, but there are several people in this thread who are hearing her loud and clear. not to be all mystical or whatever, but what the hell is that? survival of the fittest? that just doesn't apply here.
posted by oog at 9:16 PM on March 16, 2003

xammerboy- rather it would convince some to decide to protest using violent means. nonviolent very obviously did not work for her. its situations like this that lend evidential fodder to fields of thought which believe the only way to protest is to blow yourself up along with scores of innocents.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nonviolent action is not about keeping yourself alive, so to say that, in dying, nonviolence failed Ms. Corrie is horseshit. Nonviolent action is about stopping repression and sometimes people get killed. Nonviolence is bigger than her, and she, as a member of a very well-trained nonviolent group, knew this. She was willing to lay down her life for what she believed was right. You're willing to, uh, post disparaging comments on a web board. Yay you.

In an analysis of nonviolence/violence one might compare mortality rates for violent revolutionaries vs. nonviolent revolutions. Compare the numbers of dead Palestinian militants to the number of dead nonviolent organizers there.

Hmm...

She went into what is essentially a war zone. If that is not suicidal, what is?

Does this mean that all soldiers are suicidal? That Red Cross members and Doctors Without Borders medical teams are suicidal? That journalists are suicidal? That the Palestinians whose neighborhood that was are suicidal?


She was willing to lay her life on the line for her fellow human beings against injustice. That's not suicidal. She went seeking justice, not maryrdom.

[Nonviolence] maybe at one time and/or under certain conditions, but at one time also, a boxcutter could hijack a jet.

Look, I'm a Peace and Conflict Studies Major at UC Berkeley with a concentration in Nonviolence. I'm currently taking a class with Dr. Michael Nagler, who's a seminal author in the field. I've got a midterm on Tuesday and I'm all studied up. Nonviolence, when done properly, works. Consistently.

What research have you done which indicates nonviolence in ineffective? Or is this simply an opinion you've decided to share with us?
posted by Coda at 9:19 PM on March 16, 2003

Reading those Freeper threads always makes my stomach turn. I feel physically sick to my stomach right now...
posted by Space Coyote at 9:20 PM on March 16, 2003

scarabic: your point is opaque, and so it is currently meaningless. Do you care to clarify this?


Moving on: So, many Palestinians condone the murder of Israelis (men women, and children alike), and many Israelis also condone the murder (and/or brutalization) of Palestinians (men women, and children alike). Is it possible to end this vicious cycle of revenge?
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 PM on March 16, 2003

pinto> It's been pointed out before. My reasons for using it are thus: "regardless" is a dactyl naturally spoken, "irregardless" is a pair of trochees. Since the dactyl is unnatural in English, and we don't have a central prescriptive authority, I hold that aesthetics trumps tradition.



Trout> I doubt so, while the current generation of leaders are alive. Too many Palestinians hate Sharon, and too many Israelis hate Yasser Arafat. Both sides have too much history to give an inch at this point.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:23 PM on March 16, 2003

Trout: re: "If there is any possibility that civilians may be hurt or injured..."
People get hit by cars and die very often. Does that mean that mean that car driving people are nessecarily out to hit other people with thier vehicles?
No.

So the IDF bulldozer driver hits this woman. Does that mean he did it intentionally? No.

In South Korea, not too long ago, two girls were run over by a US military vehicle. A trial found that the drivers of the vehicle were innocent of negligent manslaughter (the charge that was levelled against them). But, according to your sparkling logic, the fact that the US Army had not issued an order dictating that all US military drivers should stop their vehicle if there is any possibility that civilians might be hurt or killed, then the US Army policy must, necessarily, be calibrated so that a few civilians will be run over by US Army vehicles.

Poor logic, trout. Very poor.
posted by dazed_one at 9:26 PM on March 16, 2003

hey, coda, chill out, no need to be defensive. i definitely agree with your "nonviolence is bigger than her, so it didn't fail her" viewpoint.

what i meant by fail her is that from the viewpoint of someone who wants to protest but doesn't really know how, seeing her die despite her attempts to act nonviolently could be a very frustrating event, maybe even one that makes one think ever so subconsciously, "fuck it, there's no use holding a sign anymore." it seems to me, and i obviously am without majors and concentrations in this area, that there is a point in a violent protestor's evolution into a violent protestor where the person decides that its no longer worth it to try to protest without violence. i'm saying this event could cause that in impressionable young palestinians in such a hostile environment.
posted by oog at 9:27 PM on March 16, 2003

So, what are those who hear her doing about it? Writing their congressman and their newspaper, preparing a speech? Or, are those who hear her no more than a choir?

Will her death change Israeli policy? Highly doubtful.
Will her death elicit any more from Washington DC than a smack with a wet mop? Even more doubtful.

Nonviolence, when done properly, works. Consistently.

When done properly? Talk about some major weasel-words! Tell us then what this girl did improperly cuz it sure didn't work for her.

Nonviolence only works if both sides acknowledge its validity.
posted by mischief at 9:27 PM on March 16, 2003

Moving on: So, many Palestinians condone the murder of Israelis (men women, and children alike), and many Israelis also condone the murder (and/or brutalization) of Palestinians (men women, and children alike). Is it possible to end this vicious cycle of revenge?

There's actually been some pretty revolutionary work done with dialogue groups with Israelis and Palestinians. A couple (the Traubmans) who organize this came in and talked in one of my classes and it, along with nonviolent action on both the Israelis and the Palestinians against their ridiculous governments, could definitely end the violence.

When done properly? Talk about some major weasel-words! Tell us then what this girl did improperly cuz it sure didn't work for her.

Read Gandhi. He explains it much, much better than I can. There's a whole academic field and a hundred years of theory behind nonviolence, not including local nonviolent traditions. I'm afraid I can't bullet-point it for you.

If you'd like to talk about this via email let me know - it's a long and detailed subject and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions.

Also, I'm curious why you persist in saying nonviolence didn't work for her. How did it fail her? Nonviolence is not about staying alive. It's not a system of self-preservation, it's a way of responding to (for lack of a better word) evil.

Nonviolence only works if both sides acknowledge its validity.

Wrong. Examples: Indian independence movement, South African anti-apartheid movement, ousters of Marcos & Pinochet, Czech revolution, Solidarnosc in Poland, Lithuanian freedom movement, and the list goes on.

Her death may not have concretely prevented any evil (orphans from getting hit by a bus, say), but it nevertheless has larger consequences that protecting a simple house. Gandi's Salt March wasn't simply about getting some salt, if you see what I mean.

Sorry for being strident, but I take what I study seriously, and it bugs me something serious to see people misunderstand and misrepresent it, then dismiss it due to their imcomplete comprehension. There I go again.

Apologies to all; no offense was meant.

I've already far exceeded my reasonable thread contribution limit, so I'll bite my tongue from here on out.
posted by Coda at 9:43 PM on March 16, 2003

When more than just a few people adopt nonviolence it will start to work. When Palistinians stop letting themselves be manipulated byforeigners from other arab states that would rather see them used as fodder to kill a few Israelis than to see them actually get a homeland, then nonviolence can start to work.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:44 PM on March 16, 2003

She went into what is essentially a war zone. If that is not suicidal, what is?

I guess that makes Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner suicides, right?
posted by Guy Smiley at 9:45 PM on March 16, 2003

Rachel Corrie throws away her young, promising life in a stupid, ultimately meaningless way: Guilty

Israeli bulldozer driver commits manslaughter, probably intentionally, probably on orders: Guilty

Israeli government employs four decades of vicious, self-defeating tactics in bid for security: Guilty

Palestinians employ vicious, self-defeating tactics in bid for autonomy and out of general hatred of Israel: Guilty

Arab shit-disturbers, fueled by ideology and religious fervor, poke Palestinians in asses until they get riled enough to attack Israel: Guilty

Allied powers carve up mideast to their liking, ignoring Arab sovereignty, ethnic traditions, religious enmity and just about everything else: Guilty.

...

Pope Urban declares Deus Io Volt! and the flower of French nobility heads for Jerusalem sword in hand: Guilty.

Rachel Corrie; latest in a thousand years of God-fueled. ignorance-laden, meaninglessly stupid bloodshed.
posted by UncleFes at 9:48 PM on March 16, 2003

I know that engaging in outrage at the freerepublic boards is among the least useful pursuits in life, but, good Christ, about half the thread on the subject is summarized by this post:

Just another dead Stupidstinian terrorist. My heart ain't bleeding but rather is rejoicing. I hope they're all killed, down to the last commie, terrorist-enabling, liberal scumbag.

And:

Can I see a video? Hahahaha!

Does anyone see the sadistic edge that is bleeding off the far right -- the utter coldness, the sense of power through cruelty? The basic moral stance of a huge portion of this country has put a chill in my bones.
posted by argybarg at 10:01 PM on March 16, 2003

UncleFes: Sociobiology rears it's ugly head

dazed_one (re) "Trout: re: "If there is any possibility that civilians may be hurt or injured..." People get hit by cars and die very often. Does that mean that mean that car driving people are nessecarily out to hit other people with thier vehicles? No......So the IDF bulldozer driver hits this woman. Does that mean he did it intentionally? No."

First of all, most car drivers I know don't attempt to bulldoze people's houses with their cars. But, can you refute the point that "if the Israel military issued guidelines for bulldozer drivers which amounted to orders that they should "stop the bulldozer if there is any possibility that civilians might be hurt or killed." Well......Civilian protesters would quickly bring the bulldozers to a halt."? Do you think this is untrue? And do you doubt the resolve of the Sharon's and Netanyahu's in Israel, or that they are playing high stakes contests in which (in their calculations) individual human lives do not factor in?

Notice, also, that I implicated many Palestinians in the same cycle of blodshed.

Argybarg - Fear, fear and anger drive this. But why such fear? Why the anger?
posted by troutfishing at 10:19 PM on March 16, 2003

mischief:Maybe at one time and/or under certain conditions, but at one time also, a boxcutter could hijack a jet.

That must have been one smart boxcutter.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:20 PM on March 16, 2003

No doubt it got in under a student visa.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:32 PM on March 16, 2003

Yes, troutfishing, I do refute your point. I think that most people, should they be in the driver's seat of one of those 'dozers would stop, should they think that they are going to harm civilians, whether or not they have recieved explicit orders telling them to stop. Which is why, unless the investigation proves otherwise, I shall continue to believe that the driver of the 'dozer in this incident did not crush that woman intentionally.

I presume innocent until proven guilty. You, troutfishing, seem to think this driver is guilty already.
posted by dazed_one at 10:40 PM on March 16, 2003

unless the investigation proves otherwise

Assuming, of course, that an investigation is conducted.
posted by mischief at 11:13 PM on March 16, 2003

It's interesting that many of you are quick to lament the death of an American protester, while others have lamented the injustice that every Palestinian death is not given the same attention. Why not mention your regret for Israeli civilian deaths while you are at it? If you claim to be objective, you should at least tell all of the story. As regrettable as the most recent death is, I can't help but feel a hostile bias here.

The allegation that the bulldoze operator intentionally slaughtered that girl is, without any investigation or impartial inquiry, about as credible as the allegation that she jumped under the blade herself. I hope you realize that accusing a human being of vicious, cold-blooded murder without proof is not trivial. If the Internet didn't protect your anonimity, you'd think twice, wouldn't you?

And lastly, just out of curiosity (since it was linked in this dicussion) -- does anyone still take whatreallyhappened.com seriously?
posted by Krrrlson at 11:16 PM on March 16, 2003

Pseudo: "regardless" is a dactyl naturally spoken... Since the dactyl is unnatural in English... I hold that aesthetics trumps tradition.

Ouch, you hurt my brain. I can't let this pass. First, regardless is not a dactylic word, rendering your (dubious) idea that dactyls are "unnatural" irrelevant. It scans short-long-short, and, while there is no classical term for such a metrical unit, it is (according to your own pseudo-aesthetics) "natural" in that it fits quite comfortably in an iambic (or trochaic) context. Moreover, any aesthetics that can countenance such a monster as "irregardless" sorely needs to be pitched.
posted by Zurishaddai at 11:28 PM on March 16, 2003

zurishaddai, speaking of hurting brains. jesus. nice to know you remember all that. i'm impressed, kind of.
posted by oog at 11:32 PM on March 16, 2003

This is what happens when you make fun of people who stand for peace. This is what happens when you laugh at and disparrage those who walk their own path.

Who could possibly give a shit in the country that brought us real Road Rage within a decade of Grand Theft Auto (GTA)?

What happens? You don't give a shit. You talk about it as though she had it coming to her.

When was the last time you stood for something? When was the last time that you stood behind your troops? Take your fucking groupthink and shove it. This shit will happen to our boys and girls and Iraq's boys and girls.


There are many people in this country who don't walk to the beat of the of your goddamn drums.

They bring you literature.
The bring you airplanes.
The bring you software.
The bring you lightbulbs.
The bring you, at least a nagging sense of, not being prejudiced.
The bring you computers.
The best movie you ever saw.
The saving of your dear relative in the emergency room.
The fight to put seatbelts in cars.
The micro-brewery revolution
The ideas for technology, science, art, civics, health.

What do all of them not deal within?

War. Fear. Hatred.

Get a humanistic vocation people!!!
posted by crasspastor at 11:43 PM on March 16, 2003

Re: Mischief "Assuming, of course, that an investigation is conducted."
I read that there is an investigation underway, conducted by the IDF and requested by the US gov.

I'm not sure where I read it... I think it may have been the Washington Post.
posted by dazed_one at 11:46 PM on March 16, 2003

"Some factual information for you. Have you any idea how much damage
that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?"
"How much?" said Arthur.
"None at all," said Mr Prosser, and stormed nervously off wondering
why his brain was filled with a thousand hairy horsemen all shouting at
him.

God, I miss Douglas Adams.
posted by nagrommit at 11:53 PM on March 16, 2003

Well hot damn, I spit that out so quick I left out a few "y"s in the "They"'s I meant.

Shuddup. . .
posted by crasspastor at 11:57 PM on March 16, 2003

Note to professional protesters wanting to practice in different countries - just like practicing law - know the rules.

Bonus points for fanaticism.
posted by lightweight at 12:10 AM on March 17, 2003

CNN seems to be the only major US media source at the moment that is showing any of the pictures from the scene.

Apparently, several Palestinians gathered at the site afterwards. Israeli troops opened fire, killing at least one Palestinian, according to witnesses. The Israeli army had no comment.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:17 AM on March 17, 2003

Actually, it looks like MSNBC updated their story and now has pictures too.

It's good to see that this is getting some coverage, though I hope it isn't quickly forgotten.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:27 AM on March 17, 2003

an investigation underway, conducted by the IDF and requested by the US gov

... and you expect an investigation by the IDF will have any credibility?
posted by mischief at 1:12 AM on March 17, 2003

Does anyone see the sadistic edge that is bleeding off the far right -- the utter coldness, the sense of power through cruelty? The basic moral stance of a huge portion of this country has put a chill in my bones.

If you think that's bad, you should see the comments over at LGF...
posted by laz-e-boy at 1:31 AM on March 17, 2003

I've liquidated my holdings in Humanity, and invested in Artificial Skin.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:33 AM on March 17, 2003

Recently I've been impressed by the seeming ability of rightists to rationalise away almost any action by "their side". Is there a website somewhere where they get the politically correct line on everything ("Middle East: use suicide bomber strategy, except in case of US military action in M.E. in which case bring up WTC/box-cutters/5,000 dead/yadda yadda yadda. Everywhere else: blame communists")? The idea seems to be to try to avoid actual engagement with competing arguments wherever possible, preferring to imply that their opponent isn't entitled to an opinion at all (isn't that what they call an ad hominem? I'm not big in debating terminology).

They must have a moral framework made of some kind of fluid.
posted by Grangousier at 2:46 AM on March 17, 2003

I'm off to bulldoze mischief's house, hopefully while he's inside. See you later.
posted by riviera at 3:43 AM on March 17, 2003

I've come to this quite late, and my eyesight is too screwed today to read all the 80+ comments so far.

With the guy and the tank, am I not right in saying that he stopped the tank? It's a slow moving thing that he got in the way of. Fair enough.

In my experience, bull dozers are hardly high speed machines. If she got hit by the thing, she must have known that it was about to happen and she stood her ground despite knowing the impact was unavoidable.

I'm not suggesting that the dozer driver was in the right, but the information I've see certainly makes it looks like she was being wreckless with her own life, regardless of the purpose.
posted by twine42 at 3:46 AM on March 17, 2003

Given Sharon's track record from Qibya through Sabra and Shatila, right through to Jenin, it's not too surprising that civilians continue to die at the hands of Israel.

Violence by one side does not justify violence by the other, but systematic oppression of a people by a nation state should be viewed for what it is. It is a shame that the west's (and in particular the US's) blind support of Israel stops it from seeing the evil perpetrated by its friend.
posted by daveg at 5:34 AM on March 17, 2003

Is there a website somewhere where they get the politically correct line on everything

http://freerepublic.com/
posted by quonsar at 5:55 AM on March 17, 2003

Yikes!

Scary people!

I think "political correctness" is an entirely accurate description of rightist ideology, by the way. More accurate than when describing anybody on the left that I've ever encountered (and I think I've met the lot in my time), with the exception of Trotskyists, who all want to join the far right (as opposed to the extreme right, who you can recognise by the scar-tissue on their knuckles) when they grow up, anyway.

(That's 'grow up' in the 'get older' sense. No maturation implied. Peter Hitchens is as big an idiot now as when he was in the Socialist Workers' Party, just a wrinklier one.)
posted by Grangousier at 6:13 AM on March 17, 2003

Zurishaddai> English doesn't use long and short syllables, we use stressed and unstressed. And where I come from, the first syllable of "regardless" is the one stressed - "REE-gard-less".

(dubious) idea that dactyls are "unnatural"

They're uncommon in English for a reason. And that reason is that they tend not to work well in English, a few exceptions permitted. Were we speaking in Latin or Greek, where they're comparatively more common, dactyls would be fine, but they're a kludge otherwise.

It scans short-long-short, and, while there is no classical term for such a metrical unit

It's an amphibrach.

Moreover, any aesthetics that can countenance such a monster as "irregardless" sorely needs to be pitched.

Narrow traditionalism is great and all, except that "irregardless" has now been around long enough to be acceptable as an idiom. Therefore, other criteria come into effect (unless you choose your words merely by comparing dates in the OED), and I maintain that "irregardless" is the more pleasant sounding of the pair. The negating suffix and prefix can be taken as doubling-for-emphasis, in the same way someone saying "Never, never do that again" is doubling a negative for emphasis without contradicting the original statement.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:14 AM on March 17, 2003

As you can see from the pictures, the bulldozer driver obviously saw her. The fact that he was relatively slow-moving only further ensures this. She got up on a pile of dirt and debris and was at the driver's eye-level. When the weight of the bulldozer hit the base of the mound that she was on, it collapsed sucking her under the bulldozer. The driver than ran her over. Twice.

It doesn´t matter if you believe in what this kid was doing or not, If you find this incident or the whole situation in Palestine amusing or unimportant, you are lacking in humanity.
posted by sic at 6:25 AM on March 17, 2003

an investigation underway, conducted by the IDF and requested by the US gov

Don't hold your breath. Italian Photojournalist Raffaele Ciriello (MeFi thread here) was shot dead one year and four days ago in Ramallah by a Israeli tank. There's a video of his death (you can see it in his website), and the autopsy has determined that the bullets are the same kind shot by Israeli tanks. To this day, all requests of Italian prosecutors have been ignored by Israel.

the list of foreigners killed by Israeli forces include Iain Hook, British UN employee who was trying to rebuild the houses destroyed by the Israelis in Jenin

also, another interesting use of "human shields" by Israeli forces (the "neighbor practice," in which the army uses neighbors of a wanted suspect as a human shield to get the wanted suspect to hand himself over to the army)

And isn't it funny how the very vocal team of MeFi's Israel Apologists suddendly disappears from this kind of threads?
posted by matteo at 6:30 AM on March 17, 2003

Israel Apologists suddendly disappears from this kind of threads?

Give 'em a break. This was posted 9:45 pm eastern and the bulk of the comments started shortly before midnight. I'm sure they will have their say as the day progresses.
posted by mischief at 6:37 AM on March 17, 2003

posted by quonsar at 6:43 AM on March 17, 2003

no humor intended.
posted by quonsar at 6:44 AM on March 17, 2003

"'irregardless' is more pleasant sounding" is the kind of argument that makes me want to shove pancils into ear canals. The came can be said of "nucular".

And if I hear anyone else say 'orientate' in my lifetime I'm going to transportate them straight to the afterlife.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:49 AM on March 17, 2003

I'm going to transportate them straight to the afterlife
via bulldozerater?
posted by quonsar at 6:56 AM on March 17, 2003

troutfishing: thanks for the invitation. here goes.

I am astonished by the initiative and courage it takes for an American to get up and fly to Gaza to sit in front of bulldozers and protest Israeli occupation policy. Anyone whose idea of political engagement is sitting here, posting on MeFi, should automatically have some respect.

Those here who cried "suicide" or "darwin" exhibit such callousness as is not to be believed. Others are bickering about whether the driver meant to do it, or if nonviolence is really a stupid idea after all. I wonder if it's actually possible to miss the point by such a wide margin, or if they believe that by carving out points of controversy, they are doing the topic some kind of justice and thereby accomplishing something. What a pathetic smoke screen.

There is plenty of controversy in the Middle East Peace discussion. But not here. This is a fucking crime. Today is a day to sit up and be disgusted with Israel and its policy. They ran over an activist with a bulldozer, people. What does it take to get a simple 21-gun salute in here? I guess it would have had to be [MeFi user # < 20] for that, eh?
posted by scarabic at 7:04 AM on March 17, 2003

I hadn't really appreciated the full spectacle of a 'circle-jerk' until seeing the first hundred or so posts on that FreeRepublic thread regarding this squalid episode in the Isreali occupation.
posted by asok at 7:13 AM on March 17, 2003

In the interest of full disclosure here I am very pro-Israel-but having said that, as a human being I am incredibly disgusted with episodes such as this. Inhumanity is inhumanity, whether in the backpack of a suicide bomber or behind the controls of a bulldozer.

There are NO excuses for any of this.
posted by konolia at 7:19 AM on March 17, 2003

Hmmm... I stand in the middle of the freeway and get run over by a car, it's my fault.

I fly to a war-zone and stand in front of, and subsequently get run over by, an armored bull-dozer, and it's 'their' fault.

I don't get it.
posted by eas98 at 7:20 AM on March 17, 2003

quonsar, about that png: Rachel Corrie was emphatically not a peace activist. Did you read her letters that were linked in the original post? She speaks approvingly of Palestinian fighters killing Israeli soldiers.

In retaliation for this murderous attack, fighters last night offered their life for their friend and killed two of the illegal occupying force, and injuring another... Martyrs are ready to defend the honour of Palestine and fight for the freedom of surely the most gentle, generous and peaceful people on earth.

Sounds like a Hamas press release, doesn't it? Her language is all spin: Israelis killing Palestinians are 'murderous', Palestinians killing Israelis are performing an 'operation'. Palestinian fighters have 'courage', Israeli fighters are 'brainwashed'.

Rachel had completely gone native, and was supporting violent intifada. I don't think she deserved to die (I agree that police should have removed her group before the bulldozers approached), but whatever she stood for, it no longer had anything to do with peace.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:23 AM on March 17, 2003

I hold that aesthetics trumps tradition.

it's not just tradition, it's meaning - it means "not without regard" and you meant "without regard".

"Never, never" is only informal usage, & unnecessary for meaning (I think you more commonly hear "never, ever" anyway). But that aside, it's clearly a repetition of a word after a comma. In this case you have two different kinds of negating syllables - 'less' meaning 'without,' making the noun into a negative adverb, and 'ir' meaning 'not', negating that adverb.

And where I come from, the first syllable of "regardless" is the one stressed - "REE-gard-less".

where are you from? I don't think I've ever heard it pronouced that way. Do you say REE-gard also?

Regardless, you could simply change your pronounciation to the accepted re-GARD-less and be done with it.
posted by mdn at 7:35 AM on March 17, 2003

Hmmm... I stand in the middle of the freeway and get run over by a car, it's my fault.

I fly to a war-zone and stand in front of, and subsequently get run over by, an armored bull-dozer, and it's 'their' fault.

If you accept the routine, violent domolition of homes just as easily as you would accept a car being on a highway, you have some real problems. I guess the Israelis are taking the US's "Let's Roll" slogan a bit too seriously.
posted by adampsyche at 7:41 AM on March 17, 2003

I usually lurk but wanted to say that I am always really impressed by the level of civility here even during emotionally upsetting events such as this. MeFi writers are a national treasure.
posted by Seth_Messinger at 7:43 AM on March 17, 2003

Well put slithy. If you are a real peace activist, you come up with peaceful solutions to problems.

Convincing the Palestinians to abandon this pointless war that plays into the hands of Israeli rejectionists should be priority #1. The whole cult of intifada has brought tanks to every part of what used to be PA territory.

Sharon's election is nothing but a reaction to Palestinian violence. He really should send something nice to Barghouti, maybe a fruit basket, since he wouldn't be in power without the intifada II.
posted by ednopantz at 7:45 AM on March 17, 2003

The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.

Corrie apparently stood atop a mound of dirt as the bulldozer approached the house, but then fell backward, tumbling down the mound and out of sight. The bulldozer continued and accidentally crushed her. The IDF Spokesman said that soldiers repeatedly warned demonstrators to keep a safe distance.

Corrie was a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement. She was known for anti-Israel and anti-American activities, as this photo from Gaza shows Corrie burning an American flag, while Palestinian children look on.
(http://www.honestreporting.com/graphics/articles/corrie.jpg)
In general, one wonders on what basis the International Solidarity Movement justifies shielding a house used for weapons smuggling. Most media reports failed to mention that, instead, reports described the house sympathetically as "the home of a Gazan doctor."
posted by semmi at 7:47 AM on March 17, 2003

slithy tove: i merely found the CAT protest .gif and the existence of an image of rachael as dove prescient in a scary way, and the irony, um ironic. draw whatever conclusion you will, it wasn't an attempt to spin the spin. thanks for the info.
posted by quonsar at 7:53 AM on March 17, 2003

very sad. what happens every day in the occupied territories hits home. how many completely innocent people are killed or have their livelyhood destroyed everyday there?


indict sharon
posted by specialk420 at 8:11 AM on March 17, 2003

She speaks approvingly of Palestinian fighters killing Israeli soldiers ... whatever she stood for, it no longer had anything to do with peace

Meaning that the society that asks its soldiers to run unarmed civilians over with bulldozers is bent on peace and its actions should demand the highest respect, even in writing and speech?

In general, one wonders on what basis the International Solidarity Movement justifies shielding a house used for weapons smuggling. Most media reports failed to mention that, instead, reports described the house sympathetically as "the home of a Gazan doctor."

Well, this one wonders on what evidence do you make such a statement. I sure hope it is not on the word of the people that brought the bulldozers "to do justice". As I am sure that you already know, when you ask the lads to haul the heavy equipment to the field, nobody wants to turn heels without having a go at it first. Hey, it's not like they have a care in the world. And once you get away with killing an American, you can get away with ANYHTING.

As for the nationality of Rachel: is Gaza part of Israel? A foreigner dabbling in local politics is absolutely acceptable from a legal perspective - unlike the presence of foreign armed soldiers in any sovereign state which has not given permission for it.
posted by magullo at 8:36 AM on March 17, 2003

So how come the four Americans who died when terrorists bombed Hebrew University in July 2002 didn't get a FPP?
posted by PenDevil at 8:41 AM on March 17, 2003

mdn (hi!), I don't think "irregardless" is generally meant as litotes for "with regard" — the OED and the AHD agree that it's just non-standard for "regardless".
posted by nicwolff at 8:45 AM on March 17, 2003

Meaning that the society that asks its soldiers to run unarmed civilians over with bulldozers is bent on peace and its actions should demand the highest respect, even in writing and speech?

No more so than a society that demands it's children strap bombs to themselves and explode them in marketplaces and nightclubs, I suppose.

And once you get away with killing an American, you can get away with ANYHTING.

to quote McSweetie: you got a cite on that? :) Seriously, people kill Americans all the time. the only special place we hold seems to be in the minds of those who would kill us.

Anyways, there's no right side here. Not since the First Crusade. But each side has too much invested in the river of blood to stop filling it. Rachel Corrie - ignorant, ahistorical, American idealist that she was - simply got in the way. In a way, she is representative of the entire American involvement in this - we keep trying to do something to make it stop, and we just keep getting in the way. I'm coming around to the opinion that the only way to solve this is to airlift out everyone under age 12, throw up a fence around the entire region, line it with cobalt dust, and let them settle the question, which is what they seem to want to do anyway.
posted by UncleFes at 8:50 AM on March 17, 2003

She burned an American flag. So what? This makes her not a peace activist? Seems to me that she was protesting the occupation, not demonstrating for peace.

On that note, I'd like to clear up a fallacious notion:
"If Palestinians want peace so badly, they should stop fighting."

They don't want peace. They want their land back. 50 years of experience has taught them that peace isn't going to make it happen. It's not as if they haven't tried using the press or appealing to the U.N. and international community. They have. Do you think they'd be using suicide bombers if they still cared what you, the Western public, think?
posted by scarabic at 8:52 AM on March 17, 2003

PenDevil: 18853 (August 1 2002) addressed what you were talking about. But if you feel that things are being missed out you are free to post!

Do people not understand the difference between what terrorists do and what an elected government of a nation state does?
posted by daveg at 8:54 AM on March 17, 2003

She is also representative of the arrogance that the world ascribes to us. Imagine the misguided hubris that would prompt you to fly to another country, a war-torn and blood-soaked country, and stand in front on an armored bulldozer believing you could stop it (as she surely must have) when the hundreds of Palestinians who died under similar circummstances could not.

Ours is an arrogance that comes from idealism, ignorance and a lack of a sense of history. We simply do not comprehend the age and sensibilities of non-Americans.

It is the hubris of the Boy Scout, vainly trying to help the old woman across the street, when she only wants to be left alone to cross the street herself, a street she has handily crossed a thousand times before the Boy Scouts came.
posted by UncleFes at 8:57 AM on March 17, 2003

Ah thanks daveg, I searched the archives but nothing came up. Once again non-descriptive FPP's cause yet another crap post on my part.
posted by PenDevil at 9:00 AM on March 17, 2003

50 years of experience has taught them that peace isn't going to make it happen.

When have the Palestinians actually tried peaceful measures? 1987-1991 was relatively (rocks and such) peaceful and resulted in the largest gains of territory in generations. 2000-2003 was very violent and reversed all that progress.

67 years of war (1936-2003) should tell them that war won't make it happen. They are outguned 1000 to 1 against an enemy that needs to be persuaded that they can afford to make peace. Half-assed violence sabotages this possibility.
posted by ednopantz at 9:01 AM on March 17, 2003

No more so than a society that demands it's children strap bombs to

So do you think the Israeli army is comparable to a bunch of terrorists? I would not go as far, but would not completely disagree either.

Seriously, people kill Americans all the time

Yep, but not everybody is the recipient of the humongous foreign aid (no time to link right now) that America passes on to Israel. That is with what they are getting away with.

the only way to solve this is to airlift out everyone under age 12

I actually have a more constructive idea: quit giving any aid to Israel; level the field, so to speak.
posted by magullo at 9:04 AM on March 17, 2003

Rachel Corrie - ignorant, ahistorical, American idealist that she was - simply got in the way. In a way, she is representative of the entire American involvement in this - we keep trying to do something to make it stop, and we just keep getting in the way.

Speaking of ignorant and ahistorical, not to mention flat out wrong....The only reason that the peace process came along as much as it did is because of American involvement. The U.S. is the only government which Israel will recognize as a fair mediator (basically because the U.S. tilts heavily toward them) and as such has been indispensable for the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, from the first Camp David Accord through the 1991 Madrid Conference and the various meetings through the 1990s. The process has fallen into disrepair, true, but to claim that all the Americans ever do is "get in the way" is nonsense.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:24 AM on March 17, 2003

Err, indispensible to the Middle East peace process in regards to the first Camp David accord, the Palestinians coming in as actors in the Madrid conference.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:26 AM on March 17, 2003

So do you think the Israeli army is comparable to a bunch of terrorists?

Yes, I do. I just felt that I should imply it by saying nothing of the sort :)

quit giving any aid to Israel; level the field, so to speak.

Israel has the bomb, dude. There will never be a level playing field, regardless of American aid.

but to claim that all the Americans ever do is "get in the way" is nonsense.

Look, rather, at American involvement in the peace process in light of the idea that neither side wishes peace.
posted by UncleFes at 9:31 AM on March 17, 2003

Look, rather, at American involvement in the peace process in light of the idea that neither side wishes peace.

Come on Fes, you're smarter than that. It's unfortunate that the conflict has devolved to a point that both sides measure victory by the amount of suffering inflicted, but you can't seriously contend that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians don't wish an end to the violence a more normal, mundane existence.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:37 AM on March 17, 2003

and a more normal, mundane existence.

Geez, gotta get some caffeine in me.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:38 AM on March 17, 2003

Meanwhile, 5 Palestinians die in Gaza, including a baby and a 13 yr. old boy, plus a man who refused to come out of his house and had it blown up on top of him. Film not at 11.

This is a tragic death, and a regrettable one for all involved. However it really only means that Israel has become less and less tolerant of internationals in the occupied territories, which is understandable from a practical point of view. If this was a Palestinian protesting the destruction of his own house, he or she most likely would have just been shot, rather than 'accidentally' bulldozed.

If this pisses you off, one thing you can do is write Caterpillar and let them know you don't support their equipment being used for collective punishment, which is against international law.
posted by cell divide at 9:40 AM on March 17, 2003

Personal perspective on Rachel's death from a friend of mine who knew her.
posted by arielmeadow at 9:40 AM on March 17, 2003

you can't seriously contend that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians don't wish an end to the violence a more normal, mundane existence.

If they do, they are certainly keeping it themselves. And that goes for the wider Israeli and Arab peoples.

OK, probably you are at least partially correct. But the people charged with making the peace...? Are they of the same opinion as the Israeli and Palestinian who just want to live their lives and go about their business? And in light of the tit for tat, bulldozer v. suicide bomber horseshit - how long before the people who want a more mundane existence get a friend or family member killed at the hands of the other, thereby converting them to the "by any means necessary" side of the equation?

Jesus fuck, a baby and a 13-year-old. Do you think their mothers, fathers, aunt, uncles and siblings want anything, now, except for the total extermination of Israel?

Another fully-laden boat on the thousand-year river of blood, and another couple dozen people devoted to loading the hold of the next one at that quay.
posted by UncleFes at 9:49 AM on March 17, 2003

(re dactyls)
Pseudo: What Space Coyote said.
But doesn't it strike you as odd that you are tossing around dactyls like "natural" and "idiom" as if it were, well... natural idiom?
Anyway, and this is just my curiosity asking, where on earth are you from that they say REE-gardless. I doubt you could find that pronunciation in a printed source, and I certainly don't blame you for not joining those yahoos in saying that... but it does seem all your problems would be solved if you said re-GARD-less with the rest of us. (PS I'm sticking to my claim that amphibrachs do not get used as "metrical units.")
posted by Zurishaddai at 9:59 AM on March 17, 2003

It is quite possible to believe that the Palestinians are brave, have a right to defend themselves, and want to live in peace without either advocating or practicing violence. Apparently, just acknowledging this fact makes a person a terrorist and antisemite, right?! Am *I* a terrorist now?

Clearly, Rachel understood why Palestinians who grow up turn to violence.

As she said:
""Once you have seen the ocean and lived in a silent place, where water is taken for granted and not stolen in the night by bulldozers, and spent an evening when you didn't wonder if the walls of your home might suddenly fall inward waking you from your sleep, and met people who have never lost anyone-- once you have experienced the reality of a world that isn't surrounded by murderous towers, tanks, armed "settlements" and now a giant metal wall, I wonder if you can forgive the world for all the years of your childhood spent existing--just existing-- in resistance to the constant stranglehold of the world's fourth largest military apparatus--backed by the world's only superpower-- in its attempt to erase you from your home."

She has empathy, but although she could have opposed the Israelis violently, she *chose* non-violence.

Show me one statement made by Rachel which shows her advocating the use of violence. You can't. Show me where she "supported a violent intifada"? You can't. What you are doing is slurring her and disrespecting her memory by associating her actions with terrorism. Shame...

She made the kind of moral choice that you should want *every* Palestinian to make if you truely believed in a peaceful, non-violent, fair resolution to the Palestinian issue.

Then again, the use of lethal violence against protesters is how the Intifada became bloody, isn't it? There were no bombings during the Intifada until after Israeli troops opened fire on protesters. You can argue that the protesters threw stones occasionally, but that's why they make riot gear. We try not to shoot our protesters in the US, thanks...

Just admit the truth. You are willing to condone violence against non-violent protesters so long as it allows Israel to exist as a "pure" Jewish state with control over Palestine's resources and water, which makes up 50% of Israel's total supply... and when (or before...) the population in Israel becomes predominantly Arab, you would be willing to disposess the Arabs from their property, their country, their votes, or, if need be, their lives.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:01 AM on March 17, 2003

"Hmmm... I stand in the middle of the freeway and get run over by a car, it's my fault.

I fly to a war-zone and stand in front of, and subsequently get run over by, an armored bull-dozer, and it's 'their' fault.

I don't get it."

Your analogy should be more like, if I run out infront of a car on the freeway and get runover, it's my fault.

If someone is standing in the middle of the freeway and you hit them it is your fault. You should have seen them and stopped. You act like a person's presence on the freeway absolves everyone else of their responsibilities to act responsibly.

If your "rule/belief" is correct, then when someone stands in the middle of the freeway you should hit your gas and not your brakes as your not responsible if you hit them right? Do you really think our legal system would support you in that belief?

I somehow don't believe that would be the case.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 10:06 AM on March 17, 2003

But the people charged with making the peace...? Are they of the same opinion as the Israeli and Palestinian who just want to live their lives and go about their business?

For the most part, yes. They want security for their people, and have to balance various constituencies (some of whom are absolutist and racist) as they attempt to move forward. Granted, Sharon and Arafat aren't the most ideal leaders in this respect.

in light of the tit for tat, bulldozer v. suicide bomber horseshit - how long before the people who want a more mundane existence get a friend or family member killed at the hands of the other, thereby converting them to the "by any means necessary" side of the equation?

Fair enough, but there were also many "by any means necessary" types who were swayed to the peace camp by the unprecedented steps taken in the early 1990s, in which the possibility of peace with security seemed, for the first time, attainable. There are organizations ( The American Friends Service Committee, Fellowship of Reconciliation, to name only two) that continue to work to build the peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and I'd suggest that they are not merely "in the way."
posted by Ty Webb at 10:11 AM on March 17, 2003

There's not much more I can add to this thread, but I do have at least one thing to say.

You see, I am from Olympia, Washington. Although I've never been especially tight with the activist crowd around here, Olympia is not a large city, and I was vaguely acquainted with Rachel Corrie. To the rest of you, she's a dumb hippie who put herself into a dangerous situation and paid the price. I can't say that I don't agree with that statement. However, keep in mind that she was a person that I saw on the street, shows, the occasional party, the bar even (I think), and I have friends who did know her well.

Finding out someone you know, no matter how vaguely, has made international news by dying horribly is a strange feeling.
posted by Captain_Tenille at 10:14 AM on March 17, 2003

mdn>where are you from? I don't think I've ever heard it pronouced that way. Do you say REE-gard also?

Southern Ontario. And no, I say "ri-GARD", which is why I use "irregardless" - "IR-i-GARD-less" rather than "REE-gard-less" or "ri-GARD-less". Either way, you're still dealing with three syllables in a foot, which is an awkward construction in English. "Regardless" and "irregardless" both ordinarily start sub-clauses, though, and up here, the stress is usually placed on the first syllable of the clause. That transforms "ri-GARD", an iamb, into "REE-gard-less", a dactyl.

In this case you have two different kinds of negating syllables - 'less' meaning 'without,' making the noun into a negative adverb, and 'ir' meaning 'not', negating that adverb.

Only if we split the term up. As an idiomatic usage of "regardless" with ninety-two years of history, it's meaning is accepted and set separate from the meanings of its constituent root, suffixes or prefixes, which is a common enough practice in modern English.

Another example of a word where we ignore the meaning of the prefix would be "alcohol" where "al-" is a prefix used as an indicative article in Arabic. The logic of your argument leads us to being forced to avoid saying "the alcohol", and in fact, if we wish to drink some "cohol" rather than "the cohol" we must drop the prefix if we follow your argument. I can dig up other examples if you want, but ignoring the elements of a word in favour of a colloquial meaning given to the whole is pretty standard fare, and I would argue, is therefore acceptacle in a colloquial usage such as "irregardless".

Zurishaddai>But doesn't it strike you as odd that you are tossing around dactyls like "natural" and "idiom" as if it were, well... natural idiom?

Nope. Because they're usually part of a balanced clause rather than on their own. "Regardless", at least when I've seen it used, is normally written or spoken along the lines of "Regardless,...". That comma/caesura/pause cuts it off from other feet in the line. The only possible way out of that bind would be to say either "Regardless of..." or "Regardless of that,...". I find the former too prolix, and the latter is a broken-metre.

(PS I'm sticking to my claim that amphibrachs do not get used as "metrical units.")

They do and they don't. They're something English majors made up to describe the pattern, but they're normally cut up into duo-syllabic feet through the addition of an assisting syllable in actual English speech. For that matter, so are dactyls and anapests most of the time. I fully support avoiding the use of lonely amphibrachs in English, but as part of a more general program of avoiding tri-syllabic feet when possible.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:15 AM on March 17, 2003

in which the possibility of peace with security seemed, for the first time, attainable.

You know Ty, I actually thought they would do it, then, optimist that I am. That could have been Clinton's legacy to the world, no shit.

And then, Arafat vetoed it.
posted by UncleFes at 10:25 AM on March 17, 2003

And then, Arafat vetoed it.

Wow Fes, talk about ignorant, ahistorical; Arafat refused to sign a deal which he couldn't possibly have sold to his contituents, and it's highly questionable whether Barak could have, either. Implying that the peace process is in disrepair solely because Arafat walked away from a bad deal at Camp David II is ridiculous.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:42 AM on March 17, 2003

Implying that the peace process is in disrepair solely because Arafat walked away from a bad deal at Camp David II is ridiculous.

My understanding is that is was the best deal they Palestinians had ever gotten. But you're right - there was no way that Arafat could have sold this deal to his constituents, and Barak either, probably. Because, as I've stated before, their constituents, in my opinion, have no interest in peace. And as far as a peace process? I haven't seen anything resembling one for months.

And now, being both ignorant and ridiculous, I'll consider myself dismissed from the conversation.
posted by UncleFes at 11:08 AM on March 17, 2003

To add to what Ty said, negotiations went on in Taba after Camp David, and got even closer to an accaptable final settlement. It should not be overlooked.
posted by cell divide at 11:14 AM on March 17, 2003

If I remember correctly, Arafat wanted to accept the deal which was offered previously, but Israel renegged. The key stumbling block for the second deal was Jerusalem, again, another point that the Israelis weren't willing to be flexible on.

There seems to be a constant effort on the part of Israel to keep moving the goalposts, while meanwhile settling everywhere of strategic importance. In this new deal, they are currently fighting to keep the word "independence" out of the deal, and intend to lay claim to all of Palestine's ground water. It's not a fair deal, and should be refused by the whole world.

If there was any justice, Israel would have to withdraw back to the boundaries that the UN first granted them.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:22 AM on March 17, 2003

``All the children gathered near the kitchen while the tanks were firing outside, from all directions,'' said the aunt. ``The girl (Ihlam) was standing next to my daughter when she got a bullet in her chest, leaving her in a pool of blood among the scared children.''


nice. a fine use of US taxpayer dollars.
posted by specialk420 at 11:40 AM on March 17, 2003

Rachel and the bulldozer operator caused her death together.

They are both responsible.

Her death arose as dangerous circumstances, involving a small number of people, unfolded tragically in a brief moment. This was not a direct result of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It occurred as an indirect result, due to the actions of the bulldozer operator and the activist.
posted by mcgraw at 11:49 AM on March 17, 2003

" This was not a direct result of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It occurred as an indirect result, due to the actions of the bulldozer operator and the activist."

I'm sorry, but the facts don't support your conclusions, which you offer forth with no evidence whatsoever.

When these army-controlled bulldozers act in a very aggressive, dangerous manner as described several times in this thread, you cannot *just* blame the operator of the bulldozer. You have to also blame the person who gave the orders for bulldozer operators to act so aggressively.

These protesters have been shot at, pushed by heavy equipment, and had buildings knocked down as they were in them. Why isn't there an effort to treat them in a manner consistant with how protesters are normally treated?
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:02 PM on March 17, 2003

They don't want peace. They want their land back. 50 years of experience has taught them that peace isn't going to make it happen. It's not as if they haven't tried using the press or appealing to the U.N. and international community. They have. Do you think they'd be using suicide bombers if they still cared what you, the Western public, think?

They don't want peace. So much is right. Other than that, they not only want "their own land" but the land of Israel, too, which they see as a giant territory occupied by jews.

It is quite possible to believe that the Palestinians are brave, have a right to defend themselves, and want to live in peace without either advocating or practicing violence. Apparently, just acknowledging this fact makes a person a terrorist and antisemite, right?! Am *I* a terrorist now?

As this isn't a fact, it just makes you a liar.

Show me one statement made by Rachel which shows her advocating the use of violence. You can't. Show me where she "supported a violent intifada"? You can't. What you are doing is slurring her and disrespecting her memory by associating her actions with terrorism. Shame...

Carries words:

And every time the Israeli Command terrorises Nablus as today with tanks and Jeeps and APC's bristling with death at every junction within the city, operating a lock-down even worse than before (how can this be possible), more Martyrs are ready to defend the honour of Palestine and fight for the freedom of surely the most gentle, generous and peaceful people on earth..

Are you people for real? The palestinian terrorists aren't freedom fighters, there are simply terrorists with a genocidal job (which, thanks to G-d, they won't accomplish), namely to wipe out all jews. The fact that these terrorists are young men without hopes of getting an own state anytime soon or exterminating all jews ever doesn't make them heroes.

Arrafat was being given the chance for peace a lot of times. He refused always or made it impossible by demanding that all refugees and their descendents should be allowed to come back and claim land and property.

Now the Israeli army may not always be the friendliest army on earth (how could they?), they are certainly not out to wipe out all palestinians. If Israel wanted this conflict to end by sheer violence, it could have wiped Palestine off the surface of the earth long ago.

Sharon is just the product of decades of Arrafat. Before him were more peaceful prime ministers. But they were all helpless when wanting to deal in realistic diplomatic ways with him. If people complain about Sharon these days, they should find a way to let the Palestinians elect a more democratic and less terrorist leader. If they cannot manage to do that, well, all the help of the west for Palestine simply goes into the wrong pockets, don#t you think?
posted by zerofoks at 12:03 PM on March 17, 2003

You apologists all make me sick.

I'm sick that it takes the death of an American to make the average American aware that Israel regularly does the same damn thing to Palestinians.

I'm sick that people think that 50 years of military, political and economic oppression is some kind of gift to Palestinians that they should be so thankful for.

I'm sick that young Palestinians are coerced to kill themselves and many other innocent people in a misguided attempt to bring about change.

I am fucking sick and tired or people taking one side or the other and not realizing (or admitting to the fact) that hundreds of innocent people are being unjustly killed on both sides.

Most of all I'm sick that my damn tax money is involved in this crap at all. Why do we have to pay for this nightmare?

Both the killing AND the stealing of land, water and homes must stop. You cannot have one without the other. It is the nature of our species to fight to the death to try and protect our property and livelihood. Ignore this basic fact at your own peril.
posted by aaronscool at 12:29 PM on March 17, 2003

the OED and the AHD agree that it's just non-standard for "regardless".

hi there, yeah I got that, just arguing that it's an error & should be considered such, rather than an appropriate alternative, because it doesn't internally make sense.

where "al-" is a prefix used as an indicative article in Arabic.

It's an article in arabic, not in english - that's the root of the word, not the meaning in this language. On top of which, how often do people say "the alcohol"? Usually it's used without an article, unless the conversations is regarding (or would you prefer "irregarding"? that word must have similar stylistic issues for you...) some previously defined shipment, amount, etc.

Anyway, even if there are other internally inconsistent words that have become acceptable, that doesn't mean we should toss rules aside. Languages evolve, but they should still make sense.

Either way, you're still dealing with three syllables in a foot, which is an awkward construction in English.

I don't think I understand. Are you claiming that any tri syllabic word that stresses the 2nd syllable is awkward? (Remember, importance, construction, negating, debating, relating, etc?)

or you mean any three syllables between commas? But it happens all the time (appositives, adjectives, short clauses, opening greetings - what about three syllable sentences?) The language isn't meant to be perfectly iambic... Anyway, most uses of "regardless" would be followed by a preposition & noun clause, to explain what it is that warrants no further regard.

ah well. I'm sad this self-defeating word is gaining credibility, but it's true it doesn't impede the transmission of meaning. Carry on.

sorry to add to the derail, by the way. I wish I had something meaningful to say about this woman's death but my most articulate response is sadly "what a fucking mess."
posted by mdn at 12:44 PM on March 17, 2003

personally, i'm sick of the fact that the belief in a powerful being who lives in the sky and made certain people his "chosen" has been at the root of all this carnage century upon century, and submit that all people who subscribe to such beliefs are displaying prima facie evidence of murderous insanity and ought to be lobotomized. but everybody dances around that little tidbit, don't they?
posted by quonsar at 12:52 PM on March 17, 2003

insomnia_lj,

Are you unwilling to recognize that Ms. Corrie placed her own life in danger, and therfore is partly responsible for the outcome?

Are you suggesting that Sharon, or an official acting with his pre-meditated authorization, ordered the bulldozer to run her over? Is Arafat somehow responsible that she knelt, stood, jumped or fell in the way?

I believe that personal bias severly limits your ability to consider the facts in this matter rationally, insomnia_lj. You are sounding emotional, not rational. Emotions are admirable, but no substitute for logic
posted by mcgraw at 12:54 PM on March 17, 2003

It seems like a losing battle for the left-wing organizations in Israel, like the New Israel Fund, who are attempting to promote duality among Israelis and Palestinians and fostering equality and peace among all people in the region, but it seems that both sides won't have it.
posted by Down10 at 12:54 PM on March 17, 2003

"I actually have a more constructive idea: quit giving any aid to Israel; level the field, so to speak."

magullo: It would only level the field if the Europeans and the Saudis would quit giving humongous aid to the Palestinians to fight on.
posted by semmi at 12:56 PM on March 17, 2003

Sharon is just the product of decades of Arrafat.

Zerofoks: avoid that "post" button until you have a vague clue wtf what you're talking about:

"Sharon, Ariel [är´l shärn´]
Israeli general and politician, b. Kfar Malal. He gained attention for his superb military leadership in the 1948 and 1956 Arab-Israeli Wars and was made a major general months before the 1967 war. ... A controversial figure, Sharon was the chief architect of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. He was widely criticized for allowing Lebanese Christian forces into Palestinian refugee camps in West Beirut and held at least indirectly responsible for their subsequent massacre of civilians in the Sabra and Shatila camps."

As for Palestinian frustration with peaceful methods, I refer you to UN Resolution 194, which has yet to be implemented. Shit, isn't a UN resolution pretty much the apex of peaceful methods?

If you think that the Palestinians, whose cause is supported by the UN, are wrong for using force, what do you think of the US, whose imminent and massive campaign in Iraq is not?
posted by scarabic at 12:59 PM on March 17, 2003

You didn't prove me wrong, if that's what you think you did.

PS: I am in favor of the war. Better now than later.

PPS: The UN has been proven as pretty worthless so far, hasn't it?
posted by zerofoks at 1:16 PM on March 17, 2003

I second what semmi said. The fundings of the palestine people by the EU which is just going to produce the ideological education and technical equipment of terrorists with a genocidal mission is among the most despisable cause the EU and mainly Germany is supporting.
posted by zerofoks at 1:22 PM on March 17, 2003

It's an article in arabic, not in english

Ir-, unless I'm mistaken is a latinate prefix. And if we're going to go with authority, then the authorities command us not to use an indicative article with "hoi polloi", where "hoi" is the Greek indicative article, but meaningless in English. Therefore we have a precedent for acknowledging foreign articles used in words and phrases.

Anyway, even if there are other internally inconsistent words that have become acceptable, that doesn't mean we should toss rules aside. Languages evolve, but they should still make sense.

Certainly I agree. But, "irregardless" satisfies a reasonable set of non-prescriptive conditions as to "making sense". It has precedents in its linguistic liberties acknowledged by accepted authorities, it is recognised and used correctly by native speakers of the language, and it has been used for a long enough period that it's not merely a slang expression. To take your dictum too seriously demands that we eradicate all idiom from the language as, none of it makes literal sense. For example, to use merely the crudest one that comes to mind, we shouldn't say "Fuck you" on linguistic (as opposed to social) grounds according to your thought. After all, the expression is grammatically incorrect. It's an imperative with a second person pronoun as an object. Likewise, the semantic meaning is not "Go and crudely have sex with yourself", despite those being the semantic components comprising it. Idioms are not literal, and to treat "irregardless" as an idiom and then demand it be literally intelligible is contradictory.

I don't think I understand. Are you claiming that any tri syllabic word that stresses the 2nd syllable is awkward? (Remember, importance, construction, negating, debating, relating, etc?)

No, dactyls stress the first syllable. The amphibrach is a side issue, but also awkward (anapests are perfectly fine, but not the issue, and do require some management). In either case, a tri-syllabic word is awkward when it is flanked by caesuras (pauses, marked by #). You aren't likely to say something like "..., #importance#,...", whereas in fact you will say something like "..., #regardless#,...". Because "regardless" is a connective, it therefore doesn't have other syllables in its clause to balance it out.

or you mean any three syllables between commas? But it happens all the time (appositives, adjectives, short clauses, opening greetings - what about three syllable sentences?) The language isn't meant to be perfectly iambic

That's the difference between feet and groups of syllables. Those tri-syllabic expressions usually contain two stressed syllables, whereas a dactyl or amphibrach will only contain one. Tri-syllabic expressions are really just truncated pairs of trochees, really. This is in fact mirrored in the stress as well. Another crude example (swear words are almost always stressed, which makes them the lazy man's placeholder): "WHAT the FUCK? do YOU know WHO that IS?" Some might mix things up and turn the second trochee into a spondee and rearrange the rest of the sentence accordingly ("DO you KNOW who THAT IS?", possibly), but the tri-syllabic expression at the beginning will always be pronounced with two stresses rather than one unless it's for comic effect.

Anyhow, I think we've probably all had enough of that. Though it seems the same cannot be said of the I/P debate, unfortunately.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 1:49 PM on March 17, 2003

zerofoks and semmi quit being blind hypocrites.

The US funds Israel to the tune of 3.5 billion dollars a year.

I can guarantee you that the Palestinians receive less that a single percentage of that kind of aid annually combined from ALL sources. A great deal of Palestinian aid goes to food and shelter programs for people who have no job, no house and virtually no economy to have a job or house.

Maybe just maybe we should remove all but humanitarian aid to BOTH sides and then see where everybody stands.
posted by aaronscool at 1:58 PM on March 17, 2003

Down10: Great link, but, as far as I can tell, that group doesn't really deal with the I/P conflict. It does deal with fissures between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, but that's not at all the same thing.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:01 PM on March 17, 2003

Anyhow, I think we've probably all had enough of that.

actually, i find this fascinating. it is a discipline i've never really been exposed to.

er, obviously.
posted by fishfucker at 2:05 PM on March 17, 2003

A couple quotes from an article in The Olympian that are relevant to this discussion:

"I don't think she had any delusions that this was just exciting," said Lin Nelson, one of her teachers at The Evergreen State College...[Peter Bohmer] agreed with his colleague, Nelson, that Corrie knew what she would face in the Middle East.

"She wasn't naive," he said.

...

One of few at the vigil who had witnessed West Bank violence first-hand, [Tom] Wright said what happened Sunday in Rafah isn't unusual.

"It happens every day. It just doesn't happen to white girls from Olympia every day," he said.
posted by arielmeadow at 2:12 PM on March 17, 2003

The UN, apart from being completely useless to the Middle Eastern peace process, has long been known to be heavily biased against Israel and the US (which one of these biases is the cause and which is the effect remains questionable). Compare the number of resolutions condemning Israel to the number condemning Palestinian terrorists.

What's next? Will we get a citation from the Red Cross, which, having recognized the Palestinian Red Crescent -- despite claims that Palestinian ambulances are often used as cover to transport weapons and explosives -- still refuses to recognize the symbol of Israeli ambulances?

As I said before -- if you claim to be objective, tell both sides of the story. If you simply hate Jews or Palestinians, as seems to be the case with many of you, then why bother giving your hate an argumentative framework? Rant and rave to your heart's content.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:11 PM on March 17, 2003

at the root of all this carnage century upon century

No, I don't agree. Pre-1967, and this is a fact, the role of the I/P situation in World Affairs was very, very limited -- even after the creation of the State of Israel, with the possible exception of the Suez crisis.
The shit really hit the fan after 1967, it's not a 3 thousand-year-old global war, it simply is not.
posted by matteo at 3:31 PM on March 17, 2003

I know this girl's professors, and went to the West Bank myself for two months in a similar program from the same school. I wasn't killed, but it certainly was an option. It's always an option when you're there. After a bombing in Jerusalem (which everyone I knew personally rejected out-of-hand as a useful tool of resistance) the Occupied Territories were put under closure for the rest of my stay, which was a month. I saw first hand the devastation that this sort of "collective punishment" metes out on people who mostly want nothing more than to live out normal lives. But history has intervened. I knew people who lost homes to demolition; I had friends who were tortured in prisons. It's a hideous life, and the strain is palpable in every action.

Those of you who blame Rachel Corrie for her own death are extremely callous. If it is she is to be chastised for going overseas to study first-hand the culture which she had focused upon in her degree, than I too should be blamed for travelling abroad for the same reason. One might have called it dedication at one point, but now education is so clearly reviled that it has been rendered meaningless that someone be so dedicated that they actually wade in the waters they've studied.

I went there because I was tired of reading texts and newspaper clippings about the situation and I came home a changed person. But I gave up talking about it, because I was met with the same sort of cynicism or bitterness that many of you displayed here. I will say this: you may not believe in her cause, but that so many of you seem to find non-violent protest so easy to dismiss is disheartening indeed.
posted by readymade at 3:50 PM on March 17, 2003

personally, i'm sick of the fact that the belief in a powerful being who lives in the sky and made certain people his "chosen" has been at the root of all this carnage century upon century, and submit that all people who subscribe to such beliefs are displaying prima facie evidence of murderous insanity and ought to be lobotomized. but everybody dances around that little tidbit, don't they?

I hear ya, I hear ya.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:51 PM on March 17, 2003

"The UN, apart from being completely useless to the Middle Eastern peace process, has long been known to be heavily biased against Israel and the US..."

So, what you're saying then is that the whole world is opposed to Israel with the notable exception of the US, right? Ever stopped to think of why that might be...?!?

"I hate that human race. They're horribly biased and anti-semitic. You'd think that we actually took something from the Palestinians by force or something... our god gave it to us. He's on *our* side. I'm sure I've got the paperwork around here somewhere..."

Obviously, this is a problem we'll have to count on space aliens to resolve. Everyone else has an opinion.

And as for your God... what a bastard. That silent, smug, invisible former occupant who vacated the premises long ago, and, according to Mr. Nietzsche, has passed on. We still get stuck with all the collection calls and past due notices, however.

Do us all a favor... if you can't learn to live with other people (like your god kind of suggested) at least do us the favor of renouncing him. He's never done a thing for you, and you never listened to him anyway. Instead, base your society on something other than a primitive mythological beast. Stop trying to turn someone else's land into a members-only club for flat-earthers.

Meet reality. Shake hands. Grow up already, and breed with the swarthy, olive-skinned people. Get over your self-pity bullcrap because nobody likes a bunch of whiners... especially when they're already getting everything their way.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:21 PM on March 17, 2003

the belief in a powerful being who lives in the sky and made certain people his "chosen"

How else to base my faith? No, not Jewish either.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:31 PM on March 17, 2003

Need I say more?
posted by beth at 6:10 PM on March 17, 2003

So, what you're saying then is that the whole world is opposed to Israel with the notable exception of the US, right? Ever stopped to think of why that might be...?!?

No, I'm saying that loudmouth hypocritical self-righteous nations are the only ones being heard in the UN.

Well ain't that a touching emotional speech there, insomnia. Nice, also, how you seem to ascribe all these sentiments to me without a single shred of proof, much like you trumpet the unilateral evil of Israel. It's nice to see you know your PR, just like former terrorists like Arafat and Ashrawi -- unfortunately, everything you've said so far has been unsubstantiated manipulative drivel. Sure, it'll fly on this board, but not anywhere thinking people are involved.

Unfortunately, I doubt Rachel shared your pleasant opinion on learning to live with other people, seeing as how she endorsed the actions of Palestinian terrorists (or freedom fighters, your choice). I'll grant you her death was regrettable, but no more so than the death of any Israeli or Palestinian civilian stemming from this conflict.

And lastly, "your God" -- well said. You have an unmatched capacity for BS. I agree, you know, so long as we ascribe that statement to everyone's God, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. All of them were pretty vicious, hombre. I guess you're either an atheist or a hypocrite, then.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:47 PM on March 17, 2003

Some random thoughts on this welcomed eve of war:

Ever stopped to think of why that might be...?!?

--Because everyone hates Jews and their superior, longer-lasting-than-thou's creed?--I'm sure the bulldozer was American, right?

--Did you know that more than 2 or 3% of President Bush's most "hawkish" advisors and thinkers are Jewish?

--Jerusalem (JTA) Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat wrote recently to Saddam Hussein asking the Iraqi leader for continued help in fighting Israel.

"Any kind of support and assistance from you in these difficult times will enable us to continue our persistence and resistance," Arafat wrote, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute. "Hand in hand, Iraq and the Palestinians will march to Jerusalem," Arafat added.

Arafat also wished Saddam well as a U.S.-led war against Iraq looms: "May Allah the Powerful protect Iraq from the great dangers and evils that loom over it."

I wish said "Allah" well....he'll need it. Arafat, too.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:15 PM on March 17, 2003

Wouldn't be the first time God has been blamed for the devil's work.
posted by konolia at 7:19 PM on March 17, 2003

She didn't endorse them... she didn't aid or comfort them. She empathized with them. She saw them as brave humans who were given the short end of the stick. Who were victimized. She understood why they would feel that way.

... but when given a choice, she chose nonviolence. She encouraged others to follow nonviolence throughout her life. She died following the teachings of nonviolence.

I'm not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I don't know whether there is a god or not, and I can't tell you whether there is, nor is it my business to. I can tell you that either god is good, or he is not worth following, however.

I don't believe the Bible / Torah / etc. is any more or less than mankind's attempt to know the unknowable. If god is good, then he would not advocate the sometimes horrific and contradictory teachings of the Old Testament. Either that means that god is not good and not worth following, or that the Old Testament is merely second hand knowledge, at best.

If god exists and god is good and god is inside you, that indicates to me that there is a part of you that should know right from wrong, love from hate, peace from war. You would have a conscience... and even though I don't know if god exists and could never begin to prove it, I do feel quite certain that people should have a conscience, they should nourish it, and they should listen to it more often.

I suggest that you listen to yours.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:22 PM on March 17, 2003

What I read of her writing sounded like verbal support and endorsement to me. Again, your phrasing is deceptive -- compare "felt that way" to "blew innocent civilians, including children, to bloody bits." And lastly, how would you know that a person who was photographed burning an American flag on Palestinian territories has never aided or comforted terrorists? Neither you nor I have any concrete proof, but at least my suspicion would be more reasonable considering her behaviour.

You keep trying to turn this into an ad hominem against me and what you perceive to be "my God," implying I blindly follow old writings and have no conscience. And yet not only have I never implied anything of the sort, but what's more, you know nothing of my personal spirituality. So quit trying -- that avenue of attack definitely leads to a dead end.

The emphasis is again on the old Testament, eh? Nothing about the Qu'ran. Okay, then.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:34 PM on March 17, 2003

Some random thoughts on this welcomed eve of war:

Paris,

welcome to the thread. I'm happy you're once again admitting that you're eager to see the Iraqi bloodbath begin, be sure you'll soon be appreciating the tv broadcasts of all those Arabs getting killed, but you've failed to enlighten us about the most interesting points previously made in this thread -- did Rachel Corrie got what she deserved or maybe those bulldozing tactics need to be somewhat corrected? Are the Freepers right -- ie the gene pool is a little better today? Are you down with the regular army of a sovereign democratic state (again: a regular army, not a terrorist organization) using every day collective punishment against the enemy? (hint: collective punishment's illegal in a democracy)
posted by matteo at 7:38 PM on March 17, 2003

The bloodbath begin! Nice selective reading of history. Either it will continue, or more likely, it will end, and in a few days.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:42 PM on March 17, 2003

insomnia_lj at 10:22 PM: at least all serious Jewish students accept that the Torah is not to be read literally. You need a more sophisticated argument than the one you offer to defame religion, ok?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:16 PM on March 17, 2003

I give Rachel three days to ascend from her tomb. Until then I won't call her a martyr of note.
posted by dfowler at 8:29 PM on March 17, 2003

PP -- It's funny how you can view the Torah figuratively, yet take the dubious claims to Israel quite literally.

The unwarranted faith that some people have placed on Israel belonging to the Jewish people is largely what is causing the problem. It is being used to justify that which cannot be logically, reasonably justified.

Or perhaps you expect us to take your claims on faith?! Sorry, we don't accept out-of-state 3rd party checks anymore...
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:17 AM on March 18, 2003

--Did you know that more than 2 or 3% of President Bush's most "hawkish" advisors and thinkers are Jewish?

What exactly do you mean by this, ParisParamus? I certainly know what it sounds like to me.
posted by Vidiot at 12:55 AM on March 18, 2003

The unwarranted faith that some people have placed on Israel belonging to the Jewish people is largely what is causing the problem. It is being used to justify that which cannot be logically, reasonably justified.

BS. The existence of the state of Israel is justified by the fact that there is no reason to believe that something like the Holocaust won't happen again outside of Israel where jews have been persecuted for thousands of years.

And while I might not get into the logics of metaphysics or theology, I just want to derail this thread some more, too, by saying that your arguments against g-d are pretty flawed.
posted by zerofoks at 1:01 AM on March 18, 2003

A Gaza Diary
posted by y2karl at 1:18 AM on March 18, 2003

Come to think of it, I withdraw the question. I think it's just an oddly-phrased argument.
posted by Vidiot at 4:29 AM on March 18, 2003

Nice selective reading of history

yeah, but you still haven't answered any of the questions, and you've carefully avoided to discuss this thread issue -- ie, the bulldozers. Are you proud of your Prime Minister's tactics?
posted by matteo at 6:15 AM on March 18, 2003

If god exists and god is good and god is inside you, that indicates to me that there is a part of you that should know right from wrong, love from hate, peace from war.

Please show me the non-violence, can't see it.

It's not what she is burning, do as she pleases. But what are her actions showing, not love. She is teaching/preaching to these young minds here, what?

Stepped in, why? Not a problem you asked for compassion for someone's death and life. Yet you have played juror/judge to who's fault: why she is dead. You blamed a whole nation of people for her death. She was an adult whom from the sound of it, lived life how she wanted to live it.

It is being used to justify that which cannot be logically, reasonably justified.

My faith does not justify the mentality that lead to her death. Men made poor judgement for what ever reasons be, and were then carried out poorly. Plus my faith also includes that God judges, thus the reason for why revenge is wrong. Unless you would like that punishment befallen to you.

Was a death warrant issued with these orders to bulldoze? If they were, yes your point is clearfully correct looking at it on a moral bases. House for a life does not equate. Nor does standing in between a bulldozer and a house when no one is inside the home to protect either. Where was the owner of the home?

Condolence to the decease.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:15 AM on March 18, 2003

What I find most tragic about this situation is that so many seemingly intelligent people do not understand that the moment you pick sides in this controversy, you become part of it and continue to worsen the situation.

Life is not black and white. This isn't binary. The Israelis are not evil nor are the Palestinians. It doesn't matter what happened yesterday, last year, a decade ago, or even 1000 years ago. Only today matters. What can one do today to make the situation better?

Listen to the arguments here. Who walked out of what treaty? Who does the land rightfully belong to? Are these arguments designed to find a resolution to the problem or are they statements used to fuel an existing fire? I think they are the later.

I think Rachel was unfortunately someone who felt they were doing the right thing but was too blind with emotion to realize that murder is murder. She simply found a way to rationalize one view over another just as many have done here in this thread.

There was some discussion of peaceful resistance in this thread and I believe the analogies used are incorrect. Peaceful resistance worked for MLK and Gandhi because they were men of peace acting as leaders. If Arafat called his people to a peaceful resistance of Israeli rule then one could compare him to MLK or Gandhi. Even if an influential Palestinian rose up and called for peaceful resistance, then one could compare him to MLK or Gandhi. Simply not attacking someone is not peaceful resistance.

As a strategy, Arafat's tactics are counter-productive to his objectives. He leads what is essentially an unarmed army who engages in the most frightening and disgusting form of warfare against any army that outnumbers him 1000 - 1. His strategy only rachets up the level of violence the Israelis can stomach in retaliatory responses. He would be much better off following the lead of a MLK or Gandhi. His only hope is to humanize the Palestinian people.

Of course, Israel is not without blame either. But amazingly they probably have the least desirable hand to play. They cannot talk peace while bombs are blowing up in discos and they don't seem to be able to stop the attacks. They have resorted to a policy of attempting to make the cost of each suicide bomber's attack too great for the Palestinian's to shoulder. Unfortunately, they have underestimated the Palestinian resolve and find themselves forced into an endless cycle of ever-escalating violence. With each Palestinian attack they are forced to decide to end the cycle and admit defeat or to escalate the violence and suffer a deeper defeat to their humanity. So far they have chosen to continue the path of the later.

Both Israel and the Palestinians need strong leaders who realize that neither can "win" this war. Events have thrown them together and they must find a way to prosper together. Unfortunately, neither Sharon nor Arafat seem to be those leaders.
posted by billman at 8:11 PM on March 18, 2003

I tried not to bother responding to this but I found myself thinking about it this morning so I'm just compelled to put my last 2 cents in...

Ir-, unless I'm mistaken is a latinate prefix.

But it has a meaning in english - we know that when a word is prefixed by un- or i(double r/ n/ l )- that it's negated. It's a rule in our language.

Therefore we have a precedent for acknowledging foreign articles used in words and phrases.

As for the al-cohol thing, I think I already pointed out that it more or less is used as an article anyway. I don't know what "cohol" means, but let's go with "devil's brew" just for fun. So it maintains sense to say, "this is only 10% (the devil's brew)" or "do you drink (the devil's brew)?" which is how we usually use it. As I said above, if we use an article it refers to an implied qualifying noun - as in, "did the (shipment of) (the devil's brew) arrive today?"

we shouldn't say "Fuck you" on linguistic (as opposed to social) grounds according to your thought. After all, the expression is grammatically incorrect.

Is it? "you" can be either objective or nominative as a pronoun, so is fine here in the objective. "Fuck" as a verb may be confusing, but onomatopoeically it's strongly aggressive. So the question is, what's the subject? Probably an implied "you", though we could quibble over the absence of a reflective pronoun - though with the nominative unstated, it seems reasonable to use the simple objective. One could also argue that it's an implied "I", though commands, which this is, normally imply the second person.

In either case, a tri-syllabic word is awkward when it is flanked by caesuras (pauses, marked by #). You aren't likely to say something like "..., #importance#,...", whereas in fact you will say something like "..., #regardless#,...".

how about ...#remember#,...? ...#In one way#,... ..#do you think#,.. ...#understand#,.. - there are plenty of examples, especially if you allow for subordinate clauses ("#Debating#, as we know, leads to...").

but the tri-syllabic expression at the beginning will always be pronounced with two stresses rather than one unless it's for comic effect.

The only thing important there is that FUCK is stressed - you could say WHAT. THE. FUCK. or what the FUCK but you'll never say what THE fuck, and since we tend to alternate stresses, you'll usually also stress WHAT. But that says nothing about our use of tri-syllabic words.

okay, thanks for interesting points - even though I disagree with your usage.
posted by mdn at 6:15 AM on March 19, 2003

But it has a meaning in english - we know that when a word is prefixed by un- or i(double r/ n/ l )- that it's negated. It's a rule in our language.

I would argue that it's a rule we've imported from another language to govern words generated from that language, rather than a rule of natural english. Ir- is generally only used on latinate words - saying "Irroyal", for example, is correct, but poor usage, because "royal" is French (well, Norman), not latinate. Yet, it starts with an "r", and so if we only use the criterion you provided, we can't criticise that use.

As I said above, if we use an article it refers to an implied qualifying noun - as in, "did the (shipment of) (the devil's brew) arrive today?"

I agree here in principle, but I would point out that in practice, we don't vocalise the implied qualifier. If I say "the alcohol is in the other room", it's a grammatical sentence. I don't have to add "the bottle of" as a key component. My point is a fork - dictionaries acknowledge, as they do with "hoi polloi", that foreign articles ought to be acknowledged, yet we are clearly able to ignore that rule for "alcohol", because colloquial usage ignored it for so long that it wasn't required.

"Fuck" as a verb may be confusing, but onomatopoeically it's strongly aggressive.

Here we go! And this is precisely my point with "irregardless": it may be slightly confusing to non-native speakers, but it _sounds_ better for the job to native ones.

how about ...#remember#,...? ...#In one way#,... ..#do you think#,.. ...#understand#,.. - there are plenty of examples, especially if you allow for subordinate clauses ("#Debating#, as we know, leads to...").

I would contend that all those uses are "weak", and detract from statements which they appear in for the same reason. Subordinate clauses are another issue, but the subordinate clause you gave is in fact an anapest, not a dactyl or amphibrach, and that makes all the difference, as I pointed out. I'm going to make an off-the-cuff prediction that just about any subordinate clause that does not distract one from the main thrust of the sentence when spoken is an anapest, or is not a single foot (that is, it contains two or more stresses).

The only thing important there is that FUCK is stressed - you could say WHAT. THE. FUCK. or what the FUCK but you'll never say what THE fuck, and since we tend to alternate stresses, you'll usually also stress WHAT.

Ah, but there's nothing there forcing us to alternate stresses, so why do it? I contend that the answer is because we prefer the sound alternating the stresses makes. And therein lies an attack on three-syllable feet - which don't alternate stresses.

But that says nothing about our use of tri-syllabic words.

I agree to some extent there, but I think for a different reason than you do. I think they say little because they aren't feet - in a tri-syllabic, as we've both now pointed out, multiple syllables are normally stressed. By contrast, in most words of three or fewer syllables, only one is stressed. I think that's an important difference.

Good discussion though. You had some good points yourself.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:17 AM on March 19, 2003

i can't help myself.

we don't vocalise the implied qualifier. If I say "the alcohol is in the other room", it's a grammatical sentence.

right, but it means something different than the article inherent in the word - the al- makes this the devil's brew, magic drink, best thing ever (whatever it is). We would generally not ask if "is (the devil's brew) in the next room" because that would sound as if we were talking about all of it, or about it in essence, as opposed to a particular quantity of it - to say "is the (the devil's brew)..." actually makes sense if the inherent article is indicating a kind of status of the item by definition and not as an example in the world.

saying "Irroyal", for example, is correct, but poor usage, because "royal" is French

well, I guess we can agree on an ending then - "regard" is from the french also!

Here we go! And this is precisely my point with "irregardless": it may be slightly confusing to non-native speakers, but it _sounds_ better for the job to native ones.

that wasn't my point - I just meant that using "fuck" as an aggressive exclamation may seem odd if it means to have sex (see george carlin...). we keep using it because of it's taboo nature, which is due in part to it's aggressive power as a sound. In pure meaning it should probably mean "rape" over "make love", but the enjoyment of the taboo element of sexuality has made us protective of the word as a designator of all sex, not just sexual violence. I don't think this has anything to do with the grammar of the sentence though, just over whether "fuck you" should have negative meaning.
posted by mdn at 3:05 PM on March 19, 2003

Wouldn't be the first time God has been blamed for the devil's work

Yeah yeah, the devil. God's lame excuse for fucking up.
posted by Berend at 3:46 AM on March 20, 2003