Skip

Poor Taste or Free Speech?
March 21, 2003 10:42 AM   Subscribe

An Editorial Cartoon published in the University of Maryland 's Student run independent newspaper, The Diamondback, incites controversy. The cartoon, depicting the death of American pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie, is being called offensive; protestors and university officials are calling for a retraction and an apology from the paper. The newspaper on the other hand is crying free speech and first amendment protection; as well they see the backlash by the campus community as hypocritical.
posted by mhaw (60 comments total)

 
that paper has every right to print that unfunny, idiotic, disrespectful, poorly drawn cartoon.
wait, i forgot "stupid"
posted by whatnot at 10:55 AM on March 21, 2003


My only complaint is that the paper didn't officially award this anti-American activist the Darwin Award on the spot.

I hate to see anyone die. But given that some will always die, I'd rather it be the stupid and dangerous ones.

It's a shame. She probably would've grown up eventually. There are no better realists than former radicals, IMO.
posted by baltimore at 10:55 AM on March 21, 2003


Teehee!

Could have been worse, like one of those priceless parodies.

Plane ticket to Isreal: $400
Buying an extra bird costume: $30

Defending suicidal terrorists by sitting in front of a bulldozer, only to get run over by it: Priceless
posted by eas98 at 11:04 AM on March 21, 2003


Heh Heh. That was my laugh for the day. They hit the nail right on the head. I agree they should've stamped a darwin award seal on the cartoon somewhere.
posted by zyfly at 11:04 AM on March 21, 2003


Fascinating. There's a dust up in Honolulu relating to editorial cartoons in the university paper as well. I imagine, with the war, this scenario repeating simultaneously across the country.

In this case, the demands of the paper's critics are remarkably specific. Not only do they want people fired and others subjected to sensitivity training, but they want the paper to sponsor events, including one critic's own "Holocaust Remembrance Week."

I served as editor of the paper linked above several years ago, and touched off my own share of controversy and protests, such as for 'pro/con' spreads on gay marriage and Hawaiian sovereignty.

Even when, in some cases, I agreed with some protesters' views on the issue in question, I couldn't believe their assertion was that the point of view wasn't just wrong, but that it was violating some nebulous but all-encompassing rule against it existing at all.

I support the right of journalists, students or not, to take stands... or to make fools of themselves. I sure did. Many others have. And often, they're better journalists because of it.
posted by pzarquon at 11:06 AM on March 21, 2003


seems like corrie's supporters would have bigger issues on their minds.

If someone drew a cartoon making fun of someone dying from a suicide bombing, [The Diamondback] would not publish it

the idea that the paper is exhibiting a double stardard as stated by the muslim student association is ridiculous -- corrie's death is in no way similar to that a victim of a indiscriminate bomb.
posted by danOstuporStar at 11:09 AM on March 21, 2003


she died for what she believed.
posted by clavdivs at 11:10 AM on March 21, 2003


.
posted by clavdivs at 11:11 AM on March 21, 2003


It is my assumption that the cartoon has been run in part as a protest to the poor girl's death being used as an icon, a symbol of the bad bad Israelis. I have seen her so used in a number of places and thus at http://israpundit.blogspot.com the cartoon also was carried, as well as an article or two about her attending Evergreen college, where, it seems, students are encouraged to "get active" for various causes. I note too that another young American was injured today in pretty much the same situation (by rubber bullets). Ought to be mentioned that the place being torn down by IDF was used by gunmen shooting at Israeli soldiers. The poor girl had in fact been warned that she was in danger because she was in a war zone.
posted by Postroad at 11:13 AM on March 21, 2003


she died for what she believed.

So did Mohammed Atta.
posted by eas98 at 11:14 AM on March 21, 2003


If someone drew a cartoon making fun of someone dying from a suicide bombing, [The Diamondback] would not publish it

This statement from the protestors is not based in any fact... the Diamondback's editor in fact says that they will print anything as long it does not incite violence and is not libelous...
posted by mhaw at 11:16 AM on March 21, 2003


Military pay per month: 1,000 shekels

Bulldozer lessons: 100 shekels

Getting to squash someone protesting forty-year illegal occupation of Palestine: Priceless!
posted by lathrop at 11:17 AM on March 21, 2003


forty-year illegal occupation

Sigh.. Has it ever occurred to you that, by that same logic, the United States is illegally occupying Native American territory?

If the Indians started bombing our cities, would you be protesting in their favor?
posted by eas98 at 11:25 AM on March 21, 2003


Free speech allows people to make themselves look like assholes.

I'm all for it.
posted by cinderful at 11:26 AM on March 21, 2003


I think she was an idiot --albeit a principled one-- for putting herself in the path of a group known to be psychotically incapable of being flexible.

I think the Israelis are idiots for being said psychos.

I think the paper was idiotic for printing an unfunny cartoon. Surely they could have come up with something more amusing about her death.

I think the students are idiots for protesting it.

And I am feeling idiotic for posting about it.

People die. Very often it's funny to someone. If that's insensitive, too bad. There's about 100,000 years of snickering at Alley Oop when he slips on mastodon shit and falls into the volcano working here. Death is a common thing, a common human experience. And like eating, shitting, and fucking, we're going to laugh at it. Please, if they find me sitting at my computer electrocuted with MeFi running onscreen, refer to it often and in amused tones.

Death is not sacred.
posted by umberto at 11:32 AM on March 21, 2003




If the Indians started bombing our cities, would you be protesting in their favor?


eas98, are you new here? Of course they would protest in their favor!

As for the cartoon, it was offensive. Just as what rachel Corrie did was offensive.

I think the cartoon hits the nail on the head.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:46 AM on March 21, 2003


Erin O'Connor, in her excellent site Critical Mass, has an excellent post about this controversy:

[Chief of Staff Ann] Wylie's are the words of a university administrator with absolutely no concept of why free expression matters on a campus, and with no clue that her job, as a top official at a state school, includes preserving the individual rights of faculty and students at the school. She has run for cover and has left The Diamondback's editor to twist in the wind all by himself.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:47 AM on March 21, 2003


Death is not sacred.

That fact commonly infuriates me at funerals of my relations, of which I have personal knowledge of their actions during life that were anything but saintly. However, sometime during the service or eulogy, someone will mention that said relation is "in a better place" or "heaven has another angel." Makes me want to promise to say something bad at said person's funeral.

That being said, the students protesting this fact are indeed being idiotic. If they believe so strongly in the rights of Corrie to do what she did, and want to honor her for it, then they need to get down to their nearest Klan rally and defend to the death those folks' right to their general vileness.

No matter how deep you feel about a political issue, it comes down to what is most important in this country and world: Is your personal liberty, and the personal liberty of every human on the planet important, or are you going to place morals and regional conflicts on a higher plane?

I think we all need to watch a little more Penn & Teller
posted by thanotopsis at 11:52 AM on March 21, 2003


Heh Heh. That was my laugh for the day. They hit the nail right on the head. I agree they should've stamped a darwin award seal on the cartoon somewhere.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The cartoon wasn't particularly funny, it didn't shed any new light on the subject, and just basically served as a platform for the artist to showcases his personal biases and make fun of the death of a young girl. It's pretty reprehensible, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think the paper made the right decision to run the cartoon, otherwise it becomes an issue of editorial censorship, which is a slippery slope.

she died for what she believed.

So did Mohammed Atta.


You can't even compare the two. One was a peaceful protester standing up to an Israeli bulldozer, and the other conspired and acted out a terrorist plot.

Rachel Corrie, 23, from Olympia, Wash., a member of the 'International Solidarity Movement,' burns a mock U.S. flag during a rally in the southern Gaza Strip

No offense, but so what? It's a form of protest. In the 60's, Vietnam war protesters burned American flags. If someone is in support of Palestine, then they're probably pretty angry about the United States' unconditional support of Israel.

If this was posted as a way of implying that Rachel Corrie is somehow "un-American" because she happened to burn a flag during a protest, then I disagree with you. A certain amount of dissent and mistrust for ones government is a healthy thing. It keeps everyone in check. Rachel was just exercising her rights to protest against something she did not believe in, not as an American, Israeli, or Palestinian, but as a human being.

And she was killed for it.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:57 AM on March 21, 2003


Poor Taste or Free Speech? Doesn't have to be an either/or option -- it's quite possible to have both at one time. Unfortunately, too many people think that speech that is in poor taste should somehow be less free than other forms of speech. Doesn't work that way, though.
posted by thorswitch at 12:01 PM on March 21, 2003


This statement from the protestors is not based in any fact... the Diamondback's editor in fact says that they will print anything as long it does not incite violence and is not libelous...

And, this is an incredibly stupid position. What this experience will hopefully teach this young journalist is that the First Amendment does not mean that an editor has an obligation to print anything that comes in through the door. This is a commonly-held, ill perception that many student journalists have. One has the right to publish outlandish material, but one certainly does not have the obligation to do so. If this kid were on a real job, the newspaper's publisher would have likely bum rushed his office, been all up in his face about the risk of losing ad revenue, and he would have been on his way home for good before noon. One shouldn't up and squelch on about the First Amendment as a damned reflex. There are rules, there are taste issues, and there are measured responsibilities, and this cartoon defies that notion by mocking the high-profile death of a young girl. This cartoon was a shit-stain of bad taste and should not have been run, simple as that.
posted by NedKoppel at 12:11 PM on March 21, 2003


Free speech aside, I'm surprised at the attitudes here that blame Connie for her own death. Stupid is running yourself over with a bulldozer. Someone else ran this girl over.

If I were the guy driving the bulldozer, my first thought at running somebody over wouldn't be "haw-haw, how stupid". Admit come culpability on the part of the driver! Admit somebody had a choice whether to kill this girl or let her live, and admit somebody chose to kill her.

If protesters sit in front of your bulldozer, or climb a tree you want to cut down, or somehow physically stop you from doing your job, what you do is STOP. You get someone to drag them out of the way, and put them in jail. My morality says that you don't get the right to kill them.

Okay, so if you want to debate this, fine. If you want to draw inflammatory cartoons mocking a victim, you do have that right but you can also expect those who read and oversee your student newspaper to get upset.
posted by adzuki at 12:14 PM on March 21, 2003


obligation to print anything that comes in through the door

Well if the Editor hired the cartoonist and agrees to run his work every day, then yes he does have an obligation to run the piece...
posted by mhaw at 12:17 PM on March 21, 2003


oversee your student newspaper

well it's an independent student newspaper... no one in the administration has any say in its operation or its funding...
posted by mhaw at 12:20 PM on March 21, 2003


Wait, let me get this straight: More than 20 University Of Maryland students congregated in one place, and they *didn't* riot? Wow, there's a first for everything, I guess.

Ah, my alma mater....
posted by emptybowl at 12:22 PM on March 21, 2003


Well if the Editor hired the cartoonist and agrees to run his work every day, then yes he does have an obligation to run the piece...

No he wouldn't. That's what's great about being the boss.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:36 PM on March 21, 2003


Let's see:

Rachel Corrie had every right to do what she did, from burning mock American flags to dying for her beliefs.

The cartoonist had every right to make a joke about it.

The newspaper had every right to run it. Should they not have in deference to "taste"? Don't care really.

The readers had every right to express their outrage. Threats aren't cool but it's not as though campus lefties have a monopoly on that form of discourse.

The administration - well, shit. I was all prepared to lay into them, but what have they actually done? They denounced it. They can't do anything about it, it seems - from the Erin O'Connor link, the Diamondback is a fully independent enterprise - and it doesn't look like they're trying. Wylie's a self-centered git of course. The Diamondback has damaged her? Shut up.

However, if the Diamondback is a fully independent paper, how could its staff possibly expect not to twist in the wind in a situation like this? If you are going to publish provocative material, by all means do so, but don't be so shocked when it actually provokes people.
posted by furiousthought at 12:36 PM on March 21, 2003


well it's an independent student newspaper... no one in the administration has any say in its operation or its funding...

Oh, I see. I don't immediately make the connection between "independently run" and "independently funded". A lot of college papers are student run, yet subsidized.

Regardless, I will stick by what I said. You can print something this tasteless, and that's your right. However, when controversy follows, and there are public opinion consequences, I don't believe it's any use to cry "hypocrisy." They were looking for this reaction, and they got it. I don't think the objection is to the point of view, but rather the way in which it was said. It's not a first amendment issue until the college tries to stop the paper or discipline the editors.
posted by adzuki at 12:37 PM on March 21, 2003


the idea that the paper is exhibiting a double stardard as stated by the muslim student association is ridiculous -- corrie's death is in no way similar to that a victim of a indiscriminate bomb.

Except that when someone did do a comic "making fun" of terrorism victims, the comic was pulled and apologized for from its publishers over the outcry... and anyone here who's now making their shiteating-grinned "oh, well I thought it was funny" comments would have felt exactly the opposite than the way they do now. Now who's the hypocrite?

As furiousthought said, nothing is being done to supress the free speech of the paper or the cartoonist, and following what adzuki said, I fail to see how many of the comments toward whether or not you actually found the cartoon funny has anything to do with it or not. A paper printed something that a majority found objectionable. They should recognize that instead of trying to absolve themselves.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:45 PM on March 21, 2003


Except that when someone did do a comic "making fun" of terrorism victims, the comic was pulled and apologized for from its publishers over the outcry...

you're missing the point entirely. putting aside the worth or justification of corrie's action, she was not innocent bystander. unless you are prepared to condemn a bombing victim for simply being in vicinity of the blast (i.e. 9/11 victims were complicitly supporting the evil of capitalism by working at the WTC), there is no correlation.

this issue has everything to do with free speech. the objectors (who by no means represent a majority of the student body) do not like what was said and they want it taken back. how is that different than a christian fundamentalist asking certain books be removed from library shelves?
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:18 PM on March 21, 2003


A Christian fundamentalist (or an identity politics type, for that matter) can ask for certain books to be removed from library shelves all they want, and since they're going to do so until the end of time we may as well roll our eyes and get used to it. (Asking for an apology and a countering viewpoint is a little different than asking for the outright removal of material but I'm not going to obsess on this point.) When the arm-twisting starts is when free speech is the issue.

I don't see any arm-twisting here. If I do, trust me, I'll make with the furious.
posted by furiousthought at 1:59 PM on March 21, 2003


As for the cartoon, it was offensive. Just as what rachel Corrie did was offensive.

OK. Then we're going to crush to death the person who drew it. Cool.



I thought the "Terror Widows" cartoon in very poor taste (I posted the link myself). Same as this horrible caterpillar shit. I'm against censorship, so let them publish it, but I'm all for boycotting papers that choose to run that sorry crap

I'd like to ask our compassionate conservatives here on MeFi, how is it that you are only offended by the stuff that doesn't carry the FOxNews stamp of approval?

If the Indians started bombing our cities, would you be protesting in their favor?
eas98, are you new here? Of course they would protest in their favor!


Steve, when in need try the Smallpox Blankets -- they work pretty well when you've got to do some ethnic cleansing!

unless you are prepared to condemn a bombing victim for simply being in vicinity of the blast (i.e. 9/11 victims were complicitly supporting the evil of capitalism by working at the WTC), there is no correlation.
well it depends. What about the Pentagon victims? They were working for the military right? That's a can of worms we've opened already in the past, the issue is not crystal clear
posted by matteo at 2:05 PM on March 21, 2003


If this was posted as a way of implying that Rachel Corrie is somehow "un-American" because she happened to burn a flag during a protest, then I disagree with you. A certain amount of dissent and mistrust for ones government is a healthy thing. It keeps everyone in check. Rachel was just exercising her rights to protest against something she did not believe in, not as an American, Israeli, or Palestinian, but as a human being.

Sweet Jesus - we agree to disagree
posted by Macboy at 2:24 PM on March 21, 2003


You can't even compare the two. One was a peaceful protester standing up to an Israeli bulldozer, and the other conspired and acted out a terrorist plot.

Corrie's writings, which lend verbal support to Palestinian terrorists, suggest her attitude was anything but peaceful. She was standing in front of a house of a militant, not an orphanage or homeless shelter.

Admit come culpability on the part of the driver! Admit somebody had a choice whether to kill this girl or let her live, and admit somebody chose to kill her.

As in the previous thread about Corrie, some assume that the driver intentionally killed her, without proof from any credible investigation. This is no more correct than saying she jumped under the bulldozer herself.

If protesters sit in front of your bulldozer, or climb a tree you want to cut down, or somehow physically stop you from doing your job, what you do is STOP. You get someone to drag them out of the way, and put them in jail. My morality says that you don't get the right to kill them.

Will the same apply in a war zone? Are you aware of the number of times Israeli soldiers have been killed by suicide bombers and other means, while "doing their jobs?"
posted by Krrrlson at 2:35 PM on March 21, 2003


Macboy, if you're going to link approvingly to Little Green Bigoted Cunts, then you really ought to do so on Little Green Bigoted Cunts.
posted by riviera at 2:46 PM on March 21, 2003


That is not quite as funny as the anti-Israeli cartoons that pop up right after a suicide bombing, but it is moderately amusing. I am waiting for some sort of nuclear accident or perhaps even a nuclear attack by terrorists. Whether it occurs in the USA, Israel or elsewhere, the cartoons are going to be AWESOME.
posted by bargle at 2:55 PM on March 21, 2003


First off, thanks for the link to Little Green Footballs, there is some pretty decent info/commentary there.

while it isn't probably a good idea to deliberately run over someone who is protesting, at some point physical force does become necessary. If they will into move then you have to move them... yours imply cannot allow the whole society to be help up every time someone with a bug in their butt decides to sit down someplace.

If obstructionist protesters INSIST on putting themselves in front of large, dangerous machinery in dangerous places during a conflict then someone is going to get run over or shot.

That's just the way it is.
posted by soulhuntre at 2:59 PM on March 21, 2003


Steve_At_Linnwood:eas98, are you new here? Of course they would protest in their favor!

That's right. It's true that many of "us" haven't undergone the testicular and ethical atrophy that is prerequisite for jumping on the sycophantic moron majority bandwagon for bravely sending others to bomb from afar a relatively defenseless country. Many of "us" look with contempt at those whose actions on these issues consist of bravely rooting for war and whining about war protests from the comfort of warblog. Unfortunately, many of you atrophied ones don't have a billionth portion of the moral courage someone like Rachel Corrie possessed...and died for.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:00 PM on March 21, 2003


My only complaint is that the paper didn't officially award this anti-American activist the Darwin Award on the spot.

They hit the nail right on the head. I agree they should've stamped a darwin award seal on the cartoon somewhere.


Well, if you're going to troll, try to be a little imaginative. Should Darwins be "officially awarded on the spot" to the soldiers of different nations killed in the current conflicts?
posted by liam at 3:00 PM on March 21, 2003


I really can't understand who finds that comic strip funny.

Seriously, I don't care what your opinion is regarding Israel's actions, or if you have a religious connection to either point of view. The fact remains that there's nothing funny about being purposefully bulldozed by a soldier too bloodthirsty, stupid or impatient to have you arrested.
posted by mosch at 3:29 PM on March 21, 2003


isn't the "if you look up stupid in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of..." just about the most tired joke out there? I mean, to use that humorously, at least you have to make some kind of meta-reference acknowledging the recycled nature of your joke... especially if you draw like a ten year old with no imagination.
posted by mdn at 3:42 PM on March 21, 2003


First off, thanks for the link to Little Green Footballs, there is some pretty decent info/commentary there.

Tell that to potty mouthed Riviera...
posted by Macboy at 4:27 PM on March 21, 2003


Corrie's writings, which lend verbal support to Palestinian terrorists, suggest her attitude was anything but peaceful. She was standing in front of a house of a militant, not an orphanage or homeless shelter.

Things aren't this black and white. Some people consider the Palestinians' terrorists, while others consider them a downtrodden people who fight back the only way they can. I'm somewhere in the middle on this issue, but that's moot.

The fact is, is that regardless of what this girl was protesting for, she was peaceful. It's not clear whether or not the driver could see her, but if he in fact could see her, and just drove over her, thats reprehensible. I don't care if she was protesting in favor neo-nazi terrorist abortion doctors, she shouldn't have been killed for it. That is the crux of the issue.
posted by SweetJesus at 4:38 PM on March 21, 2003


Corrie's writings, which lend verbal support to Palestinian terrorists, suggest her attitude was anything but peaceful. She was standing in front of a house of a militant, not an orphanage or homeless shelter.

First of all, the person whose house was targetted was NOT a known militant and was not charged by the IDF as such. Don't you think they would just go in and arrest him if he was? His house just happened to be in an area that the IDF wanted to clear to create a buffer zone between Gaza and Egypt.

Therefore, Rachel was defending the home of someone who, by the admission of the IDF, did no wrong. Tell me again why he deserved to have his house destroyed with no compensation?
posted by laz-e-boy at 4:50 PM on March 21, 2003


This is the worst thread I have ever read on metafilter. The views expressed by so many here are so untextured and facile I would have assumed they were all trolls. The sheer amount of them however makes me question that assumption.

A woman has died in passive resistance to a very powerful force. You mock that death, not only as meaningless, but as ignorant and stupid. How dare we judge her. She had done nothing violent, she has risked her life to save others in a cause she believes in.
posted by rhyax at 6:12 PM on March 21, 2003


I'd have to agree with rhyax
posted by troutfishing at 7:22 PM on March 21, 2003


I think she was an idiot --albeit a principled one-- for putting herself in the path of a group known to be psychotically incapable of being flexible.

I think the Israelis are idiots for being said psychos.


Damn them Jews, right? Can't trust any of those psychos can you?
posted by Mick at 8:36 PM on March 21, 2003


Things aren't that black and white, eh? People who blow up innocent civilians are terrorists -- that's the definition, o matter how downtrodden they are (just as the bulldozer driver can be called a murderer if it is indeed proven that he intentionally killed Corrie). Frankly, your statement is childish.

laz-e-boy -- if you say so, but that's not what I remember reading on CNN and elsewhere. Maybe the statement I read was corrected later, but what's your source?
posted by Krrrlson at 8:51 PM on March 21, 2003


Poor Taste or Free Speech? Doesn't have to be an either/or option
Larry Flynt - Hustler Magazine
You mock that death, not only as meaningless, but as ignorant and stupid.
Damn, in what hole have you been hiding for the last week?

Even someone who agrees with her principles can think her actions were utterly stupid. At some point while playing chicken, someone has to swerve, or someone dies.
posted by mischief at 8:59 PM on March 21, 2003


Yes, Mick, I that's exactly what I said. Thanks for reading between the lines and duping that out. Gee, and I didn't even realize it. Time to shave my head and and get my 'jewstomping boots' on, I guess. And I'll have to change all of my friends and part of my family, too.

Impatience with idiocy crosses cultural bias. There are a lot of psychos of that stripe out there. However, we were talking about this particular bunch of them. Pardon me for referring to the group responsible for running over a peaceful, if woefully naive (about who she was dealing with, at any rate) young woman WITH A BULLDOZER. It's dueling idiocy, as I said. One side is just murderous idiocy. Please, regale me with tales of the flexible, understanding, compassionate, compromising side of dozercidal maniacs.*

*Yes, I realize that 'dozercidal' technically means the bulldozer gets killed. But it's with either funnier this way, or you think nothing on this topic could possibly ever be funny and therefore it doesn't matter.
posted by umberto at 9:00 PM on March 21, 2003


Oh man, this is what I come back to? The most offensive thing about the cartoon is how unfunny it is. It's too moronic to be truly offensive, but what is stomach-turning are the smug, smarmy "ha-ha, dumb young idealist got what she deserved" attitudes. Truly chilling, and truly offensive.

First off, thanks for the link to Little Green Footballs, there is some pretty decent info/commentary there.

OK, now that's funny.
posted by ghastlyfop at 10:01 PM on March 21, 2003


Things aren't that black and white, eh? People who blow up innocent civilians are terrorists -- that's the definition...

Krrrlson, it seems like you countered SweetJesus' point about oversimplifying complex issues with an indefensibly broad statement.
posted by eddydamascene at 10:01 PM on March 21, 2003


If you explain what is so "indefensibly broad" about my statement, perhaps I can narrow it down for you.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:29 PM on March 21, 2003


People who are not terrorists have blown up civilians.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:37 AM on March 22, 2003


First off, thanks for the link to Little Green Footballs, there is some pretty decent info/commentary there.

well, let's see (and I quote) the pretty decent info/commentary you linked:



I dance on her grave. She and her ilk are a threat to Israel, the US, and ultimately the entire human race.

thankfully, the tractor was not mock.

We should at least pretend to be upset.

Perhaps after this, Israel will do more to deport these brats, and her bratty friends will be so shook up that they will finally go home

I wonder if Saddam Hussein will send her mother $25,000, as he's done with families of suicide bombers.

Oh well.
Just think, her genes will not be spread to the next gen.

10 pounds says she was a "trustafarian"!

, it's time to bet on which one of the Starbuck haters will be first under a bulldozer.

I bet on the bitch on the left.




Interesting site, this Little Green Footballs

*shakes head, horrified*

*barfs*
posted by matteo at 6:15 AM on March 22, 2003


Krrlson: Not all Palestinian militants target civilians. There are (as I see it) four different modes of violent response to the Israeli occupation: defensive actions against IDF incursions into refugee camps or other Palestinian-held areas; attacks against IDF targets; attacks against Israeli civilians (i.e. settlers) in the Occupied Territories; and attacks against civilians in Israel. The last two can be considered terroristic, but the first two are not.

Incidentally, Arafat and the new Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, have both voiced opposition to attacks on civilians in Israel proper, but not on Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories, citing that as legitimate self-defense against foreign occupation. In fairness, it can be argued that the settlers, who are often armed, organized, and aggressive, are essentially paramilitary combatants and therefore legitimate targets. Or not.
posted by skoosh at 7:19 AM on March 22, 2003


laz-e-boy -- if you say so, but that's not what I remember reading on CNN and elsewhere. Maybe the statement I read was corrected later, but what's your source?

Well, first of all, if this person was wanted for terrorism, he would have been taken into custody by the IDF. Second, the IDF would mention this to all the press so as to make the situation not so sympathetic to Rachel. They haven't done either, as I'm sure either would be in at least some of the articles on Rachel.

This source is not the most impartial, but it does sum it up nicely:

The vast majority of demolitions, it must be understood, have nothing to do with terrorism. According to UN figures, less than 600 of the 10,000 houses demolished since the Occupation began in 1967 involved security suspects. All the rest 94% -- were simply houses of ordinary people that were in Israel's way. That was the case of the home of Dr. Samir Nasrallah, which Rachel died protecting. Dr. Nasrallah had engaged in no hostile activities, had not been charged with anything. His house was demolished because, like dozens of others that have been bulldozed in that section of the dense refugee camp, it laid within a wide "security strip" that Israel wants to create along the border with Egypt. No compensation was given to Dr. Nasrallah, no opportunity to appeal to the court, no alternative housing offered. Simply demolition that leaves families homeless, impoverished, traumatized, ruined. An illegal policy, since international law forbids the demolition of houses by an occupying power.
posted by laz-e-boy at 8:23 AM on March 22, 2003


The above quote is from Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, BTW.
posted by laz-e-boy at 8:25 AM on March 22, 2003


Things aren't that black and white, eh? People who blow up innocent civilians are terrorists -- that's the definition, o matter how downtrodden they are (just as the bulldozer driver can be called a murderer if it is indeed proven that he intentionally killed Corrie). Frankly, your statement is childish.

Well, then by your definition, the IDF is also a terrorist group. You can spin the facts in any way you want to convince yourself, but you haven't convinced me. Neither side is without guilt.

If you explain what is so "indefensibly broad" about my statement, perhaps I can narrow it down for you.

Painting an entire ethnic group of people as terrorists is "indefensibly broad", not to mention moronic. The Palestinians are not inherently evil, and neither are the Israelis.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:23 PM on March 22, 2003


« Older Wanna bet?   |   bearing bad tidings Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post