Electronic Intifada's Tax Exemption
William A. Levinson
to chop them. A 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization is not free to indulge
in inflammatory propaganda, and its exemption can be revoked for doing that.
> http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
>
> Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist
> Nigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 16 March 2003
http://electronicintifada.net/contact/
"The EI Project is a program service of the Middle East Cultural and
Charitable Society, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization. U.S. taxpayers
can make tax deductible donations to support our work."
http://www.guidestar.org/ Search for Middle East Cultural and Charitable
Society
Middle East Cultural and Charitable Society
Cambridge, MA 02238
"The PSP is a Program Service of MECCS, Inc. and investigates sports in
Palestine, educates Americans on the subject, and supports sportive
programs in Palestine."
This already is a fraudulent (or, at best, partially true) statement
because EI is obviously not related to "sports in Palestine," unless you
consider lynchings and bombings "sports."
EIN: 04-3105608 (this is their employee identification number)
This organization files an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ. It is a 501(c)(03)
public charity. Information in this report was supplied by the nonprofit
organization more than 24 months ago.
You need to sign up (free) to view the organization's Form 990 (tax
return for a charitable organization). Inspection of Part III of the
2001 report shows that they did not report Electronic Intifada to the
IRS. We should fix that little oversight for them.
-----------------------
Let's see if we can get these sons-of-bitches' tax exemption revoked.
Tax-exempt groups are not allowed to engage in inflammatory propaganda
under the guise of education. Furthermore, the statement that the
Israeli driver "murdered" Rachel Corrie could well be libelous because
he has not even been arrested or indicted, much less convicted, of doing
that.
http://www.cafeshops.com/ei101.5193427?zoom=yes#zoom also could be
construed as inflammatory propaganda and not education.
Ah, here we go... it's old but it's still quite useful.
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/miscond.html#educational
This page also shows how to complain to the Internal Revenue Service
about alleged misconduct by tax exempt organizations.
You may contact IRS Customer Service operations concerning tax-exempt
organizations at (877) 829-5500 (toll-free number). The call center is
open 8:00am to 9:30pm Eastern Time. Or you may write to us at the
following address:
Internal Revenue Service
TE/GE Division, Customer Service
P.O. Box 2508
Cincinnati, OH 45201
--Bill
http://www.omdurman.org/oxfam.html Boycott Oxfam Solidarity for giving
second-hand aid and comfort to terrorists and dictators.
Royalty-free downloadable leaflets to deal with Oxfam Solidarity:
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/oxfam.html (anti-Israel boycott)
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/oxfam1.html (anti-U.S. boycott)
William A. Levinson
Quite interesting; can anyone else find anything at their Web site?
Aussie Infidel
(backed up by photographs), "inflammatory propaganda"? You have gone too
far Mr Levinson. Should they perhaps, have reported that an American
terrorist sympathizer was injured during an unprovoked attack on an Israeli
bulldozer, engaged in a humanitarian urban redevelopment project?
Aussie Infidel
"William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F2AE105...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com...
William A. Levinson
Aussie Infidel wrote:
> Am I missing a crucial point, or are you calling the reporting of fact
> (backed up by photographs), "inflammatory propaganda"? You have gone too
> far Mr Levinson. Should they perhaps, have reported that an American
> terrorist sympathizer was injured during an unprovoked attack on an Israeli
> bulldozer, engaged in a humanitarian urban redevelopment project?
It is a fact that Ms. Corrie was crushed by the bulldozer. It is not a
fact that she was "murdered," i.e. killed intentionally. As a matter of
law, Israel defined the death as accidental, so Electronic Intifada's
statement is libelous. (I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice,
but a false accusation of a crime is automatically libel, at least in
the United States.)
As an example, suppose I was driving my car, an anti-U.S. demonstrator
ran onto the roadway in front of me to block traffic, and I couldn't
stop in time to avoid hitting and killing her. The police investigate
and rule the death accidental. Then some anti-U.S. publication begins to
make statements that the demonstrator was "murdered," and that the
driver of the car (not named, but probably known by many people) had
"murdered" her. I am sure I would be able to sue the publication
involved, and I wouldn't even have to show that I'd been damaged by the
libel. An accusation of a crime is automatically libel.
The thought of "being in the roadway" came up because we had a case here
many years ago where a drunk driver hit and killed two pedestrians. To
convict her of vehicular homicide, the prosecutor had to show not only
that she was drunk but also that the two victims had been on the
shoulder of the road and not on the road itself. The latter would have
made the victims at least partly at fault and the driver would have been
convicted only of drunk driving. It was proven, though, that the victims
were on the shoulder, so the driver had gone off the road to hit them.
She was therefore convicted of vehicular homicide.
The pictures you cite also prove that Rachel Corrie stepped in front of
the bulldozer. The bulldozer did not turn aside for the purpose of
hitting her. Also, it's quite possible that the driver could not even
see her. The bulldozer was armored, which means it didn't have that big
a window for the driver. Furthermore, the blade itself may have blocked
his vision. Stepping in front of the vehicle certainly puts Ms. Corrie
at least partly, and probably mostly, at fault so the driver did not
"murder" her.
Aussie Infidel
I see your point Bill, but (of course) see it a little differently. I had
not heard that the Israeli authorities had investigated the matter and found
it an accident. This story is a couple of months old and has been widely
reported. Earlier accounts of this incident stopped short of saying that
the bulldozer drove over Ms Corrie. They mentioned only that the dozer had
covered her with sand and then pushed the pile of sand with it's blade.
Laying on the ground in front of a bulldozer, whether in Philistine or a
logging operation is a silly thing to do and puts a lot of faith in the
driver's reluctance to harm another person. To do such a thing is risky to
say the least. Either way, the driver knew that Ms Corrie was there and
continued regardless. I doubt if dozer drivers in many civilized countries
would have taken such risks with her life. In this case she was in plain
sight of the driver. He tried to discourage her by first pushing sand onto
her and then pushing her with the blade. This is very different from Ms
Corrie jumping in front of a bulldozer which was unable to stop. I doubt
very much that the driver intended to kill her, but his actions in trying to
remove her from his path did put her life in danger and ultimately killed
her. That premeditation takes the incident out of the realm of an accident
and to my mind, introduces a degree of culpability.
To use your pedestrian analogy, I'd say that the situation was more like a
pedestrian standing in the intended path of a stationary car and refusing to
move. The driver then puts the car in gear and drives over the pedestrian.
The driver only intended to get the pedestrian out of his way so he could
continue on his business, but his actions were deliberate and resulted in
the persons death. In my country, the driver would definitely face
prosecution and the death would not be called accidental.
The protester was at fault for doing what she did and deliberately placing
herself in danger, but the actions of the driver were excessive and he
should have had the police or army remove her rather than deal with the
problem the way he did.
Over here EI might be challenged over the use of the word "murder", but
would be able to make a good case based on the deliberation in the dozer
driver's actions and his knowlege of here presence. Their reporting of the
incident and the use of the word would never be regarded as "inflammatory"
or "propaganda".
Aussie Infidel.
"William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F2BDBC0...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com...
William A. Levinson
Aussie Infidel wrote:
> Pardon the top post, but it is getting a bit messy down there.
>
> I see your point Bill, but (of course) see it a little differently. I had
> not heard that the Israeli authorities had investigated the matter and found
> it an accident. This story is a couple of months old and has been widely
> reported. Earlier accounts of this incident stopped short of saying that
> the bulldozer drove over Ms Corrie. They mentioned only that the dozer had
> covered her with sand and then pushed the pile of sand with it's blade.
> Laying on the ground in front of a bulldozer, whether in Philistine or a
> logging operation is a silly thing to do and puts a lot of faith in the
> driver's reluctance to harm another person. To do such a thing is risky to
> say the least. Either way, the driver knew that Ms Corrie was there and
> continued regardless. I doubt if dozer drivers in many civilized countries
> would have taken such risks with her life. In this case she was in plain
> sight of the driver. He tried to discourage her by first pushing sand onto
> her and then pushing her with the blade. This is very different from Ms
> Corrie jumping in front of a bulldozer which was unable to stop. I doubt
> very much that the driver intended to kill her, but his actions in trying to
> remove her from his path did put her life in danger and ultimately killed
> her. That premeditation takes the incident out of the realm of an accident
> and to my mind, introduces a degree of culpability.
On the other hand, he was not a civilian construction worker. He was, I
believe, a soldier who was following orders to demolish the Palestinian
buildings. While he was certainly under a moral obligation to try to
avoid running people over, he was not free to abandon his job (as a
civilian driver might do) until the demonstrators were removed.
> To use your pedestrian analogy, I'd say that the situation was more like a
> pedestrian standing in the intended path of a stationary car and refusing to
> move. The driver then puts the car in gear and drives over the pedestrian.
> The driver only intended to get the pedestrian out of his way so he could
> continue on his business, but his actions were deliberate and resulted in
> the persons death. In my country, the driver would definitely face
> prosecution and the death would not be called accidental.
>
> The protester was at fault for doing what she did and deliberately placing
> herself in danger, but the actions of the driver were excessive and he
> should have had the police or army remove her rather than deal with the
> problem the way he did.
That probably would have been better all around, although I'm sure the
ISM would have screamed bloody murder over Israeli "brutality." All
these people should have been arrested and deported, for their own
safety as well as Israel's.
> Over here EI might be challenged over the use of the word "murder", but
> would be able to make a good case based on the deliberation in the dozer
> driver's actions and his knowlege of here presence. Their reporting of the
> incident and the use of the word would never be regarded as "inflammatory"
> or "propaganda".
"Murder" is a very specific accusation. It means killing someone in a
premeditated manner. I am sure the driver did not intend to kill Rachel
Corrie. His actions would be manslaughter at the absolute worst (because
her own actions were at least contributory if not worse), and he was not
even accused even of that.
dogbert
>Pardon the top post, but it is getting a bit messy down there.
>
>I see your point Bill, but (of course) see it a little differently. I had
>not heard that the Israeli authorities had investigated the matter and found
>it an accident.
What a surprise. Is there anyone so naive as to think they (or any
government in the world - OK, maybe not Denmark or Switzerland - would have
found otherwise in the absence of videotape?
Fault is not a sensible word here. Do you say a policeman killed in the
line of duty was at fault for his own death? She was trying to prevent a
criminal action, for which the operator could be tried under the laws of
practically every country in the world. As long as it is shown that he
knew she was there, murder, or at best voluntary manslaughter is the
correct word.
>but the actions of the driver were excessive and he
>should have had the police or army remove her rather than deal with the
>problem the way he did.
>
>Over here EI might be challenged over the use of the word "murder", but
>would be able to make a good case based on the deliberation in the dozer
>driver's actions and his knowlege of here presence. Their reporting of the
>incident and the use of the word would never be regarded as "inflammatory"
>or "propaganda".
"Murder" would be OK in the US under the felony murder rule governing
deaths occurring in the commission of a felony.
>Aussie Infidel.
>
>
William A. Levinson
Rachel Corrie was not a law enforcement officer, she was a foreign
meddler (with ISM) and she had no authority to stop the bulldozer. Far
from being prosecuted, the operator was obeying legitimate military
orders. (Hint: obeying a legitimate order is not OPTIONAL in any
military establishment of which I know, except perhaps for the
Netherlands' unionized army.)
>
>>but the actions of the driver were excessive and he
>>should have had the police or army remove her rather than deal with the
>>problem the way he did.
>>
>>Over here EI might be challenged over the use of the word "murder", but
>>would be able to make a good case based on the deliberation in the dozer
>>driver's actions and his knowlege of here presence. Their reporting of the
>>incident and the use of the word would never be regarded as "inflammatory"
>>or "propaganda".
>
>
> "Murder" would be OK in the US under the felony murder rule governing
> deaths occurring in the commission of a felony.
Except the driver was not committing a felony.
Susan Cohen
This is absolutely untrue..
He tried to discourage her by first pushing sand onto
> >>her and then pushing her with the blade.
Where on earth did anyone get this tory from?
This is very different from Ms
> >>Corrie jumping in front of a bulldozer which was unable to stop. I
doubt
> >>very much that the driver intended to kill her, but his actions in
trying to
> >>remove her from his path did put her life in danger and ultimately
killed
> >>her.
Except that this contradicts everything else that has been written about the
incident.
Nor was she trying to stop a crime.
Perhaps unwittingly, she was trying to *aid* crime.
Susan
Aussie Infidel
" This is absolutely untrue.."
"Where on earth did anyone get this tory from?"
"Except that this contradicts everything else that has been written about
the incident."
"Nor was she trying to stop a crime. Perhaps unwittingly, she was trying to
*aid* crime."
There are none so blind as those who will not see. (Even a bright red
jacket directly in front of the dozer)
Follow this link from Bill's original post and look at the pictures.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
The pictures contradict you.
Aussie Infidel
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3f2dd...@vienna7.his.com...
R.J.Goldman
it's been a known fact for months that the investigation and the review of
tapes from the tower cams that she was not murdered as the Pals state.
hell the little girl didn't have a chance with her friends busy taking
pictures all the time
Ever wonder why they didn't drop their cameras to pull her to safety??
Naw that would have killed their photo op.
"Aussie Infidel" <spa...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:vw_Wa.7253$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
R.J.Goldman
"William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F2C8776...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com...
R.J.Goldman
she was blocking the destruction of a Tunnel entrance.
but then you are to freaking moronic to understand that
"dogbert" <dog...@dogbert.edu> wrote in message
news:hfgrivo0sc92ist0j...@4ax.com...
R.J.Goldman
was taken in the morning a few hours before she died, in another area. the
interference they caused here forced the driver to move a few mile away to
another area. the ISM suicide team followed
as for being seen I can give you a pic to prove she was in the blind spot of
the high blade
your EI pics fail to show the WHOLE PICTURE!!
"Aussie Infidel" <spa...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:6XqXa.11586$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Susan Cohen
"Aussie Infidel" <spa...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:6XqXa.11586$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Susan Cohen contradicted......
Thanks for taking everything out of context.
I'll just restore the context, okay?
You said : "In this case she was in plain sight of the driver."
> " This is absolutely untrue.."
You said: "He tried to discourage her by first pushing sand onto her and
then pushing her with the blade."
> "Where on earth did anyone get this story from?"
I note that you do not answer this.
Where do you get this ridiculous story from?
Where did *anyone* get it from?
> "Except that this contradicts everything else that has been written about
> the incident."
I note that you do not try to refute this, either.
> "Nor was she trying to stop a crime. Perhaps unwittingly, she was trying
to
> *aid* crime."
Or this. You just pretend that a series of faked pictures disprove the
truth.
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Yes, you are such.
(Even a bright red
> jacket directly in front of the dozer)
Which was NOT a picture of the incident in question.
> Follow this link from Bill's original post and look at the pictures.
> http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
> The pictures contradict you.
No, they don't, as anyone who can SEE, can SEE that the pictures are NOT
sequential, & don't even show the same times of day.
The one wit he the sun over the back of the bulldozer "labelled" 4:45 is
very dark, and shows two people on a flat ground.
The one "labelled" 4:47 shows a much lighter time of day, and a *sloped*
ground. The supposed "4:45" picture was obviously faked to pretend that she
was run over while being clearly visible on flat ground.
Also, the "between 3:00-4:00" picture shows a pile of debris in front of the
bulldozer - the "4:45" picture shows none at all. Very lame fakes.
Oh - and in YOUR post, you mention sand.
There's no sand in any of *those* pictures.
So, who's lying? The pictures, or you?
But I do want to thank you for reminding me of just how obstructed the view
had to have been in the bulldozer.
Susan
William A. Levinson
R.J.Goldman wrote:
> that pic you relate to is not one taken at the location of her death. that
> was taken in the morning a few hours before she died, in another area. the
> interference they caused here forced the driver to move a few mile away to
> another area. the ISM suicide team followed
> as for being seen I can give you a pic to prove she was in the blind spot of
> the high blade
>
> your EI pics fail to show the WHOLE PICTURE!!
Could you post a link to the picture you have? If EI is presenting
information in a fraudulent and misleading manner, this could be another
argument for lifting their parent's tax exemption. I want as much
evidence as possible before I write to the IRS.
William A. Levinson
And thank you for reminding me that out-of-context pictures presented in
a misleading manner are yet another argument for terminating EI's
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
William A. Levinson
R.J.Goldman wrote:
> Must be because your busy reading the wrong stuff.
> it's been a known fact for months that the investigation and the review of
> tapes from the tower cams that she was not murdered as the Pals state.
> hell the little girl didn't have a chance with her friends busy taking
> pictures all the time
>
> Ever wonder why they didn't drop their cameras to pull her to safety??
> Naw that would have killed their photo op.
Yep, if we buy Aussie Infidel's argument that the driver was somehow
criminally negligent (or worse) for running over her, shouldn't all her
ISM friends also be prosecuted for failing to pull her to safety, or
warning her to get out of the way?
It could, in fact, be argued that they wanted her to die so they could
make propaganda of her death. And if ISM and its friends keep touting
Rachel Corrie as a martyr, perhaps Omdurman.org might pursue that idea
further.
Susan Cohen
>
> And thank you for reminding me that out-of-context pictures presented in
> a misleading manner are yet another argument for terminating EI's
> 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
My very great pleasure!
Susan
R.J.Goldman
you will see the D9 under the file name monster and also under worlds
smallest man
"William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F2E8E71...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com...
Aussie Infidel
>Thanks for taking everything out of context.
>I'll just restore the context, okay?
Try?
>You said : "In this case she was in plain sight of the driver."
> " This is absolutely untrue.."
See the excerpts below from four ISM activists present at the time.
>You said: "He tried to discourage her by first pushing sand onto her and
>then pushing her with the blade."
> "Where on earth did anyone get this story from?"
CNN of course.
See excerpts below again.
>I note that you do not answer this.
>Where do you get this ridiculous story from?
>Where did *anyone* get it from?
I didn't answer it because it was such a rediculous question.
I saw the story reported on CNN sat service out of Hong Kong, but here are a
couple of links to show that I didn't make it up.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856433.stm
> "Except that this contradicts everything else that has been written about
> the incident."
>
>I note that you do not try to refute this, either.
Not "everything"....I refer you again to the links above.
> "Nor was she trying to stop a crime. Perhaps unwittingly, she was trying
>to
> *aid* crime."
Where else on earth is bulldozing people's homes not a crime?
>Or this. You just pretend that a series of faked pictures disprove the
>truth.
Amazing what you can do with Photoshop eh?
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>
>Yes, you are such.
I beg to differ.
>(Even a bright red
> jacket directly in front of the dozer)
>
>Which was NOT a picture of the incident in question.
I must be colour-blind or Photoshop is at work again. She is wearing the
vest in ALL the photos (before and after) and is said to be wearing it in
ALL the eyewitness accounts.
> Follow this link from Bill's original post and look at the pictures.
> http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
> The pictures contradict you.
>No, they don't, as anyone who can SEE, can SEE that the pictures are NOT
>sequential, & don't even show the same times of day.
There was no pretence in the report which suggested they were. In fact it
states that the upper photos are of an earlier confrontation with the other
of the two bulldozers at a different spot. If you look closely, you will
also see differences in the bulldozers. They even appear to be different
sizes.
>The one wit he the sun over the back of the bulldozer "labelled" 4:45 is
>very dark, and shows two people on a flat ground.
>The one "labelled" 4:47 shows a much lighter time of day, and a *sloped*
>ground. The supposed "4:45" picture was obviously faked to pretend that she
>was run over while being clearly visible on flat ground.
Photography 101 - auto iris.
"sun over the back of the bulldozer" This is the key. The camera's iris
shuts down to try to properly expose the brighter sky, with the result that
the darker areas are underexposed. In the second image it doesn't have to
deal with such extremes of contrast and can be exposed properly. Some
cameras even have a "backlight" button for such situations, which opens the
iris more than the auto setting would normally so the darker areas are
better exposed while overexposing the light areas.
"*sloped* ground." Try sloped camera. It looks to me like the camera is
looking across the track of the dozer with the side of the cut behind the
people. That matches the picture of the two "friends" digging her out of
the ground.
>Also, the "between 3:00-4:00" picture shows a pile of debris in front of
the
>bulldozer - the "4:45" picture shows none at all. Very lame fakes.
Fakes? Again there were multiple confrontations with the bulldozers over a
period of hours. I didn't assume that the two photos were of the same
confrontation. Dozers are not what you would call fast, but do you really
think it took between 45 min and 1 hr 45 min for the dozer to run her down?
>Oh - and in YOUR post, you mention sand.
>There's no sand in any of *those* pictures.
>So, who's lying? The pictures, or you?
I used "sand" because I believe that was the word used in the CNN news
report. It is hard to tell from the photos, but sand, soil, dirt.....it
makes zero difference does it? If it gives you joy, I will stand corrected
on that one. Please accept my humble apology for "lying" about the "sand".
>But I do want to thank you for reminding me of just how obstructed the view
>had to have been in the bulldozer.
True, the cabins are armoured and the view restricted, but the view over the
blade from the cab looks pretty good to me. Since the blade is what
bulldozers are all about, you would think that would be a design priority.
>Susan
Please read on.......
Tom Dale.....
"Rachel knelt down in its way. She was 10-20 metres in front of the
bulldozer, clearly visible, the only object for many metres, directly in its
view. They were in radio contact with a tank that had a profile view of the
situation. There is no way she could not have been seen by them in their
elevated cabin. They knew where she was, there is no doubt.
The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop as it
went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached her and she
began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth. She appeared to be
looking into the cockpit. The bulldozer continued to push Rachel, so she
slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. Her faced showed she
was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being overwhelmed.
All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop and gesturing to
the crew about Rachel's presence. We were in clear view as Rachel had been,
they continued. They pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath
the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. They waited
over her for a few seconds, before reversing. They reversed with the blade
pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. Every second I
believed they would stop but they never did."
Greg Schnable.....
"Rachel was standing in front of this home. As the bulldozer approached she
stood her ground. Rachel was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket. She was
clearly visible to the bulldozer driver as well as to the soldiers in the
tank. The bulldozer began to push up the ground from beneath her feet. The
pile of earth was mounding up and she tried her best to stay on top of it.
As the ground continued to move Rachel went down on her knees. The bulldozer
continued to move forward. Rachel began to become buried beneath the dirt.
Still it did not stop. Finally, Rachel was beneath the bulldozer. The
bulldozer did not even pick up its blade. It ran over her completely and
continued to advance. It stopped when she was completely underneath the body
of the bulldozer. It then moved backwards over her body. It moved clear of
her and backed away."
Richard Purssell.......
"The ground was level and the light was good, I had a good view of
everything which happened. Rachel was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket
with reflective strips (the type worn by construction workers for high
visibility and the avoidance of accidents). Rachel stood to confront the
bulldozer and it approached her at about five or six miles an hour. The
blade on the bulldozer was dipped into the ground and was scooping up soil.
As the bulldozer came nearer the pile mounted up. Rachel climbed up the pile
and at the one stage was looking into the cabin window. There is no way that
the driver could not have known she was there. The bulldozer continued
driving forwards and Rachel turned round to face in my direction.
She began to slide down the pile, however as soon as her feet touched the
ground for some reason she fell forward. Maybe her foot was caught or the
weight of the soil pushed her forward. At this point the panic on her face
was obvious.
We were all shouting, screaming and gesturing by this stage. The earth was
totally pushed over her, engulfing her. She was lost to my sight. I noticed
that the driver had not lifted the blade. The machine rolled straight over
her and continued for a little way. It then reversed over her and retreated
about twenty metres. Rachel was left in its tracks, bleeding from her mouth
and twisted."
Joe Smith......
"We thought this might happen eventually. We often spoke in the abstract
that eventually one of us would get killed, but we always figured they'd
shoot us, or it'd be an "accident", like in a house that is missiled or a
stray bullet gets an unlucky activist. I never dreamed it'd be like this,
the intentional crushing of a human being.
I do believe it was intentional. I saw it, and I know he saw her, I know he
did, and I know he knew she was still under the bulldozer when it backed up
without raising its blade. I don't know if he wanted to kill her, or if he
was just focused on doing his work and didn't care if he killed her or not,"
"I just want to quickly dispel a few myths you may have heard in the media.
She did not "trip and fall" in front of the bulldozer. She sat down in front
of it, well in advance, wearing one of the orange flouro jackets I got in
Amsterdam. (By the way, I took the pictures you may have seen of her,
standing with the megaphone in front of the bulldozer, and the ones of her
friends helping her.)
He clearly saw her, and continued to drive until she was forced onto the top
of the dirt he was pushing, elevating her so much that she was at eye level
with the bulldozer's cab, he could see right into her eyes. He continued
forward, pulling her underneath the dirt, and out of his vision. He
continued forward, crushing her underneath the weight of the blade. He
continued forward, until she was well underneath the bulldozer. It was then
quite clear that she was nowhere but underneath him, but he proceded to back
up, without lifting the blade, crushing her again."
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1263.shtml
Be proud......be very, very proud.
Aussie Infidel.
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3f2e7...@vienna7.his.com...
Susan Cohen
> Susan Cohen wrote.........
>
> >Thanks for taking everything out of context.
> >I'll just restore the context, okay?
>
> Try?
>
> >You said : "In this case she was in plain sight of the driver."
> > " This is absolutely untrue.."
>
> See the excerpts below from four ISM activists present at the time.
You mean the reports that contradict each other & you?
>
> >You said: "He tried to discourage her by first pushing sand onto her and
> >then pushing her with the blade."
>
> > "Where on earth did anyone get this story from?"
>
> CNN of course.
> See excerpts below again.
>
> >I note that you do not answer this.
> >Where do you get this ridiculous story from?
> >Where did *anyone* get it from?
>
> I didn't answer it because it was such a rediculous question.
And it's ridiculous why? Because you say so?
The facts are that there was no sand anywhere around, & this, too, is
contradicted by eyewitness accounts.
> I saw the story reported on CNN sat service out of Hong Kong, but here are
a
> couple of links to show that I didn't make it up.
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/index.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856433.stm
>
>
> > "Except that this contradicts everything else that has been written
about
> > the incident."
> >
> >I note that you do not try to refute this, either.
>
> Not "everything"....I refer you again to the links above.
>
> > "Nor was she trying to stop a crime. Perhaps unwittingly, she was trying
> >to
> > *aid* crime."
>
> Where else on earth is bulldozing people's homes not a crime?
Wherever people are using their houses to cover up crime.
>
> >Or this. You just pretend that a series of faked pictures disprove the
> >truth.
>
> Amazing what you can do with Photoshop eh?
Not Photoshop - just different times of say & different bulldozers, etc.
>
> > There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> >
> >Yes, you are such.
>
> I beg to differ.
Beg away.
>
> >(Even a bright red
> > jacket directly in front of the dozer)
> >
> >Which was NOT a picture of the incident in question.
>
> I must be colour-blind or Photoshop is at work again. She is wearing the
> vest in ALL the photos (before and after) and is said to be wearing it in
> ALL the eyewitness accounts.
Nice of you to ingore everything else.
Like the time of say the pictures were taken, the terrain in the pictures,
the landscape behind each bulldozer, the fact that that the bulldozers are
different, etc.
And, of course, you ignore the fact that she couldn;t be seen over the blade
or from inside the little "cabin" of the 'dozer. She could be wearing
chicken feathers "in every photo". Big deal!
>
> > Follow this link from Bill's original post and look at the pictures.
> > http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
> > The pictures contradict you.
>
> >No, they don't, as anyone who can SEE, can SEE that the pictures are NOT
> >sequential, & don't even show the same times of day.
>
> There was no pretence in the report which suggested they were.
Then why are you insisting that they prove *anything*?
In fact it
> states that the upper photos are of an earlier confrontation with the
other
> of the two bulldozers at a different spot. If you look closely, you will
> also see differences in the bulldozers. They even appear to be different
> sizes.
So I ask yet again, how can you or anyone say that they prove *anything* -
except, of course, to show that, obviously, no one was bent on murder,
because, if they were, she would have been crushed by the earlier
bulldozers.
>
> >The one wit he the sun over the back of the bulldozer "labelled" 4:45 is
> >very dark, and shows two people on a flat ground.
> >The one "labelled" 4:47 shows a much lighter time of day, and a *sloped*
> >ground. The supposed "4:45" picture was obviously faked to pretend that
she
> >was run over while being clearly visible on flat ground.
>
> Photography 101 - auto iris.
> "sun over the back of the bulldozer" This is the key. The camera's iris
> shuts down to try to properly expose the brighter sky, with the result
that
> the darker areas are underexposed. In the second image it doesn't have to
> deal with such extremes of contrast and can be exposed properly. Some
> cameras even have a "backlight" button for such situations, which opens
the
> iris more than the auto setting would normally so the darker areas are
> better exposed while overexposing the light areas.
> "*sloped* ground." Try sloped camera.
yes, someone else pointed this out to me - I sut corrected. Yes, given the
posture, this is precisely what must have occurred. But *why*, I'd like to
know.
It looks to me like the camera is
> looking across the track of the dozer with the side of the cut behind the
> people. That matches the picture of the two "friends" digging her out of
> the ground.
Yes, ground - not sand. The ground that she climbed on instead of staying on
the ground where she'd always been before. This is what got her killed.
>
> >Also, the "between 3:00-4:00" picture shows a pile of debris in front of
> the
> >bulldozer - the "4:45" picture shows none at all. Very lame fakes.
>
> Fakes? Again there were multiple confrontations with the bulldozers over
a
> period of hours.
It's a fake to pretend they are a series of pictures that outline the
incident.
No, I see that you are not saying this now, but you appeared to be doing so
earlier, and all the sites that insist it was murder say that they are
"proof."
> I didn't assume that the two photos were of the same
> confrontation. Dozers are not what you would call fast, but do you really
> think it took between 45 min and 1 hr 45 min for the dozer to run her
down?
Which only proves that it wasn't murder.
If the IDF had wanted to murder these yahoos, they would have done it w/the
first 'dozers.
What changed in these situations is precisely what I have always said
changed: rather than stand in front of a bulldozer, she climbed up on the
pile of debris he was already moving.
>
> >Oh - and in YOUR post, you mention sand.
> >There's no sand in any of *those* pictures.
> >So, who's lying? The pictures, or you?
>
> I used "sand" because I believe that was the word used in the CNN news
> report.
Right - the report you say is gospel. So, obviously, they don't know what
they're talking about *either*.
It is hard to tell from the photos, but sand, soil, dirt.....it
> makes zero difference does it?
It makes a great deal of difference if you're (or anyone) is supposed to be
giving an accurate report.
If it gives you joy, I will stand corrected
> on that one. Please accept my humble apology for "lying" about the
"sand".
Or, rather, let's just agree that CNN isn;t right.
>
> >But I do want to thank you for reminding me of just how obstructed the
view
> >had to have been in the bulldozer.
>
> True, the cabins are armoured and the view restricted, but the view over
the
> blade from the cab looks pretty good to me. Since the blade is what
> bulldozers are all about, you would think that would be a design priority.
But why on earth should anyone construct a bulldozer for visibility?
The idea is that *sane* people keep away from moving heaving equipment.
>
> >Susan
>
> Please read on.......
>
> Tom Dale.....
> "Rachel knelt down in its way. She was 10-20 metres in front of the
> bulldozer, clearly visible,
And how would these people know this? This is my point: *they're* not in the
cabin.
the only object for many metres, directly in its
> view. They were in radio contact with a tank that had a profile view of
the
> situation. There is no way she could not have been seen by them in their
> elevated cabin. They knew where she was, there is no doubt.
In their biased opinion.
Yes, I've read all this before, ad nauseum.
I'm sick of debunking it over & over.
>
> The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop as
it
> went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached her and she
> began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth.
Yes, this is what killed her.
> She appeared to be
> looking into the cockpit.
Nice weasel phrase.
> The bulldozer continued to push Rachel,
& here is yet another lie.
"Continued to push Rachel"??
How could this be when even the "eyewitness" never says that she was being
pushjed in the first place. If anything, the bulldozer just kept going
because as far as the driver knew, he was pushing dirt & debris *only*.
so she
> slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. Her faced showed she
> was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being overwhelmed.
>
> All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop and gesturing to
> the crew about Rachel's presence.
They were screaming at them the whole time - there is no way to know that
a) the driver ever heard them
b) there was any reason to assume anything had changed.
You *do* realize that the IDF were insisting that thes people leave, right?
Why should the IDF have to listen to foreigners in ISrael instead of the
other way around?
> We were in clear view as Rachel had been,
They keep saying this, as tho' it were proven. As tho' they were where the
driver was & could prove this was so. Yeah, if I were intent on
propagandizing, this is precisely what I would say.
> they continued.
So, IOW, they were *not* in clear view, as she had not been.
They pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath
> the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. They
waited
> over her for a few seconds, before reversing.
This sounds *urely* like usual bulldozer activity, & it had nothing to d
with whether she was there or not.
They reversed with the blade
> pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. Every second I
> believed they would stop but they never did."
>
>
> Greg Schnable.....
> "Rachel was standing in front of this home. As the bulldozer approached
she
> stood her ground. Rachel was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket. She was
> clearly visible to the bulldozer driver
Again - they have no proof pther than their own wishes.
as well as to the soldiers in the
> tank. The bulldozer began to push up the ground from beneath her feet. The
> pile of earth was mounding up and she tried her best to stay on top of it.
> As the ground continued to move Rachel went down on her knees.
So this report contradicts the other about what she did.
The bulldozer
> continued to move forward. Rachel began to become buried beneath the dirt.
> Still it did not stop. Finally, Rachel was beneath the bulldozer. The
> bulldozer did not even pick up its blade. It ran over her completely and
> continued to advance. It stopped when she was completely underneath the
body
> of the bulldozer. It then moved backwards over her body. It moved clear of
> her and backed away."
>
>
> Richard Purssell.......
> "The ground was level and the light was good, I had a good view of
> everything which happened. Rachel was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket
> with reflective strips (the type worn by construction workers for high
> visibility and the avoidance of accidents). Rachel stood to confront the
> bulldozer and it approached her at about five or six miles an hour. The
> blade on the bulldozer was dipped into the ground and was scooping up
soil.
>
> As the bulldozer came nearer the pile mounted up. Rachel climbed up the
pile
> and at the one stage was looking into the cabin window. There is no way
that
> the driver could not have known she was there.
Again, no proof but his own wishes.
The bulldozer continued
> driving forwards and Rachel turned round to face in my direction.
>
> She began to slide down the pile, however as soon as her feet touched the
> ground for some reason she fell forward. Maybe her foot was caught or the
> weight of the soil pushed her forward. At this point the panic on her face
> was obvious.
>
> We were all shouting, screaming and gesturing by this stage. The earth was
> totally pushed over her, engulfing her. She was lost to my sight. I
noticed
> that the driver had not lifted the blade. The machine rolled straight over
> her and continued for a little way. It then reversed over her and
retreated
> about twenty metres. Rachel was left in its tracks, bleeding from her
mouth
> and twisted."
>
So, no proof, just contradictory reports whose only real shared point is the
intent to blame everyone but Rachel.
I'm skipping the rest - like I said, I'm sick to death of this crap, & I've
shown enuf holes.
Susan
Aussie Infidel
AI
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3f2ff...@vienna7.his.com...
Susan Cohen
> I think now know what dives people to suicide.
Yes - stupidity.
Nice knowing you.
Susan