You don't define what you are doing with the topic of Israel as "hitting ME over the head with it?
That has nothing to do with what I just said. Your opinion, has nothing to do with me. Yet you tried to use that, to claim I wasn't "addressing" something.
I understand the point you are making. And it is in no way addressing if something is murder or not. Just because one thing is illegal, does it automatically mean that something else is as well?
No it doesn't. But when you consider all the related factors of the incident and they add up to a "preponderance of the evidence", then "guilt" can be assessed at that time.
You and I can both agree that the Bulldozer shouldn't have been where it was. However that does not mean that someone was murdered because of that fact. One has nothing to do with the other.
Are you saying the weapon used in a murder, have nothing to do with the murder?
That's true. However you haven't addressed what I'm saying. You have taken what I've said and applied it to something else that I haven't as some sort of proof of wrongdoing. Example:
"Huh?"
Because the bulldozer shouldn't have been there, then the operator of the bulldozer is automatically guilty of any other crime? That's like saying that anybody that murders someone, their parents should go to prison as well. They are guilty of raising him/her wrong.
No, it's not saying that at all. You're leaving out "intent". Parents don't raise their children, with the "intent" to be murderer's. But the operator of a bulldozer, who belongs to an organization that has, in the past, shown no regard for human life, deliberately drives over a person that he just got done
HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH!, shows intent.
According to both Palestinian and American eyewitnesses, Rachel was standing in plain sight of the bulldozer's driver. She was wearing a bright fluorescent orange jacket and had engaged the driver in conversation to try to convince him not to destroy the house. Nevertheless, after an initial pause, the bulldozer—a custom-designed, U.S.-supplied Caterpillar D9—surged forward despite cries from Rachel's colleagues, trapping her feet under the dirt so she could not get out of the way before running her over. The bulldozer then backed up, running Rachel over a second time, mortally wounding her. She died in a nearby hospital a short time later.
A guy is sitting in a D9 cab, having a conversation with someone standing in front of his vehicle, wearing a bright orange jacket and decides to "hit the gas", shows that he knows exactly what he was doing. Murder.
I'm sorry... I don't know if this operator of heavy machinery murdered anyone. The evidence thus far is showing that the didn't mean to.
I just proved that wasn't true (see above) and also proved, you have very little regard for human life. For you to bend over backwards and give that driver the benefit of the doubt, in spite of the mountain of evidence showing Israel's intention to make the Palestinian's suffer as much as possible (by killing anyone that gets in their way), speaks volumes about your sense of morality and justice.
Murderers usually don't leave witnesses.
Murderer's that kill with impunity, don't care one way or the other.
That is only taking in one side in responsibility. I think the girl has some too, and certainly is more responsible for her actions than Israel or the operator is for her actions.
Yeah, but you hardly spend any time talking about what their actions are responsible for. And when you do, you're defending them, despite the fact that they have "priors".
Sure... If the bulldozer wasn't there she wouldn't have died. If the girl wasn't there she wouldn't have died. Where does that leave us?
That's the easiest answer of this whole thread. People who spend all their time talking about the girl and no time talking about (or defending) the other factors that led to her death, are people that have lost any sense of humanity or justice.
That has NOTHING to do with if it was murder or not. Nothing.
Yes it does; have you ever heard of "motive"?
