Israel strikes American protester in the head with tear gas canister

[addy85]

An Oakland man who spent several months as a tree-sitter on the UC Berkeley campus was shot in the head during a protest in Israel Friday. He is in critical condition.

It happened in a clash between protesters and Israeli troops over Israel's West Bank separation barrier.

Peace activists with the International Solidarity Movement said Tristan Anderson was struck in the head with a tear gas canister fired by Israeli troops.

"Earlier today, the Israeli military shot my friend Tristan Anderson with a high-velocity tear gas canister, fracturing his skull and injuring his eye," Gabrielle Silverman, a friend of Anderson's said.

When he spent several months on the Cal campus protesting the demolition of a grove of oak trees, he was known as "Cricket."

The military and the Tel Aviv hospital where Anderson was taken had no details on how he was hurt.

"He's in critical condition, anesthetized and on a ventilator and undergoing imaging tests," said Orly Levi, a spokeswoman at the Tel Hashomer hospital. She described Anderson's condition as "life-threatening."

The protest took place in the West Bank town of Naalin, where Palestinians and international backers frequently gather to demonstrate against the barrier.

Israel says the barrier is necessary to keep Palestinian attackers from infiltrating into Israel. But Palestinians view it as a thinly veiled land grab because it juts into the West Bank at multiple points.

"At the time he was shot, Tristan and I were standing in a field getting tear gassed by the Israeli army. When they shot him, the Israeli army was in no danger whatsoever, there was no action happening anywhere," Silverman said.

The military says the area where the protests take place is a closed military zone off-limits to demonstrations.

About 400 protesters turned out in Naalin on Friday, the military said. Some of them hurled rocks at troops, who used riot gear to quell the unrest, it added, without elaborating.

Ulrika Jenson, an International Solidarity Movement activist, said troops fired tear gas canisters into the crowd from a hill above.


Silverman said Red Crescent medics responded to the shooting quickly and tried to get Anderson to a hospital but they were stopped at an Israeli checkpoint.

"I was yelling in Hebrew, Arabic, and English, but Israeli checkpoint wouldn't let us through," she said. "Finally an Israeli ambulance came, and we made it to a hospital in Tel Aviv."

In 2003, another ISM activist, 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie, was crushed to death in Gaza by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to block it from demolishing a Palestinian home.
The driver said he didn't see her, and the Israeli military ruled her death an accident.


I bolded some parts that I believe are important.

[sayemthree]

mistake - they used tear gas and not BUCKshot. HAHAHAHHAHAAAAA

[purespeed]

Sounds like "Cricket" might want to cut back on his smokes a bit. I like oak trees and peace too, but I try to stay away from people with chainsaws and Israeli troops with weapons. I'm going to take a wild guess that Gabrielle and Cricket are escapees from the "Institution for the Criminally Goofy."



My ever-so-humble-but-accurate opinion is my own.

[scollins]

Well, when you go to rough places, rough things happen. Seems like common sense to me. Don't want to get shot? Don't go to a war zone. Don't want to get hit with riot gear? Don't go where there are a lot of riots.

[742]

Nothing new.

http://www.gtr5.com/

[addy85]

Originally Posted by 742

Nothing new.

http://www.gtr5.com/

no one believes me when I tell them about this story

[scollins]

Originally Posted by addy85

no one believes me when I tell them about this story

They should read the book. My dad was in the Navy at that time, and was doing signals intelligence work. He could have been posted to the USS Liberty, but was assigned a shore billet in Germany instead.

Had my dad extended his time with the Navy in late '67, he would have been assigned to the USS Pueblo. I might not be here typing had that happened.....

[742]

Originally Posted by addy85

no one believes me when I tell them about this story

No doubt. And they also don't want to hear about Urban Moving Systems, Mossad agents and pictures being taken on 9/11.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by scollins

Well, when you go to rough places, rough things happen. Seems like common sense to me. Don't want to get shot? Don't go to a war zone. Don't want to get hit with riot gear? Don't go where there are a lot of riots.

Do you apply this same standard to Tienanmen Square? Do you think the tank would have been justified to run that guy over?

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Do you apply this same standard to Tienanmen Square? Do you think the tank would have been justified to run that guy over?

Absolutely I apply the same standard. If you go somewhere dangerous to protest, fight, put up a struggle, whatever, you go there knowing fully that it could kill you. If you want to stand in front of tank or a dozer, then understand that a consequence could be that tank or dozer makes you into a pancake. Doesn't mean the guy/girl driving the tank/dozer is right or wrong, but you are still just as dead.

We all apply filters and biases towards events based on what we believe in. Had the tank run over the student, I'd have been upset because I believed in the student's movement. In the case of the Israeli's bulldozing a terrorists house, I supported that. Dumbass American wants to stand in front of dozer? You take your chances and hope you don't crap out. I especially like how the family sued Caterpillar after her death. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

It could have been the same potential outcome for both events (pancakes), but I'd feel differently about each incident. In either case, don't go to rough places unless you're willing to risk your life for the cause you are there to support. People shouldn't be surprised that these things happen in rough places (and not so rough places, consider Kent State.)

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by scollins

Absolutely I apply the same standard. If you go somewhere dangerous to protest, fight, put up a struggle, whatever, you go there knowing fully that it could kill you. If you want to stand in front of tank or a dozer, then understand that a consequence could be that tank or dozer makes you into a pancake. Doesn't mean the guy/girl driving the tank/dozer is right or wrong, but you are still just as dead.

We all apply filters and biases towards events based on what we believe in. Had the tank run over the student, I'd have been upset because I believed in the student's movement. In the case of the Israeli's bulldozing a terrorists house, I supported that. Dumbass American wants to stand in front of dozer? You take your chances and hope you don't crap out. I especially like how the family sued Caterpillar after her death. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

It could have been the same potential outcome for both events (pancakes), but I'd feel differently about each incident. In either case, don't go to rough places unless you're willing to risk your life for the cause you are there to support. People shouldn't be surprised that these things happen in rough places (and not so rough places, consider Kent State.)

I guess we should have never stood up against the Queen either, and that all the Americans who died were idiots for standing in the way of British law. That we should have obeyed British law because it was the law, and rebelling against it was illegal.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Nixon

I guess we should have never stood up against the Queen either, and that all the Americans who died were idiots for standing in the way of British law. That we should have obeyed British law because it was the law, and rebelling against it was illegal.

That is clearly NOT what I'm saying. Are you that thick tonight? I never said that people shouldn't stand up and fight for what they believe in. I said they should understand that doing so could potentially get themselves killed, and no one should be surprised if they engage in rough business that people get killed. I never brought up the law, obeying it or not, or doing anything legal or illegal.

My point is, and continues to be, that standing up for what you believe can be dangerous. If you decide it is worth the risk, so be it, just don't be naive and underestimate the will of your opponent. It won't be easy, it won't be safe, it will be messy. Don't be surprised when someone right next to you takes a bullet, a CS canister to the head, or gets run over by a tank. I bet that student staring down the tank expected to be killed. I bet that Rachel Corrie never considered that a possibility.

Fight for what you believe in, but recognize those you are fighting against also believe in their side. Sometimes that means getting a nightstick to the head and a concussion, and other times it means winning your indepedence from a tyrant.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by scollins

That is clearly NOT what I'm saying. Are you that thick tonight? I never said that people shouldn't stand up and fight for what they believe in. I said they should understand that doing so could potentially get themselves killed, and no one should be surprised if they engage in rough business that people get killed. I never brought up the law, obeying it or not, or doing anything legal or illegal.

My point is, and continues to be, that standing up for what you believe can be dangerous. If you decide it is worth the risk, so be it, just don't be naive and underestimate the will of your opponent. It won't be easy, it won't be safe, it will be messy. Don't be surprised when someone right next to you takes a bullet, a CS canister to the head, or gets run over by a tank. I bet that student staring down the tank expected to be killed. I bet that Rachel Corrie never considered that a possibility.

Fight for what you believe in, but recognize those you are fighting against also believe in their side. Sometimes that means getting a nightstick to the head and a concussion, and other times it means winning your indepedence from a tyrant.

Then quit being dismissive and demeaning of somebody who willfully stepped into the breach -- give him and Rachel Corrie the respect of the warrior that they deserve. They are no different than those brave Americans that stood up against British oppression.

Rachel Corrie did EXACTLY the same thing as the brave hero in Tienanmen Square. She knowingly and willingly went into a war zone and stood in front of a multi-ton treaded weapon of war in order to stand it down.

Have the respect you imply you have for others.

At least the Chinese had the honor not to run down an unarmed civilian with a tracked machine.

[scollins]

Well, I disagree about Rachel Corrie. I don't think she believed the dozer driver would run her over, that she would without a doubt prevail, just like the Chinese student prevailed. I believe she was naive and deluded about the real consequences of what was about to happen.

And where was I being dismissive of the Chinese student? Anyway, seems that bad things happen to ISM folks in that region. Rachel Corrie was ISM, as is Mr. Anderson.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by scollins

Well, I disagree about Rachel Corrie. I don't think she believed the dozer driver would run her over, that she would without a doubt prevail, just like the Chinese student prevailed. I believe she was naive and deluded about the real consequences of what was about to happen.

And where was I being dismissive of the Chinese student? Anyway, seems that bad things happen to ISM folks in that region. Rachel Corrie was ISM, as is Mr. Anderson.

Then you are just a disrespectful childish imp. Do you seriously think that Rachel was the first ISM to be targetted by the IDF?

She was under DIRECT IDF GUNFIRE just the night before. They were trained and fully aware going into that day.

And they were NOT defending the houses of terrorists. the IDF was clearing a corrodor of homes along the border with Egypt for nothing more than the fact that they were located close to the border.

Maybe you should get a clue about what you are talking about before your start disrespecting the dead. You are seriously acting like a childish little punk. I'd like to see you take this sort of dismissive attitude towards US soldiers who put their lives on the line and come back under a flag. Show some fucking respect.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Then you are just a disrespectful childish imp. Do you seriously think that Rachel was the first ISM to be targetted by the IDF?

She was under DIRECT IDF GUNFIRE just the night before. They were trained and fully aware going into that day.

And they were NOT defending the houses of terrorists. the IDF was clearing a corrodor of homes along the border with Egypt for nothing more than the fact that they were located close to the border.

Your version of the "truth", not necessarily the actual truth. I'm not saying I have the actual "truth" either. But I also believe the ISM were (and still are) engaged in supporting terrorists. But I forgot, I'm arguing with the almighty Nixon, who has all the right answers. Funny you resort to personal attacks when someone doesn't bow to your superior intellect and obvious knowledge on all subjects.

Maybe you should get a clue about what you are talking about before your start disrespecting the dead. You are seriously acting like a childish little punk. I'd like to see you take this sort of dismissive attitude towards US soldiers who put their lives on the line and come back under a flag. Show some fucking respect.

Don't have a clue, that's original. The only thing I don't have a "clue" about is your version the "truth" and reality. And since I clearly don't subscribe to your version of every event in history, I must be a "childish little punk." That's right out of the liberal playbook, "resort to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you."

Rachel Corrie doesn't deserve my respect, because I don't have her same beliefs and values and I disagree with what she was trying to accomplish. Just because she put herself in harm's way doesn't mean she earns my respect.

And why the FUCK would I ever disrespect our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines serving their country? Where did you come up with that? I know lots of guys who have been there and done that in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are my friends, and I hear their version of what is happening over there. I'm active on their web forums too where a lot of these issues are also discussed. I guarantee every one of them would be disgusted to hear Rachel Corrie being called a "warrior" and anywhere near the same level. Are you really putting them in the same league as Rachel Corrie? Are you serious?

I know that you can't possibly let this go. We don't see things the same way on this issue, and no matter what arguments either one of us comes up, we aren't going to convince the other or come to a common ground. Anyway, go ahead with the last word, I'll let you have it. You are Nixon the Omnipotent afterall.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by scollins

Absolutely I apply the same standard. If you go somewhere dangerous to protest, fight, put up a struggle, whatever, you go there knowing fully that it could kill you. If you want to stand in front of tank or a dozer, then understand that a consequence could be that tank or dozer makes you into a pancake. Doesn't mean the guy/girl driving the tank/dozer is right or wrong, but you are still just as dead.

We all apply filters and biases towards events based on what we believe in. Had the tank run over the student, I'd have been upset because I believed in the student's movement. In the case of the Israeli's bulldozing a terrorists house, I supported that. Dumbass American wants to stand in front of dozer? You take your chances and hope you don't crap out. I especially like how the family sued Caterpillar after her death. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

It could have been the same potential outcome for both events (pancakes), but I'd feel differently about each incident. In either case, don't go to rough places unless you're willing to risk your life for the cause you are there to support. People shouldn't be surprised that these things happen in rough places (and not so rough places, consider Kent State.)

How can you possibly validate killing a peaceful protestor? That is such an atrocious point of view!