Another Double-Standard Story; Tears for Rachel Corrie,

[WIP]

Who trashed her here? There's been admiration expressed for her along with people questioning where the double standard is.

And that includes previous threads on the topic?

So Israelis don't purposely run over protesters. Three tanks stopped for him. Seems to me that sort of refutes the 'bad Israelis run over innocent protesters' idea. Clearly they saw him in this instance and didn't run him over.

I don't believe there were any videos of the incident back in 1983, but the account that I read in Time Magazine indicated that it was a dangerous game of chicken that did not immediately end with the first attempted pass.

What does a jaywalker have to do with someone purposely putting them self in harm's way? She didn't jay walk. She purposely stood still in front of a tractor, not knowing if the driver could see her or not. That's not reasonable behavior. The idea that the driver of the tractor is the only one who should have conducted himself reasonably is difficult to understand. But who's to say that he saw her? The fact is, you have no idea if he saw her or not, yet you condemn him. I don't understand that.

It is still hotly debated whether the crew...there were two men in the armoured bulldozer, not just one driver...were aware of her presence; and the Israeli Government immediately exonerated the crew regardless of objections created by different witness testimonials.

I should add that a big part of my growing irritation with pro-Israel/anti-Arab propaganda here is that it is becoming obvious that Israel is no longer interested in engaging in any sort of peace process, and is instead digging in and will determine permanent borders and ethnically cleanse areas to suit their purposes. Fine and dandy if that's what they feel they have to do, but why is our Government an unabashed, uncritical apologist for their government, instead of trying to keep a little distance and offer an independent perspective?

Edited April 18, 2011 by WIP

[Bob]

I often wonder what happened to the crew or commander of that tank in Tianenmen Square. Were they arrested and sent to prison or shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy?

What about the bulldozer crew that drove over Rachel Corrie, were they given an award for valour by any chance?

My point was that WIP seemed to imply that the bulldozer driver that drove over Rachel Corrie should've been able to see her (which in my opinion is irrelevant anyways), just as a tank engineer driving on a flat and open road with perfect visibility facing a man who is standing idly in his path. Beyond that, I also would recognize that a soldier in China is not in any position to disobey an illegal order, whereas in Israel we would expect soldiers to ignore blatantly illegal or immoral orders - we live in a free society, and they do not. What do you think would happen to a soldier in China do defied an order?

Lastly, why are you trying to imply that somehow Israelis are happy with Rachel Corrie's death? The sarcastic suggestion that Israel would award a medal to the bulldozer operator involved with Rachel Corrie's death. Do you think he was happy or pleased to have been forced into that situation by Rachel Corrie, where he had to choose between legitimate instructions to protect him and his own and some foreign agitator who continually harass and disturb Israeli soldiers? You think he's happy to know he ran her over? Just because his actions are entirely justifiable, and just because the entire responsibility for Rachel Corrie's death lies on her own shoulders, I'm sure it brought the soldier no pleasure to know what happened afterwards.

This kinda thing has become so pervasive that many soldiers receive special training and equipment for dealing with these agitators. Rather than spend all their time preparing for conventional and military threats, they have to dedicate significant their efforts to foreign activists.

[Scotty]

Look, an armored bulldozer in the midst of a Gaza building-demolition is a much different scenario that the tank in Tianenmen Square.

Absolutely. Not to mention the dozer has a great big blade blocking his view of everything low to the ground while the tank driver had a direct view, even with the turrets closed, of everything right before him.

Either way, the bulldozer cannot and should stop for Corrie even had he saw her. What is he supposed to do, allow the building to continue standing and place Israeli officers are greater risk? Is he supposed to step out of the vehicle and expose himself to sniper fire or other violence? She was given ample warning, and the bulldozer certainly doesn't move too quickly. Her death is absolutely unequivocally 100% her fault. She stood in front of a bulldozer and killed herself. Full stop.

It looks mightily like - despite what I think is a typo on your part, given the context - you feel that the dozer should have run over her even if he knew she was there. I do hope that isn't really what you're trying to say, because that's an indefensible position from any kind of moral or ethical standpoint. It's not like they couldn't have knocked the building down the next day or the next week.

[Scotty]

I often wonder what happened to the crew or commander of that tank in Tianenmen Square. Were they arrested and sent to prison or shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy?

It wouldn't surprise me. I understand the actual protestor was executed.

[eyeball]

...the bulldozer cannot and should stop for Corrie even had he saw her. What is he supposed to do, allow the building to continue standing and place Israeli officers are greater risk?

Despite the ambiguous impression the typo in the first sentence above gives, your question makes it pretty certain you really do think he shouldn't have stopped even if could see her. You're saying he should have carried out his duty despite the horrific outcome.

Lastly, why are you trying to imply that somehow Israelis are happy with Rachel Corrie's death? The sarcastic suggestion that Israel would award a medal to the bulldozer operator involved with Rachel Corrie's death. Do you think he was happy or pleased to have been forced into that situation by Rachel Corrie, where he had to choose between legitimate instructions to protect him and his own and some foreign agitator who continually harass and disturb Israeli soldiers? You think he's happy to know he ran her over? Just because his actions are entirely justifiable, and just because the entire responsibility for Rachel Corrie's death lies on her own shoulders, I'm sure it brought the soldier no pleasure to know what happened afterwards.

No, I would imagine this operator spends a lot of dark sleepless nights in a very dark lonely place.

I'm trying to imply that you were happy, as you put it, not Israel.

This kinda thing has become so pervasive that many soldiers receive special training and equipment for dealing with these agitators. Rather than spend all their time preparing for conventional and military threats, they have to dedicate significant their efforts to foreign activists.

Oh well, they can console themselves with the thought that people like you are out here defending their actions, however horrific or necessary.

[Rue]

But I don't think I'm wilfully defending Hamas' honour--a distasteful exercise in which I wouldn't indulge--to point out that the killers were, by all accounts, an anti-Hamas band of extremist radicals. A "fringe" group even according to your own link.

Hamas, much less Paletinians generally, are not playing the PR game to distance themselves from the murderers. That distance is genuine, in that Palestinians would have preferred Vittorio to be alive.

Your post, complete with the scare quotes, seems to imply a cover-up or at least a PR deception...which is belied by the information you yourself have supplied us.

Now wait. I am the first to give Bloodyminded the hardest of times on this forum but fair is fair and he would expect me to defend him even though he knows I have no problems battling him too-fair is fair. He is not a supporter of terrorism, supports Israel's right to exist, and I must agree with him and American Woman on this precisely for they both said. I am not sure if I agree with Bloody on Hamas distancing itself from the latest death, etc., but I will leave that one. Its just too muddled at this point to know.

However I contend the situations are not the same. Each has unique features to them. Playing one off the other does not make your point JBG- you spun this trying to take two different political situations to spin your own partisan agenda again. You are using Israel as your pretense for your agenda.

I am inclined to agree with what Bob said about Rachel Corrie being manipulated. I personally believe (without trying to sound deliberately patronizing to Rachel Corrie because she was an adult entitled to her own political opinions and I believe Rachel Corrie was well meaning) she was a privileged, idealist who came from a sheltered environment and so her naivite was easily manipulated-she was no different then thousands of other middle class children who suddenly leave their homes and enter a world ull of hostility and they find themselves overhwlemed by all the smells.I don'd doubt she suddenly experienced a world away from her suburban upbringing full of new smells-and in particular the smell of depravity and so suddenly the world looked very unfair to her.

So I believe she could be easily manipulated not just by Hamas but by the Western press. Hey now what better way to advance your 10 second news bite back home then with a blonde haired blue eyed Alice from Wonderland.

I mean please, you ever try send back a story of protesting Palestinians? At that time who did they have-Yasir Arafat. Not exactly a beauty was he? Love his nose and five o'clock shadow. And his lips. So kissable. Please people expected him to play the drums and sing yellow submarine. Other than lok Ringo Starr he wasn't the greatest way to sell a story now was he. Think I am being absurd? Wish I was. That is exactly what an editorial desk knows when it has 10 seconds to sell is story.

Put Alice in Wonderland out there in front of a tractor, now that sells far better then Yasir standing there or better still far better then any Palestinian. Oh come let's be honest, they look swarthy not cuddly.

Sorry but I lay it out as cynically as possible. It aint rocket science how the media works and how they need to sell a story to the West with a heroine who looks as caucasian and aryan Barbie doll like as possible.

Think of the irony. The Western Press needed an Alice in Wonderland before they could be assured they could sell their story because a swarthy Palestinian would not sell as well.

I guess some Palestinian girl was not aryan looking enough to stand in front of tractors-quick someone get be the Barbie Doll.

See for me I see 2 double standards. One against Israel and one against Palestinians. I think the Western media that may have felt it was running a pro Palestinian series of stories about Rachel Corrie in fact epitomized its own subconscious racist attitudes towards Paletsinians and needing Alice in Wonderland to report the conflict before they felt it could have impact.

But then that is just me. You see for me I think the press simply reflects the prejudices of its audience and plays to them and in so doing helps reinforce these prejudices.

The press runs stories it thinks will sell. It doesn't give a hoot about either side. It exploits either side to sell its stories and if it needs a Barbie Doll to sell the story it will find one.

This notion the press cares about Palestinians any more then it does Israelis sorry I don't buy. I find them contemptuous of both for different reasons.

The press handles the Middle East no different then a WWF wrestling script. Reminds me of nothing more then a match between Abdullah the Butcher and Goldberg.

Both Palestinians and Israels are characterized equally as absurdly I would contend.

Oh I will take the time to point out double standards directed at Israel but no I do not need to piss on Rachel Corrie to do that.

Once again JBG you have tried to use Israel as a pretense to incite negative feelings. Why? Is it possible for you to present any comment without a negative incitement thrown into the words?

Since when does the defence of Israel against terrorism need you to piss on Rachel Corrie to prove its point?

She was manipulated as much as any Palestinian or Israeli has in this never ending idiocy.

I again argue we can do a far better job of pointing out the conflict and underlying issues in the conflictwithout demonizing anyone.

Rachel Corrie was not and is not the issue getting the world to understand that conflicts are generated by people demonizing each other-is.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Rue

[Bob]

It looks mightily like - despite what I think is a typo on your part, given the context - you feel that the dozer should have run over her even if he knew she was there. I do hope that isn't really what you're trying to say, because that's an indefensible position from any kind of moral or ethical standpoint. It's not like they couldn't have knocked the building down the next day or the next week.

No, it wasn't a typo. I am saying clearly that the bulldozer driver cannot simply stop the operation even if he saw her. The IDF cannot be bullied around by foreign agitators who endanger foreign security. This operation is not a joke. Every moment that the building remains standing is another day that places IDF border officer at increased risk of sniper fire. So rescheduling the operation isn't really an option, considering that Rachel Corrie will simply return and willingly be a human shield every time. Do you not understand that she is placing her own life at risk in order to defend things that place Israeli lives at risk? It is simply a decision between her and us. Moreover, she is WILLINGLY choosing to be in that position. The bottom line is that this building was a threat (I'm not sure some people in here understand what that actually means: LIVES ARE PLACED AT RISK), it was a building with a clear view of border towers along the wall within sniping distance.

Again, nobody is happy she died, but not ounce of responsibility lies with the IDF.

As far as I'm concerned, there was absolutely no failure from the IDF on this issue.

[Bob]

Despite the ambiguous impression the typo in the first sentence above gives, your question makes it pretty certain you really do think he shouldn't have stopped even if could see her. You're saying he should have carried out his duty despite the horrific outcome.

Yes.

No, I would imagine this operator spends a lot of dark sleepless nights in a very dark lonely place.

I'm trying to imply that you were happy, as you put it, not Israel.

I'm not happy she's dead, but I'm certainly not upset about it either. I've clearly explained how I and many others feel about her and other like her. Her death is her own fault. One cannot go around interfering with military operations as a human shield and then blame others when bad things happen.

[eyeball]

I'm not happy she's dead, but I'm certainly not upset about it either. I've clearly explained how I and many others feel about her and other like her. Her death is her own fault. One cannot go around interfering with military operations as a human shield and then blame others when bad things happen.

Hmmm, that pretty much captures how I feel about Israel.

Go figure.

[jbg]

However I contend the situations are not the same. Each has unique features to them. Playing one off the other does not make your point JBG- you spun this trying to take two different political situations to spin your own partisan agenda again. You are using Israel as your pretense for your agenda.

I will tell you and everyone what my agenda is.

My agenda is to call out the double-standard to which Israel and Jews are held; we are expected to be perfect, and there is little criticism or effectual action against those who reject any concept of social contract or international law in their attacks on Jews and Israel. When anti-Jewish and anti-Israel forces want to attack Judaism they attack, most frequently, in faceless, cruel and anonymous manners. They firebomb synagogues and Jewish day schools in Montreal, and Paul Martin shows up to say "this is not my Canada". In the same city, a few years earlier, Netanyahu was forcefully prevented from speaking at Concordia college.

On September 11, 2001 similar faceless cowards didn't go the U.N. to protest U.S. involvement in the ummah. They organized the senseless attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and wherever else Plane Number 4 was headed to slaughter people.

In Israel, in recent weeks, they have pushed incidiary actions by the U.N. such as recognizing Palestine as a state, when depending on where you are it has one government, two governments or no government. In addition, they have missle-attacked school buses, and plunged knives into the bellies of babies.

All that I ask is that Israel be held to the same standards as others.

[Bob]

Hmmm, that pretty much captures how I feel about Israel.

Go figure.

Yes, we all know you're unable to differentiate between Rachel Corrie's deliberate interference with a military operation, which lead to her death - and civilians at the bus stop who get murdered by a suicide bomber. Of course, standing at the bus stop waiting to go to work demonstrates the same complicity in one's death as standing in front of a military bulldozer during an IDF mission.

[Guest American Woman]

jbg, on 17 April 2011 - 11:56 AM, said: Why shouldn't we support a Western country like ours?

One shouldn't support a country because it's Western, or pro-Western, or is an ally. We should try to the best of our abilities to ascertain what is going on; what is the truth, what is false, what is a difficult combination of both; and do what we sincerely believe is right. Western, or political allies to one's nation, shouldn't even be the faintest consideration.

Seems to me jbg's stance is just the opposite side of the coin of your stance.

I believe we should try to the best of our abilities to ascertain what is going on; what is the truth, what is false, what is a difficult combination of both; and do what we sincerely believe is right.

Whether or not the nation is western, or political allies to one's nation, shouldn't even be the faintest consideration.

[Scotty]

No, it wasn't a typo. I am saying clearly that the bulldozer driver cannot simply stop the operation even if he saw her. The IDF cannot be bullied around by foreign agitators who endanger foreign security

That's ideological crap. I believe in security as much as the next guy, certainly more than all the bloody liberal types out there, and I understand Israel's security problems. But you don't need to murder someone in order to bulldoze some houses. The IDF, btw, said nothing about snipers. It was bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, it says, to prevent smuggling and destroy guerrila hideouts. There was no urgency which would have prevented them whistling up a squad of troops to drag some stupid peaceniks out of the way if that was necessary, and the dozer was not there all alone anyway. There were several squads of IDF troops there in APCs. I don't doubt they might have been afraid of snipers, but that's a problem wherever the IDF operates.

So rescheduling the operation isn't really an option, considering that Rachel Corrie will simply return and willingly be a human shield every time.

Then arrest her.

As far as I'm concerned, there was absolutely no failure from the IDF on this issue.

You are losing your sense of morality. I don't get it with you religious people anyway, and your ability to disrespect human life. If God wants someone dead they don't need your help to do it.

[Bob]

That's ideological crap. I believe in security as much as the next guy, certainly more than all the bloody liberal types out there, and I understand Israel's security problems. But you don't need to murder someone in order to bulldoze some houses. The IDF, btw, said nothing about snipers. It was bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, it says, to prevent smuggling and destroy guerrila hideouts. There was no urgency which would have prevented them whistling up a squad of troops to drag some stupid peaceniks out of the way if that was necessary, and the dozer was not there all alone anyway. There were several squads of IDF troops there in APCs. I don't doubt they might have been afraid of snipers, but that's a problem wherever the IDF operates.

That may be the official line from the Israeli MFA regarding the home associated with the Rachel Corrie incident, but it's all the same. Security is security. Every minute a security threat continues is another minute that puts Israeli lives at risk. Whether it's a smuggling tunnel or a sniper spot (and most like both because the IDF only bulldozed homes on the edge of Gaza, unless in the midst of combat to clear a path for troops to enter targets. Anyways, the fact remains - Rachel Corrie is entirely responsible for what happened to her.

Ironically, even in death she continues to be a source of spin and lies for anti-Israel advocacy. Her memory lives on just as did her life.

Then arrest her.

And expose themselves to sniper fire? You think that's more reasonable than her simply not committing suicide? IS the IDF to allow itself to be placed at increased risk due to civilian who CHOOSE to obstruct its operations? Rachel Corrie isn't the same as some civilian who happens to live in a home that is being used as terrorist base of operations and didn't have really have a choice. Rachel Corrie went to great lengths to put herself in the circumstances that killed her, as opposed to civilians who really are in the wrong place at the wrong time due to no fault of their own. She certainly wasn't "murdered". That's ridiculous.

You are losing your sense of morality. I don't get it with you religious people anyway, and your ability to disrespect human life. If God wants someone dead they don't need your help to do it.

First of all, I'm not really religious. As far as what God wants, who knows? She's dead. And it's due to her own actions. What is immoral is Rachel Corrie acting as a human shield in order to force the IDF to choose between the lives they are meant to protect and her own. She forced the choice on the soldiers. It was either her life, or more risk to the lives of Israeli soldiers. In my eyes, it's an easy choice every time, and unfortunately it always comes with a terrible outcome. In my view, this incident really illustrates how sick the ISM is, preying on naive and ignorant youth like Rachel Corrie, while continually using her memory to continue a dishonest campaign against Israel. Anyways, I guess that's all her memory is good for, anyways.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Bob

[Scotty]

That may be the official line from the Israeli MFA regarding the home associated with the Rachel Corrie incident, but it's all the same. Security is security. Every minute a security threat continues is another minute that puts Israeli lives at risk. Whether it's a smuggling tunnel or a sniper spot (and most like both because the IDF only bulldozed homes on the edge of Gaza, unless in the midst of combat to clear a path for troops to enter targets. Anyways, the fact remains - Rachel Corrie is entirely responsible for what happened to her.

I don't know whether she was or wasn't. I wasn't there to see. I'm addressing your view that even if the dozer driver saw her he should have run her over, and that is a thoroughly indefensible and immoral belief. You don't kill defenseless, unarmed, non-threatening people because of the *possibility* that dealing with them in another way might expose you to danger. You just DON'T. I can see in the midst of combat, perhaps, but that is not the case here. There was no urgency. There were other methods of accomplishing the stated aims which did not involve murder.

And YES, Bob, if you run your dozer over an unarmed, non-threatening person, it's murder any way you want to slice it, even if she is a 'useful idiot' to the Palestinians.

[Tilter]

The "double standard" is the rivers of ink that the Rachel Corrie incident drew, compared with the one news story, then forgotten treatment this story will likely get. And the situations are similar. Israel does its fighting through armies, not faceless, nameless, anonymous murderers.

How many rivers of ink are there for the people killed by the incessant rockets flying into Israel shot by Hamas.

The Israelis stop a ship containing armaments for the Palestinian terrorists & the world rises up (at least the Arab world,) in all but armed combat, ( I guess after losing a few wars to the Israelis they are fighting with words & UN condemnations) to heap insults on a nation protecting themselves from attack from 8 or 10 aggressive nations that surround them.

About 2 weeks ago Hamas, likely getting short on projectiles to fling at Israel, called for a cease fire.

The rockets out of Gaza still rain on the Israelis, but they want a ceasefire? I guess what they want is a unilateral ceasefire by Israel to get the munitions stocked up.

[BC_chick]

Why the 'outrage' for one but not the other?

Maybe because the pro-Israel camp (jbg and bob for example) are still ridiculing the death of Corrie and at the same time Israel has never accepted any type of responsibility for her death.

On the flip-side Palestinians collectively denounced the murder and Hamas(!) arrested the perpetrators.

And you call yourselves the 'peaceful and democratic' side and them 'savages'. <<<<That's part of the public outrage.

Edited April 20, 2011 by BC_chick

[jbg]

Maybe because the pro-Israel camp (jbg and bob for example) are still ridiculing the death of Corrie and at the same time Israel has never accepted any type of responsibility for her death.

I am not "ridiculing" anyone nor is Bob. Rachel Corrie took the chance that the IDF wouldn't stop everything to save a human shield.

And you call yourselves the 'peaceful and democratic' side and them 'savages'. <<<<That's part of the public outrage.

How else to describe cowards who plunge knives into babies' bellies.

[eyeball]

Yes, we all know you're unable to differentiate between Rachel Corrie's deliberate interference with a military operation, which lead to her death - and civilians at the bus stop who get murdered by a suicide bomber. Of course, standing at the bus stop waiting to go to work demonstrates the same complicity in one's death as standing in front of a military bulldozer during an IDF mission.

Actually the similarity I was thinking about was the location Israel chose to occupy.

[BC_chick]

How else to describe cowards who plunge knives into babies' bellies.

Point is, in one breath you stand behind the argument that your side is so much more 'civilized' and in the next you excuse all kinds of unfathomable actions just because you are so blinded by your dogma about the situation.

Bulldozing over innocent people isn't exactly civilized but that's exactly what you're excusing.

ETA - very good post Rue.

Edited April 20, 2011 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Why the 'outrage' for one but not the other?

Maybe because the pro-Israel camp (jbg and bob for example) are still ridiculing the death of Corrie and at the same time Israel has never accepted any type of responsibility for her death.

Perhaps "Israel" doesn't bear any "responsibility" for her death. As I've pointed out, no one knows if the driver of the tractor could see her or not. If he could, and he deliberately ran over her, then the driver is responsible. Since this isn't Israeli policy, "Israel" isn't responsible. We've already been given an example in this thread where three Israeli drivers did stop, so obviously it's not Israeli policy to run over protesters. But again. No one knows if the driver could see her or not, yet he seems to be condemned as guilty by a good number of people. I don't see it as particularly "civilized" to condemn a man as guilty without proof.

On the flip-side Palestinians collectively denounced the murder and Hamas(!) arrested the perpetrators.

It clearly was murder. The situation is not the same. He wasn't there by choice. His actions had nothing directly to do with the outcome. He didn't place himself in front of them, 'playing chicken' so to speak. If anyone did do that, if an Israeli did place him/herself in front of Hamas during one of their operations and was killed as a result, I'm guessing the Israeli's behavior would be called all kinds of variations of "irresponsible" at best.

And you call yourselves the 'peaceful and democratic' side and them 'savages'. <<<<That's part of the public outrage.

If the driver had run over her on purpose, if we knew that to be the case, I would not have any defense for the driver. I do, however, think she should have acted reasonably also; therefore, it would be manslaughter, not murder. She did make herself part of the conflict by her actions. She wasn't 'an innocent civilian.' Her decision, her choice, was a huge factor in her death. I agree with the sentiment that she should have been arrested, however. There's no justification for purposely running her over; and again, there's no proof that she was, while there is proof that other Israeli drivers have stopped rather than run over a protester.

Edited April 20, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Now wait. I am the first to give Bloodyminded the hardest of times on this forum but fair is fair and he would expect me to defend him even though he knows I have no problems battling him too-fair is fair. He is not a supporter of

Thanks, Rue.

It's not even a political argument--although politics inevitably becomes enmeshed with it. I simply don't think the two situations are analogous.

[KeyStone]

The "double standard" is the rivers of ink that the Rachel Corrie incident drew, compared with the one news story, then forgotten treatment this story will likely get. And the situations are similar. Israel does its fighting through armies, not faceless, nameless, anonymous murderers.

I know you see conspiracy theories everywhere, but the real inconsistency is:

1) Arab deaths are so plentiful, they don't report them in the MSM anymore, whether they are at the hands of Israel or others.

2) American deaths always get 5000 times more press than Arab or Israeli or Asian deaths.

But don't let those obvious truths stop you from running around shrieking anti-semitism.

[GostHacked]

The "double standard" is the rivers of ink that the Rachel Corrie incident drew, compared with the one news story, then forgotten treatment this story will likely get. And the situations are similar. Israel does its fighting through armies, not faceless, nameless, anonymous murderers.

When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

[jbg]

When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

George Washington was hardly a faceless, anonymous murderer.