Turn on thread page Beta

The NHS killed Tom Hurndall! watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.crisisisrael.com/display_...ry.php?cid=353
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I have an embarrasing admission to make - when I first skimmed the title I read it as "The NHS killed Tom Bombadill!". I feel so stupid!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    I have an embarrasing admission to make - when I first skimmed the title I read it as "The NHS killed Tom Bombadill!". I feel so stupid!
    It's his wife I feel sorry for: poor Goldberry.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Pathetic. The only reason he died was because he was shot. If he hadn't been shot he'd never have been in hospital, would never have been in a weakened state and would never have caught pneumonia.

    I'm all for passing blame onto the person or people who actually are to blame, but trying to say argue that the shooting wasn't the main reason which lead to the death is rather unforgivable.
    Offline

    13
    As a commentator said about the article writers:

    "You sad buggers - you're lost in the darkness."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    Pathetic. The only reason he died was because he was shot. If he hadn't been shot he'd never have been in hospital, would never have been in a weakened state and would never have caught pneumonia.
    I'm all for passing blame onto the person or people who actually are to blame, but trying to say argue that the shooting wasn't the main reason which lead to the death is rather unforgivable.
    Actually, causation, at least in the legal sense, is far more tricky than you try to make out. Whilst the party responsible for the initial injury is obviously liable for the injury caused, at some point along the line the chain of causation is broken and the liability ends. For example, if the medical treatment that the injured person receives for their injuries is negligent (or reckless or downright inept) and the injuries are thus worsened or not dealt with as could reasonably be expected, then the original defendant can deploy that as a good defence to absolve him of responsibility for all the effects that follow-on from that negligence, which is known (in legalese) as a novus actus interveniens ('new intervening act').
    If we follow your logic, then why not take it back a step further in the other direction - he wouldn't have been shot if he wasn't hanging around in Gaza interfering in an area where the IDF were operating. Legally, that isn't a workable defence, but I'm simply carrying out the same logical process as you do, but in the other direction and showing why causation is a complex issue and not as you seem to think. So maybe you should think about it a bit more before you attribute every effect and event to the 'first' act and refuse to acknowledge intervening acts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    As a commentator said about the article writers:

    "You sad buggers - you're lost in the darkness."
    I'm far more inclined to go with the OTHER commenter, who actually puts some logical analysis in to play and actually responds to the article, rather than making a cryptic, unsupported comment that doesn't even attempt to challenge what is said. The fact that you go with the unsupported, propagandist one says an awful lot.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Actually, causation, at least in the legal sense, is far more tricky than you try to make out. Whilst the party responsible for the initial injury is obviously liable for the injury caused, at some point along the line the chain of causation is broken and the liability ends. For example, if the medical treatment that the injured person receives for their injuries is negligent (or reckless or downright inept) and the injuries are thus worsened or not dealt with as could reasonably be expected, then the original defendant can deploy that as a good defence to absolve him of responsibility for all the effects that follow-on from that novus actus interveniens ('new intervening act').
    If we follow your logic, then why not take it back a step further in the other direction - he wouldn't have been shot if he wasn't hanging around in Gaza interfering in an area where the IDF were operating. Legally, that isn't a workable defence, but I'm simply carrying out the same logical process as you do, but in the other direction and showing why causation is a complex issue and not as you seem to think. So maybe you should think about it a bit more before you attribute every effect and event to the 'first' act and refuse to acknowledge intervening acts.
    Well that is something I thought about at the time. But also, I really do no think the gun-man can be totally excused at all. Certainly not to put all the blame on the hospital. No matter how negligent the hospital as the gun-man was responsible for putting him in the situation in the hospital and must carry some of the blame for the death.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    the gun-man was responsible for putting him in the situation in the hospital and must carry some of the blame for the death.
    Why?
    Think about a situation in which a gunman shoots someone and wounds him but doesn't kill him. The person is then put in hospital for a relatively simple operation, but the surgeon recklessly messes it up and the patient dies. Blame the gunman for the death?
    In law? No, he's not responsible because he could not be held to reasonably foresee that the surgeon would recklessly mess the operation up.
    What about if an assault and battery lands someone in hospital and they then contract MRSA and die? Blame the assaulter for the death?
    In law? Well, that's tricky, was the possibility of the person contracting and dying of MRSA reasonably foreseeable?

    I could continue, but I think I've made the point. At some stage, legal responsibility ends and whether the death can or cannot be blamed on the person responsible for the initial injury is called in to question, it's simply a fact.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This rediculous, if he hadn't been shot he would not have been in hospital would not have been on a ventilator or in a weakend state and would not have caught pneumonia, he was shot in the head which is a wound that although you cannot generalise you are less likely to recover from. I think it is unlikely that the doctors treating him for some reason decided not to give him antibiotics as the article suggests. The arguments that jonathanH puts forward are valid to a point if the wound would deffinately not have been fatal and they died as a result of a botched operation or an infection then that is one thing there is no evidence the Tom Hurndall would have survived even if he didn't catch pneumonia and so there person who placed him in that state is responsible

    Tom Hurndall went to palistine so he could form his own oppinion as to what was happing there and while protecting palistinian CHILDREN he was shot in the head how that can be justified I do not know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    This rediculous, if he hadn't been shot he would not have been in hospital would not have been on a ventilator or in a weakend state and would not have caught pneumonia, ... The arguments that jonathanH puts forward are valid to a point
    ... My arguments are against the automatic assumption of causation and yet you follow that exact progression in your opening statement, before admitting that my arguments have validity. You can't have both.

    (Original post by randdom)
    Tom Hurndall went to palistine so he could form his own oppinion as to what was happing there
    Crap. He went there as a part of the International Solidarity Movement, a movement that is not even vaguely about 'forming opinions' but is rabidly anti-Israel and openly condones palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. Further than that, they have also sheltered terrorists, deliberately hampered IDF anti-terror operations and had weaponry found stashed on their premises.

    (Original post by randdom)
    and while protecting palistinian CHILDREN he was shot in the head how that can be justified I do not know.
    Or so it is claimed. Based on 'eyewitnesses' from which organisation? The ISM. Based on the fact that other ISM activists have been injured or killed whilst deliberately interfering with IDF operations and being involved in violent clashes with the IDF, that story is up for debate. The ISM have also been caught lying deliberately many times in the past, their word is less than worthless.

    "When the facts are out, no one should be fooled by the International Solidarity Movement's attempts to turn Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall into martyrs. These people defended the most depraved type of violence - the violence of bombs in marketplaces, the violence of 9/11, the violence of dictators like Saddam Hussein. It's no coincidence that Hurndall served as a human shield for the Iraqi dictatorship before arriving in Israel. His claim, that he was in Iraq taking pictures for a college course, rings hollow - most young men don't travel to war zones for a few credit-hours."
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I'm far more inclined to go with the OTHER commenter, who actually puts some logical analysis in to play and actually responds to the article, rather than making a cryptic, unsupported comment that doesn't even attempt to challenge what is said. The fact that you go with the unsupported, propagandist one says an awful lot.
    As does your support of the OTHER commenter, who is Jewish!

    Don't you understand that those not closely aligned with the Iraeli/Palestinian conflict will see things in a more dispassionate and unbiased way than you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    ... My arguments are against the automatic assumption of causation and yet you follow that exact progression in your opening statement, before admitting that my arguments have validity. You can't have both.


    Crap. He went there as a part of the International Solidarity Movement, a movement that is not even vaguely about 'forming opinions' but is rabidly anti-Israel and openly condones palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. Further than that, they have also sheltered terrorists, deliberately hampered IDF anti-terror operations and had weaponry found stashed on their premises.


    Or so it is claimed. Based on 'eyewitnesses' from which organisation? The ISM. Based on the fact that other ISM activists have been injured or killed whilst deliberately interfering with IDF operations and being involved in violent clashes with the IDF, that story is up for debate. The ISM have also been caught lying deliberately many times in the past, their word is less than worthless.

    "When the facts are out, no one should be fooled by the International Solidarity Movement's attempts to turn Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall into martyrs. These people defended the most depraved type of violence - the violence of bombs in marketplaces, the violence of 9/11, the violence of dictators like Saddam Hussein. It's no coincidence that Hurndall served as a human shield for the Iraqi dictatorship before arriving in Israel. His claim, that he was in Iraq taking pictures for a college course, rings hollow - most young men don't travel to war zones for a few credit-hours."
    Have you actually read things from both sides of the argument? read both theories because I have, and from that I have formed my oppinion. If you read parts of his diaries that were published or listen to the email that he sent to his family it is hard to see how you can see him in the light that you have painted him in. I have an open mind into what happens in Israel, however I the more I read about the action of the IDF the more horrified I am. There have been 3 british people who have been shot that I can think of off the top of my head including a camera man who identified him self as a british jounalist and held a white flag

    "APTN footage shows Miller and his crew emerging from the Palestinian home in which they'd been filming and approaching an armored Israeli bulldozer. They could be seen waving a white flag and could be heard identifying themselves, in English and Arabic, as journalists. In addition, Miller and his crew were wearing clothing that identified them as members of the press. Eyewitnesses claim Miller and his crew were fired upon, without warning, as they approached the armored bulldozer while attempting to identify themselves as journalists. Moments later, Miller lay on the ground. APTN footage of the incident backs up the eyewitness accounts. James Miller died from a gunshot wound to the neck. "

    The IDF have killed three british citizen in the last few years that I can think off none of whome were proved to be involved in terrorist activities, god knows how many palistinians have been killed who are innorcent in the same period of time. The IDF really need to reconsider their actions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    As does your support of the OTHER commenter, who is Jewish!
    What the hell does that mean? There are plenty of anti-Israel Jews.

    (Original post by yawn)
    Don't you understand that those not closely aligned with the Iraeli/Palestinian conflict will see things in a more dispassionate and unbiased way than you?
    That's an incredibly poor argument, even by the standards of people on your side. Don't even TRY and pretend that there is some inherent higher level of validity of the views of other people over mine. Once again, it's not like every Jew is pro-Israel, why do you assume that I automatically am and that my views are not considered and independent?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    What the hell does that mean? There are plenty of anti-Israel Jews.
    True, but the NK aren't exactly the mainstream or a majority.

    That's an incredibly poor argument, even by the standards of people on your side. Don't even TRY and pretend that there is some inherent higher level of validity of the views of other people over mine. Once again, it's not like every Jew is pro-Israel, why do you assume that I automatically am and that my views are not considered and independent?
    Even if you yourself are as totally, utterly and completely dispassionate as Spock himself (in which case you're doing far better than anyone else in human history), wouldn't you at least concede that in general, those personally connected to a given situation will find it harder to remain objective than those who are not?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Have you actually read things from both sides of the argument?
    Yes. I can pretty much guarantee that I've read far more regarding Israel and news regarding Israel than you have. Also, you have not responded to my information regarding the nature of the ISM and my utter debunking of your claims that he was there 'to form his own opinions'. So it seems like you need some more info, not me.

    (Original post by randdom)
    If you read parts of his diaries that were published or listen to the email that he sent to his family it is hard to see how you can see him in the light that you have painted him in.
    ... Oh come on. Parts of his diaries and emails released by... Yes, exactly.

    (Original post by randdom)
    I have an open mind into what happens in Israel, however I the more I read about the action of the IDF the more horrified I am.
    I have an open mind too, and if that's how your mind works perhaps YOU should try reading some views from the other side. The IDF are an incredibly disciplined force on the whole and have caused remarkably few civilian casualties operating in the circumstances in which they do. Compare their actions to those of other armies around the world, they always come off favourably. Seriously, you need some balance.

    (Original post by randdom)
    There have been 3 british people who have been shot that I can think of off the top of my head including a camera man who identified him self as a british jounalist and held a white flag
    Once again, after asking if I have read both sides, you take one side and believe it absolutely. Things are never as clear cut as that in the middle of a gunfight between terrorists and the IDF, people approaching Israeli soldiers and vehicles are not simply allowed to continue that would be a remarkable risk by IDF personnel when dealing with terrorists who have no second-thoughts about using civilians as cover and even disguising themselves.

    (Original post by randdom)
    The IDF have killed three british citizen in the last few years that I can think off none of whome were proved to be involved in terrorist activities, god knows how many palistinians have been killed who are innorcent in the same period of time. The IDF really need to reconsider their actions.
    You really need to reconsider your sources of information, they are quite clearly laughably of one side so much so as to be invalid in any educated debate. The IDF is held to ridiculously high standards by its commanders and by the world and has a superior record to any force operating with the same threats and circumstances. Maybe the IDF should act like the Russians in Chechnya so biased asses like you would actually have something to whine about. You do realise that IDF soldiers are regularly put at remarkable risks that are not strictly necessary because they don't want to cause unneccesary casualties. They carry out far more arrests than they do assassinations, even thought it'd be far safer for the IDF not to deploy any soldiers and simply use aircraft.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    True, but the NK aren't exactly the mainstream or a majority.
    I'm not referring to the NK. I'm referring to the Jews of the left (Gerald Kauffman being a prime current example amongst many others, like Noam Chomsky) who utterly despise Israel and all it does and support the most heinous and disproportionate sanctions being placed on it, out of all proportion to any rationality. I don't refer to Jews who attack Israel from a religious perspective but those who attack from a left-liberal one, they outnumber the NK considerably.

    (Original post by randdom)
    wouldn't you at least concede that in general, those personally connected to a given situation will find it harder to remain objective than those who are not?
    Perhaps, but that doesn't operate in reverse and mean that a personally connected person CANNOT remain mostly objective.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I have an open mind on the subject and i have heard arguments from both sides including my friend who is fiercly for the actions of the IDF and Isreal in general, I have read websites from both sites and I am the first to agree that this conflict is by no means clean cut, however I feel that the actions of the IDF are inexcusable in these paticular cases where the british citizens have been unarmed and have indetified themselves as such. In Britian when a suspected terrorist was wrongly shot on the underground there was outrage amoung much of the British public, from the sources that I have read this person who was accidentally shot seems to have been demonised by the pro Isreali media as have the other who were shot. Surely the shooting was and accident and the people are known to be innorcent of a crime so the IDF should be a lot more appoligetic and should be carrying out an investigation into their policy. As I have said before I do have an open mind on the conflict and I have read about it from both sides, you are never going to get an unbiased source. In these particular case I believe that the action of the IDF were inexcusable in some they are justifiable. Just because their actions may not be as bad as those of the russian in chechnya does not mean that they still don't have many flaws.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Surely the shooting was and accident and the people are known to be innorcent of a crime so the IDF should be a lot more appoligetic and should be carrying out an investigation into their policy.
    If it was an accident then why should there be an investigation of the policy, accidents will happen whatever. Over the last few years the IDF has refined its policies and strategies to a large degree. For example, at the beginning of the conflict around 1 in 2 Israeli air-strikes on terrorists would injure a civilian. It's now roughly 1 in 28. Israel has also developed numerous non-lethal methods and technologies for dealing with tensions.

    (Original post by randdom)
    In these particular case I believe that the action of the IDF were inexcusable in some they are justifiable.
    The actions are not always 'excusable' but most of the time they ARE justifiable. If the IDF are involved in a raging gun-battle with terrorists and an innocent is killed by a stray bullet, that is perhaps not 'excusable' but it can be justified on the grounds that it was not deliberate and the circumstances were so difficult that it could be explained.

    (Original post by randdom)
    Just because their actions may not be as bad as those of the russian in chechnya does not mean that they still don't have many flaws.
    Far less flaws than any other force operating in similar circumstances and a very respectable record compared to any other military force on Earth. What more can you really ask, in the end they are fighting a war against a constant and omnipresent terrorist threat to their population, it's not going to be pretty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Even if you yourself are as totally, utterly and completely dispassionate as Spock himself (in which case you're doing far better than anyone else in human history), wouldn't you at least concede that in general, those personally connected to a given situation will find it harder to remain objective than those who are not?
    If you think your average European is objective about the ME situation you are deeply mistaken. We are all biased on this and fact of the matter is that in Europe the attitude is generally very anti-Israel. I admit that compared to countries like Sweden and Norway, the UK is fairly balanced, but to dismiss his post because he is a jew? Seriously. Its as if I were to dismiss the opinions of anyone British since this guy happened to be from Britain.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 11, 2006
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.