Was Rachel Corrie Murdered

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

If you have ever worked on a building site then you would know that one of the stupidest places you could stand was in a trench in front of a digger.

You can see in the picture you have posted the size of the blade, now drop here another 2 foot below that and it would be imposable to see her,

Yea it would be stupid to stand in a trench in front of a digger, but she wasn't, the driver had no problem seeing her.

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Actual video footage from the Israeli Defense Forces show the real circumstances under which the terrorist-loving anarchist died: knee-deep in a trench in the middle of dirt in an open dirt field.

Here you say she was in a trench.


Heres a video claiming to be the Actual cockpit transmission from the D-9 bulldozer driver to the watch tower, saying he "hit an object" and "I think the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition." He is asked "Did you see him?" and responds "Yes I saw him, I think he is dead."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1187909555

It would appear they where playing chicken with each other and she lost.

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Here you say she was in a trench.


Heres a video claiming to be the Actual cockpit transmission from the D-9 bulldozer driver to the watch tower, saying he "hit an object" and "I think the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition." He is asked "Did you see him?" and responds "Yes I saw him, I think he is dead."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1187909555

It would appear they where playing chicken with each other and she lost.

No read again, can you not figure when I'm speaking for myself and when I'm quoting rubbish?, the picture CLEARLY show's she wasn't in a trench, she also wasn't in an open field either like it said in the same quote.

This site is something else, my jaw was dangling reading it.....(my jaw dangling was an indication I couldn't believe what I was reading).

Corrie was standing in a trench where she could not be seen, protecting an entrance to a weapons tunnel.
Actual video footage from the Israeli Defense Forces show the real circumstances under which the terrorist-loving anarchist died: knee-deep in a trench in the middle of dirt in an open dirt field.
http://www.think-israel.org/israelma...orriedied.html

robtri

uprising2 wrote: »

No read again, can you not figure when I'm speaking for myself and when I'm quoting rubbish?, the picture CLEARLY show's she wasn't in a trench, she also wasn't in an open field either like it said in the same quote.

This site is something else, my jaw was dangling reading it.....(my jaw dangling was an indication I couldn't believe what I was reading).

Corrie was standing in a trench where she could not be seen, protecting an entrance to a weapons tunnel.
Actual video footage from the Israeli Defense Forces show the real circumstances under which the terrorist-loving anarchist died: knee-deep in a trench in the middle of dirt in an open dirt field.
http://www.think-israel.org/israelma...orriedied.html

The pictures you have posted of Supposedly rachel in front of the bull dozer... how do we know that they are from the day she died??
and from the moment she died????
maybe the conspiracy is the other way around from anti - israeli groups ?

may rachel did die protecting an arms dump, in a trench.. and the anti israeli groups are twisting it to gain support in America...

PirateShampoo

I cant seem to find a unedited version of her death.

It was clearly caught on camera, as shown in this link http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1187909555 but its heavly edited.

It strange that it doesnt seem to be any Raw footage of what happened out there.

PirateShampoo

robtri wrote: »

The pictures you have posted of Supposedly rachel in front of the bull dozer... how do we know that they are from the day she died??
and from the moment she died????
maybe the conspiracy is the other way around from anti - israeli groups ?

may rachel did die protecting an arms dump, in a trench.. and the anti israeli groups are twisting it to gain support in America...

Well she would make the perfect Martyr for their cause.

robtri

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Well she would make the perfect Martyr for their cause.

absolutely.. she was american... which would have a real impact back in the USA.. the death of one of their own by the hands of the evil israeli could help public pressure on the government to stop their support of israel....

PirateShampoo

As to every story there is always two side to it.

Here is the Israeli version of events.


"American Rachel Corrie was killed in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003, when she entered an area where Israeli forces were carrying out a military operation. The incident occurred while IDF forces were removing shrubbery along the security road near the border between Israel and Egypt at Rafah to uncover explosive devices, and destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt to Gaza. Corrie was not demonstrating for peace or trying to shield innocent civilians, she was interfering with a military operation to legally demolish an empty house used to conceal one of these tunnels.

A misleading photo published by the Associated Press gave the impression that Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and shouting at the driver with a megaphone, trying to prevent the driver from tearing down a building in the refugee camp. This photo, which was taken by a member of Corrie’s organization, was not shot at the time of her death, however, but hours earlier. The photographer said that Corrie was actually sitting and waving her arms when she was struck.

Israel’s Judge Advocate’s Office investigated the incident and concluded that the driver of the bulldozer never saw or heard Corrie because she was standing behind debris that obstructed the view of the driver whose field of view was limited by the small armored windows of his cab. An autopsy found that the cause of Corrie’s death was falling debris.

The State Department warned Americans not to travel to Gaza, and Israel made clear that civilians who enter areas where troops are engaged in counter-terror operations put themselves unnecessarily at risk.

This was not the first time protestors have tried to obstruct Israeli operations, and the IDF has made every effort to avoid harming them. This case received worldwide publicity in large measure because it was the first such incident where a protestor was killed. In fact, the army had told Corrie and other demonstrators from the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to move out of the way. “It’s possible they [the protesters] were not as disciplined as we would have liked,” admitted Thom Saffold, a founder and organizer of ISM."

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

The incident occurred while IDF forces were removing shrubbery along the security road near the border between Israel and Egypt at Rafah to uncover explosive devices, and destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt to Gaza.

LIES!
That day according to HRW "T[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]he bulldozers demolished telephone poles, house foundations, a water tank, a low wall, and part of a garden shed."[/SIZE][/FONT]


See Human Rights Watch on Rafah
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11963/section/1

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Corrie was not demonstrating for peace or trying to shield innocent civilians, she was interfering with a military operation to legally demolish an empty house used to conceal one of these tunnels.

LIES!
See the eye-witness reports posted in the OP.

Legal my arse, Please make yourself aware of Art 53 of the Geneva Convention.

Article 53

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to protected persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

A misleading photo published by the Associated Press gave the impression that Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and shouting at the driver with a megaphone, trying to prevent the driver from tearing down a building in the refugee camp. This photo, which was taken by a member of Corrie’s organization, was not shot at the time of her death, however, but hours earlier. The photographer said that Corrie was actually sitting and waving her arms when she was struck.

Cruelly Ironic that they accuse AP of publishing a misleading photo when they follow up with attempts to mislead themselves.

"The photographer said that Corrie was actually sitting and waving her arms when she was struck."

More disgusting LIES! The photographer was Joe Smith, this is from his account.

Rachel sat down in the pathway of the bulldozer.

I was elevated about 2 meters above the ground, and had a clear view of the action happening about 20 meters away. Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she sat down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day.

The bulldozer continued driving forward headed straight for Rachel. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer's blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, he continued forward, which pulled her legs into the pile of rubble, and pulled her down out of view of the driver. If he'd stopped at this point, he may have only broken her legs, but he continued forward, which pulled her underneath the bulldozer.

We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted, one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer driver continued forward, until Rachel was underneath the cab of the bulldozer. At this point, it was more than clear that she was nowhere but underneath the bulldozer, there was simply nowhere else she could have been, as she had not appeared on either side of the bulldozer, and could not have stayed in front of it that long without being crushed.


Despite the obviousness of her position, the bulldozer began to reverse, without lifting its blade, and dragged the blade over her body again.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1284.shtml

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Israel’s Judge Advocate’s Office investigated the incident and concluded that the driver of the bulldozer never saw or heard Corrie because she was standing behind debris that obstructed the view of the driver whose field of view was limited by the small armored windows of his cab. An autopsy found that the cause of Corrie’s death was falling debris.

More LIES.

"[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of the summary of the IDF “operational investigation” into Corrie’s killing. Like other investigation summaries seen by Human Rights Watch, the document is laden with generalities and emotive commentary, and contains major factual errors. Chief among these is the statement that “no signs substantiate assertion that Ms Corrie was run over by a bulldozer,” a statement apparently based on a highly selective interpretation of the preliminary autopsy report.268[SIZE=-1]... [/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]The claim of the “operational investigation” that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the final autopsy report, conducted only four days after Corrie’s death released on April 24 at Israel’s National Center of Forensic Medicine. The author of the autopsy report stated:“Based on the results of the autopsy which I performed on the body of RACHEL ALIENE CORRIE, age 24, I hereby express my opinion that her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with hemorrhaging of the pleural cavities.”271"[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]Human Rights Watch’s own research indicates that the impartiality and professionalism of the Israeli investigation into Corrie’s death are highly questionable[/SIZE][/FONT]
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/8.htm#_ftn255

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

As to every story there is always two side to it.

Here is the Israeli version of events.


All that is true is this segment.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

"American Rachel Corrie was killed in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003

kryogen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is the Israeli version of events.


All that is true is this segment.

i dont see the rest of the Israeli version?

uprising2

kryogen wrote: »

i dont see the rest of the Israeli version?

He wrote the part that was true, thats it.

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

The pictures you have posted of Supposedly rachel in front of the bull dozer... how do we know that they are from the day she died??
and from the moment she died????

This is in the immediate seconds following the assault.


Where is the ditch? All eye-witnesses on the ground claim that she was clearly visible, verified by a Human Rights Watch investigation.

robtri wrote: »

maybe the conspiracy is the other way around from anti - israeli groups ?

may rachel did die protecting an arms dump, in a trench.. and the anti israeli groups are twisting it to gain support in America...

The only thing twisted was her mangled, dying body.

Yeah and maybe all murderers who claim they're innocent actually are :eek:.

Are Human Rights Watch anti-Israeli? Are the UN who have repeatedly condemned the illegal property destruction according to International Humanitariun Law anti-Israeli? You probably think the ISM are anti-Israeli for opposing an illegal occupation too.

kryogen

robtri wrote: »

The pictures you have posted of Supposedly rachel in front of the bull dozer... how do we know that they are from the day she died??
and from the moment she died????
maybe the conspiracy is the other way around from anti - israeli groups ?

may rachel did die protecting an arms dump, in a trench.. and the anti israeli groups are twisting it to gain support in America...

your attitude to this actually sickens me

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is in the immediate seconds following the assault.


Where is the ditch? All eye-witnesses on the ground claim that she was clearly visible, verified by a Human Rights Watch investigation.


The only thing twisted was her mangled, dying body.

Yeah and maybe all murderers who claim they're innocent actually are :eek:.

Are Human Rights Watch anti-Israeli? Are the UN who have repeatedly condemned the illegal property destruction according to International Humanitariun Law anti-Israeli? You probably think the ISM are anti-Israeli for opposing an illegal occupation too.

From the pic you posted where allthe rubble thatthe earth mover was pushing??? none around the trench.... just earth....

Which group are pushing the americans parents to sue???????

yeah a many convicted murders where found innocent at a later Date......

robtri

kryogen wrote: »

your attitude to this actually sickens me

what anymore than many others here using her death as publicity PR stunt....
that sickens me!!!!!!

what in my attitude sickens you?? please explain??

PirateShampoo

So where is the RAW video of her death?

It was clearly caught on camera.

The only video i can find the the heavily edited one which contains stills of events that happened hours earlier.

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where is the ditch? All eye-witnesses on the ground claim that she was clearly visible, verified by a Human Rights Watch investigation.

Brown Bomber wrote:

she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer.

The picture you posted doesnt even seem to back up your version of events. Wheres the pile of rubble she was sat on?

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

[/COLOR][/U][/B]

The picture you posted doesnt even seem to back up your version of events. Wheres the pile of rubble she was sat on?

Come on man, think about it...

What would happen to a pile of rubble that came into contact with a bulldozer?

It is not my version of events in any case, it is of four eye-witnesses. Why do you doubt their testimony?

Is it because they are "anti-Israel"?

And you still haven't answered if you think that the Human Right Watch report is anti-Israeli.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Come on man, think about it...

What would happen to a pile of rubble that came into contact with a bulldozer?

It is not my version of events in any case, it is of four eye-witnesses. Why do you doubt their testimony?

Is it because they are "anti-Israel"?

And you still haven't answered if you think that the Human Right Watch report is anti-Israeli.

ok ok ok...

when rubble is pushed around it is pushed in front off and to the side of a bulldozer, i see no evidence of that, which contradicts that picture.

the earlier pictures you posted, supposedly from just before her death also do not match this picture as to location by the descritions by either side...

and thats my CT.. maybe these 4 eye witnesses are fabricated to push an alterior motive....

its is this version you are pushing....

I dont know which individauls are anti Israeli.....
by definition, ANTI means against....
so to answer your question are Human Rights watch against Isreali methods?? then i think the answer is YES.... by definition they are...

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Come on man, think about it...

What would happen to a pile of rubble that came into contact with a bulldozer?

It is not my version of events in any case, it is of four eye-witnesses. Why do you doubt their testimony?

Is it because they are "anti-Israel"?

And you still haven't answered if you think that the Human Right Watch report is anti-Israeli.

Because there is 4 eye witness clearly lie-in about what happened.

They say she was on top a mound of earth and clearly visible, but in the photo you can see this wasn't the case.

Now why would they lie?

I think they lied because in her death they can create a perfect Martyr for their cause.

kryogen

robtri wrote: »

what anymore than many others here using her death as publicity PR stunt....
that sickens me!!!!!!

what in my attitude sickens you?? please explain??

you seem to be making light of the incident and that pisses me off tbh

if thats not the case i apologise, but its how i have taken your posts

robtri

kryogen wrote: »

you seem to be making light of the incident and that pisses me off tbh

if thats not the case i apologise, but its how i have taken your posts

with all respect.... i am making no more light of the situation than the others on this thread, using her death as a PR stunt....

i have no wish to offend anyone..

kryogen

robtri wrote: »

with all respect.... i am making no more light of the situation than the others on this thread, using her death as a PR stunt....

i have no wish to offend anyone..

anybody using her death to be a PR stunt as you call it should be ashamed of themselves also

what happened that day was terrible and should be respected as such

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

From the pic you posted where allthe rubble thatthe earth mover was pushing??? none around the trench.... just earth....

It would have to be behind her of course, out of shot.

robtri wrote: »

Which group are pushing the americans parents to sue???????

How much "pushing" would you need to seek justice for the death of a loved one?

robtri wrote: »

yeah a many convicted murders where found innocent at a later Date......

Think about what your posting...All of these convicted murdererers were found innocent through the Justice system in the face of compelling evidence; not on their claims of innocence.

What evidence is there to prove that the killing was not intentional? There is plenty to the contrary which you ignore.

What thorough and transparent investigation has there been in the interests of justice?

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

what anymore than many others here using her death as publicity PR stunt....
that sickens me!!!!!!

This is a claim you continue to make. Please back it up or withdraw.

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

and thats my CT.. maybe these 4 eye witnesses are fabricated to push an alterior motive....

Doesn't deserve a response.

robtri wrote: »

its is this version you are pushing.....

I am not "pushing" any version, just giving the truth as I see it. Seems to me you are conditioned to view all and any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic even in the face of strong evidence that an unarmed human rights activist was murdered whilst protesting human rights abuses and illegal home demolitions of civilians by an occupying army.

robtri wrote: »

I dont know which individauls are anti Israeli.....
by definition, ANTI means against....
so to answer your question are Human Rights watch against Isreali methods?? then i think the answer is YES.... by definition they are...

Human Rights Watch are anti-Israeli? WTF man? You have just reduced the validity of that term when you use it to absolute zero now.

Love the choice of your term "methods" you can't even bring yourself to say anything negative about Israel.

Mission Statement:

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

The Bastards! :eek:

Why don't you explain to me simply why you think it wasn't intentional?

joesoap007

god bless her..she was a good person and everyone knows what happen to her.day light murder .PR stunt no just people trying open other peoples eyes ..PR stunts are bullsh1t acts .Rachel Corrie's death was not.again god bless her.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Doesn't deserve a response.


I am not "pushing" any version, just giving the truth as I see it. Seems to me you are conditioned to view all and any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic even in the face of strong evidence that an unarmed human rights activist was murdered whilst protesting human rights abuses and illegal home demolitions of civilians by an occupying army.



Human Rights Watch are anti-Israeli? WTF man? You have just reduced the validity of that term when you use it to absolute zero now.

Love the choice of your term "methods" you can't even bring yourself to say anything negative about Israel.



The Bastards! :eek:

Why don't you explain to me simply why you think it wasn't intentional?

Dude.. I am going to jump out of this now...

It is quite sickening how you brought this CT this forum... you didnt raise this as Ct you raised this as a PR stunt to publicise Rachels death and using her death to push your hatred towards Israel on others.

You have no intention of discussing this topic in a mture way... dismissing possible theories to her death...


As to the Human rights watch.... ask your self the question... are they against the attrocities Israel perform???
if you answer yes to that... you have to agree they are anti israeli...
by definition that is the case... so your original question on this was always biased towards this answer...
if i said no they wherent anti israeli.... now that would be a joke...



And for the record.... I appall the attroticites the israeli's have done... and support the palestinians...

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

Dude.. I am going to jump out of this now...

Do as you wish, but know you have not provided any counter-argument. All you have done is try turn morals on its head and blame the victim, smear the eye-witnesses of the gruesome killing, and make baseless accusations against me which you are unable to back up.

robtri wrote: »

It is quite sickening how you brought this CT this forum...

robtri wrote: »

you didnt raise this as Ct you raised this as a PR stunt to publicise Rachels death and using her death to push your hatred towards Israel on others.

More false assumptions which you are unable to back up. I have sticked to the facts, if you view the facts as somehow anti-Israeli that is your problem, which I hope is not irreversible.

You can't even tell me why you think what you think, other than Israel said so.

Yeah it must be hard to stomach to be presented by facts that are contrary to your entrenched POV and be unable to counter them.

robtri wrote: »

You have no intention of discussing this topic in a mture way... dismissing possible theories to her death...

I have tried, all you seem interested in doing is placing "anti-Isreal" labels on the facts and I.

robtri wrote: »

As to the Human rights watch.... ask your self the question... are they against the attrocities Israel perform???
if you answer yes to that... you have to agree they are anti israeli...
by definition that is the case... so your original question on this was always biased towards this answer...
if i said no they wherent anti israeli.... now that would be a joke...
And for the record.... I appall the attroticites the israeli's have done... and support the palestinians...

By your logic that makes you anti-Israeli along with almost every nation state in the world bar Australia, Israel, and the US.

You just don't seem to get it. Human Rights Orgs are by definition sympathethic to human rights abuses of all. Many Israeli Jews are against the illegal occupation and war crimes in Palestine, by your defintion they too are anti-Israeli. If they are critical of a states policies that absolutely does not mean they are opposed to nation as a whole. Stop trying to obfuscate.

studiorat

So does the premeditated aspect appply to the juristiction? Who knows?

I'd also like to join some others here and point out that there seems to be a certain amount of martyrdom involved with this girls case. And the OP seems to be ignoring this. Given that suicide bombers in the area are given the stature of martyrs and heros, is it any suprise that Rachel Corrie's case has become any different.

Yitzhak Rabin

In the grand scheme of things, I consider myself a supporter of Israel, for a myriad of reasons which I won't discuss here for fear of bringing this off topic.

However, this case seems pretty clear cut to me. What happened that day, based on the eye witness accounts and the photo taken moments after the incident, is indefensable. Even if the destruction was legal, and Corrie et al were interfering with military ops, it still in no way makes her death justifiable.

The bulldozers had military support with them, they knew there was protestors standing in the way. All they had to do was ask the military personnel to arrest them, and thus prevent this awful tragedy.

As I said, while I am a supporter of Israel but I have no problem in condemning there actions when they are wrong.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

So does the premeditated aspect appply to the juristiction? Who knows?

I don't know by premeditated if you mean had been planning on killing a peace activist for weeks or decided to murder her in a fit of rage moments before.

Morally it makes no difference at all. Legally, by international law it is also irrelevant what jurisdiction they were in. It was a "grave breach" (highest offence) offence as defined in the fourth Geneva Convention to which Israel is a member. The Geneva convention applies to occupied lands by Geneva Convention parties.


GC 1 Art. 50.
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

AP 1 Article 85 - Repression of breaches of this Protocol
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);
(d) making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack;
(e) making a person the object of attack in the knowledge that he is hors de combat;

(a) the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention;

(c) practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMGF9


Israel nearly had a clean a clean sweep of War Crime offences, most in Rafah in one day, March 16th 2003.

studiorat wrote: »

I'd also like to join some others here and point out that there seems to be a certain amount of martyrdom involved with this girls case. And the OP seems to be ignoring this.

I'm not ignoring it, its irrelevant to whether the IDF wilfully killed an American peace activist.

studiorat wrote: »

Given that suicide bombers in the area are given the stature of martyrs and heros, is it any suprise that Rachel Corrie's case has become any different.

So now you compare a suicide-bomber to an unarmed peace activist who died trying to prevent families homes being illegaly destroyed when the rest of the world turns a blind eye?

But again, it is completely irrelevant as to how the Palestinians or anyone else views her in the case of whether she was murdered.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have tried, all you seem interested in doing is placing "anti-Isreal" labels on the facts and I.

BB, I think its obvious why people have claimed you are anti-israel. You continuously claim you are not anti-israel but rather just anti human rights abuse. However, you haven't made a single thread about Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.etc. etc. Thats just in Africa.

You have probably started about 10-15 threads so far, and to my knowledge every single one of them has been about israel. You also seem to be able to bring any topic back around to Israel. There was a thread about an earthquake in Haiti, and you suggested the only reason the Israelis were there offering aid, was to either harvest organs or steal children.

Perhaps you are just interested in the middle east, and in that case why do you not raise issues about the human rights abuses in most(if not every) arab nation? You have never raised issues of palestinian abuses. What about 2 weeks ago when a British journalist was arrested and detained simply for defending and exonorating a person on trial for alleged spying for Israel. What about Hamas' butchering of the opposition party, after the election?...

So given that you often claim that it is just human rights violations you are against, yet every thread you start, and almost every post you make is exclusively attacking Israel, then yes I would have to say that it appears you are anti-israel.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

BB, I think its obvious why people have claimed you are anti-israel. You continuously claim you are not anti-israel but rather just anti human rights abuse. However, you haven't made a single thread about Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.etc. etc. Thats just in Africa.

I assume you are anti human right abuses too? If so, why haven't you started any such threads. Your going to second-guess my motivations ON WHAT I HAVEN'T DONE? :rolleyes:

yekahs wrote: »

You have probably started about 10-15 threads so far, and to my knowledge every single one of them has been about israel.

yekahs wrote: »

So given that you often claim that it is just human rights violations you are against, yet every thread you start, and almost every post you make is exclusively attacking Israel, then yes I would have to say that it appears you are anti-israel.

1. I am free to start whichever thread I like provided it is within the rules of the site and the forum exactly the same way you are.

2. These are the threads I have started:

Was Rachel Corrie Murdered (1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page)
Brown Bomber
911 Pentagon plane remote controlled? (1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page) Brown Bomber
Big Pharma Researcher Admits To Faking Research Studies (1 2)
Brown Bomber
Irish Media misrepresenting the facts
Brown Bomber
Iran Attack Imminent? (1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page)
Brown Bomber
CIA Attacks US Government (1 2)
Brown Bomber
Israel Assasinates Hamas Commander in Dubai (1 2)
Brown Bomber
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=10876194

So, lets see thats 2 of 7 on Israel specifically. Thats 13 less threads than you stated.

1. Crucially neither were "evil Jews" anti-semitic threads. One was an extra-judicial killing and the other posing the question of whether a US peace activist was intentionally killed by the IDF.

Please state specifically what is anti-Israeli about these two threads.

Looks like I exclusively start threads on Big Pharma, Irish Media, 9/11, Iran, Israel, and the CIA exsclusively. Oh, wait, thats not possible is it?

Edit: I just wanted to add this in because I came across a little snappy. I appreciate where you are coming from, bigotry is as vile to me as it is to you. However, your impression of me is simply wrong.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I assume you are anti human right abuses too? If so, why haven't you started any such threads. Your going to second-guess my motivations ON WHAT I HAVEN'T DONE? :rolleyes:

Yes, but I don't start threads on human rights abuse. If I were to start threads only on palestinian abuses and not israel and other states in the region, then you could justifiable say I seemed to be anti-palestine.

1. I am free to start whichever thread I like provided it is within the rules of the site and the forum exactly the same way you are.

I never said you weren't. I was just letting you know why people have said you appear to be anti-israel.

2. These are the threads I have started

Was Rachel Corrie Murdered:
Criticizing Israel

Irish Media misrepresenting the facts:
You believed they were misrepresenting facts about Israel(indicating that you believed there was a pro-israel conspiracy in the media) which they weren't

Iran Attack Imminent?:
Proposed Israel was going to attack Iran

CIA Attacks US Government:
Pointed out that the subject of the post had just returned from Israel....

Israel Assasinates Hamas Commander in Dubai:
In the title

Thats 5 out of 7

Pharma Researcher Admits To Faking Research Studies

Doctor in question was Jewish
I may be clutching at straws with this one, but hey this is a conspiracy forum

Edit: I just wanted to add this in because I came across a little snappy. I appreciate where you are coming from, bigotry is as vile to me as it is to you. However, your impression of me is simply wrong.

Not at all, I like your posts, they're always clear, logical, and backed up by links. I just happen to disagree with some of them(incidentally I don't disagree with the disgust you have for this particular Corrie incident)

I just wanted to point out why you come across as specifically anti-israel. Most of your posts have an israeli angle to them.

Obviously no-one can get into your head and know how you think, so you can only be judged on the posts you make. What did it for me, was the Haiti thread when you questioned Israels motives, suggesting they were there to harvest organs and snatch children for trafficking.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So now you compare a suicide-bomber to an unarmed peace activist who died trying to prevent families homes being illegaly destroyed when the rest of the world turns a blind eye?

No, the comparison is post post mortem.
Your moral posturing is getting quite tiresome at this stage. She was being made into a martyr for the cause. Same as suicide bombers are. Yassir Arafat put it, Corrie “is a martyr”, they never named that street after her though, I guess they moved on to the next hero.

She was working for the ISM ffs, who uphold the right to Palestinian Armed struggle. ISM despite what they may say are not "Peace" protestors. They openly embrace militants, even suicide bombers, as freedom fighters, they adopted the risky policy of "direct action" from the start. Willing human shields. They've hidden members of Islamist Jihad in their premises and as a result were evicted from their quarters by the Red Cross.

Read http://www.gush-shalom.org/diary/diary37.html ISM member diary, sleeping in the bed of a suicide bomber. And then someone's suprised if he's shot at? Even by accident?

The “infamous photo series” and the “megaphone photo was taken hours before Corrie’s death.” She had given it to a fellow militant and was kneeling, not standing in front of the bulldozer when she was killed.

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It would have to be behind her of course, out of shot.

Sorry but this picture that you posted




Does not match any of the explanations you have posted.

If the rumble pile was behind her, then she her self would be covered in said rubble.

studiorat

The photos are all pretty mixed up at this stage. ISM released pictures with inaccurate tags to Reuters. Some of which were taken 4 hours before the incident, with the bull horn and without the bull horn etc.

None of the photos at this stage can really give an idea of the events moments before her death.

According to fellow Evergreen State College student, Joseph Smith, 21, who was at the site, Corrie dropped her bullhorn and sat down in front of one of the bulldozers. She fully expected that the driver would stop just in front of her. "We were horribly surprised," Smith told me by phone from Rafah the day after the incident. "They had been careful not to hurt us. They'd always stopped before," he said.

As the dozer plowed forward heaping up a pile of dirt and sand, Corrie scrambled up the pile to sit on the top. Smith says she lost her footing as the bulldozer made the earth move beneath her feet. She got pulled down, he says. "The driver lost sight of her and continued forward. Then, without lifting the blade he reversed and Rachel was underneath the mid-section of the dozer, she wasn't run over by the tread."

Capt. Jacob Dellal of the IDF spokespersons office confirms what Smith says about the driver: he lost sight of Rachel. Inside the cab, some six feet off the ground, visibility is very restricted. The protesters should have known that and kept within the driver's line of sight to avoid getting hurt, Dellal asserts.

The strange thing about this part of the story is the discrepancy over the photos given to the press and posted on several pro-Arab websites.

As Smith describes to me his version of events, I ask about the series of photos printed in an Arab newspaper I picked up the morning after the incident, in Jerusalem's Old City. "They aren't of the actual incident," he states firmly. "We'd been there for three hours already, we were tired, we already had a lot of pictures."

Yet these are the pictures used on the ISM website to document the before and after of Rachel's interaction with the bulldozer. The same pictures are featured as a photo-essay on the site of Electronic Intifada, where they're even attributed to Joseph Smith.

There are several shots of the back of a woman with a blond ponytail facing a bulldozer. She's standing in an open field, wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, holding a megaphone.

Even Michael Shaik, the ISM media coordinator at the time, wouldn't confirm that these are pictures of Corrie taken the day she died. "I'm fairly sure they're of the incident," he tells me by phone from his Bethlehem office. In the same conversation, Shaik asks me not to contact Joe, Greg or Tom, the Rafah ISM eyewitnesses again directly: "They're still in trauma."

The pictures should have raised all kinds of questions to photo editors, but all the major newspapers and wire services chose to run the photos regardless. If there are pictures of Rachel before and after, why didn't the same photographer consider it important to document the act of the bulldozer running her down?

Where is the mound of earth Rachel clambered up and was buried in? The woman shown lying bleeding from her nose and mouth is lying on a flat piece of ground.

So, Corrie was either knocked down by the dozer, or fell in front of it. ISMers assume that she was intentionally run over, but there's no proof that was the driver's intent.
======================================
The real issue is, was Rachel alive when she was taken by Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance to Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital? In other words, where did she die? Were adequate efforts made to save her in the hospital?

Again, there are conflicting stories. Joseph Smith tells me in a telephone interview the day after the tragedy, "She died in the hospital or on the way to the hospital." CNN also reported that Rachel died there. (Israeli bulldozer runs over 23-year-old woman. CNN, Monday, March 17, 2003)

In his account posted on http://www.arabia.com, ISMer Tom Dale has a slightly different story. On March 17 he writes: "I ran for an ambulance, she was gasping and her face was covered in blood from a gash cutting her face from lip to cheek. She was showing signs of brain hemorrhaging. She died in the ambulance a few minutes later of massive internal injuries."

But Dr. Ali Mussa, director of Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital where Corrie was taken, seems confused. On the day of the event, Dr. Mussa tells AP Gaza reporter Ibrahim Barzak that Rachel died in the hospital. (American Killed in Gaza. AP. March 16, 2003)

Read more at: The ISM lied and RC died

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

No, the comparison is post post mortem.

And? I said you were comparing the two which you then deny and confirm in the same statement.

studiorat wrote: »

Your moral posturing is getting quite tiresome at this stage. She was being made into a martyr for the cause.

LOL. Yeah, you got that right. She was made a martyr by and occupying army literally crushing her to death. I'm not claiming her death wasn't abused but it has sweet **** all to do with her killing.

studiorat wrote: »

She was working for the ISM ffs, who uphold the right to Palestinian Armed struggle.

That is a really dishonest statement to make. You have twisted the facts to make it sound sinister, as if they are tied to the hip with gun-wielding Jihadis.

They support the right to legitimate armed struggle in the face a military occupation, not just in Palestine but anywhere in the world.

Do you not agree that Palestine should have equal rights to defend itself? Or should they be stripped of this right also?

studiorat wrote: »

ISM despite what they may say are not "Peace" protestors.

At the end of 2001 the situation in Palestine was escalating. A UN Security Council resolution called for the placement of unarmed human rights monitors in Palestine. Surprise, SUrprise the US vetoed the bill.

The result was a number of pacifist groups sent volunteers to monitor the situation themselves. Rachel Corrie was one of those volunteers. This is how she ended up in Rafah.

studiorat wrote: »

They openly embrace militants, even suicide bombers, as freedom fighters, they adopted the risky policy of "direct action" from the start. Willing human shields.

IF "They openly embrace militants , even suicide bombers, as freedom fighters" Then it should be easy for you to find some information clarifying this. A single quote from a memberwould satisfy me, otherwise is pure fabrication on your part.

Willing human-shields as a non-violent aproach to war crimes committed against civilians. How can they sleep at night? :rolleyes:

studiorat wrote: »

They've hidden members of Islamist Jihad in their premises and as a result were evicted from their quarters by the Red Cross.

Both parties stated that Sukiya arrived at the ISM's office as he was being pursued through the streets of Jenin by IDF soldiers during an Israeli-imposed curfew. According to the ISM's account, he had being going door to door looking for a place to go, arrived at the building (which is also used by the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres) cold and wet, and was offered a chance to dry and warm up by an ISM volunteer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Solidarity_Movement

As for the Red Cross "eviction" please back this up as I suspect it is another fabrication

studiorat wrote: »

Read http://www.gush-shalom.org/diary/diary37.html ISM member diary, sleeping in the bed of a suicide bomber. And then someone's suprised if he's shot at?

LOL. I did read it, but I really wonder if you did past the sensationalist headline.

The reason I sleep here is that she (bombers wife) has fled the house, along with most of the family. Out of a total of ten family members, only Amer?s parents are here, along with me and other members of the International Solidarity Movement

Furthermore, his mother and father consider suicide bombings to be immoral. They are deeply devout muslims, but are among the vast majority who believe that any form of suicide is against Islam. They spend much of their time reading the Koran and praying. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, they are quite liberal by local standards, and highly tolerant.

Suicide attacks against innocent noncombatants are also a war crime, and Amer?s family is right to condemn them.

studiorat wrote: »

And then someone's suprised if he's shot at?

"Suprised" as in deserved or warranted. You've show your true colours with this statement. Advocating death and violence against a family that have done no wrong.

studiorat wrote: »

The “infamous photo series” and the “megaphone photo was taken hours before Corrie’s death.” She had given it to a fellow militant and was kneeling, not standing in front of the bulldozer when she was killed.

"Militant"? Thats a disgraceful term to attribute to an unarmed, peaceful protestor, disgusting really. FYI she is called a "foriegn peace activist" by Human Rights Watch.

Actually she crouched not kneeling when the D9 was 20 Metres away. She was wearing a high-vis jacket.

This is from the official Caterpillar site:

7) Wide Panoramic View

The operator station offers an exceptional viewing area. A large view hole in the single-shank ripper frame provides a view of the ripper tip. The tapered hood, notched fuel tank and narrow single-shank ripper carriage give the operator a clear line of sight to the front and rear work areas. The large single-pane door windows provide an excellent view to the sides and blade.
http://www.cat.com/cmms/13873485?x=7

I'll let you do the maths.

PirateShampoo

So why didnt she move?

Its not like these things are fast.

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

At the end of 2001 the situation in Palestine was escalating. A UN Security Council resolution called for the placement of unarmed human rights monitors in Palestine. Surprise, SUrprise the US vetoed the bill.

The result was a number of pacifist groups sent volunteers to monitor the situation themselves. Rachel Corrie was one of those volunteers. This is how she ended up in Rafah.

So the way to monitor a situation is to stand in front of a digger with a mega phone?

Thats not monitoring thats actively taking part in the disruption of the operation.

Just want to add, thats the 3/4 version of events you have posted.

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So why didnt she move?

This is getting depressing. Have you read any of the links?

She was crouching in her high-vis fluorescent jacket 20 Metres from the bulldozer between the pharmacists home they were trying to destroy and the bulldozer.

It is impossible it didn't see her from that distance.

The bulldozer continued towards her with the blade down. Gathering debris the whole time, which was accumulating as it approached here.

When it was a few metres away (and still moving) Rachel Corrie raised from her crouched position and climbed and stood atop the pile. She was standing higher than the blade at this point. This is another point where it is indisputable that he would have seen her.

The driver didn't change pace and continued forward with Corrie on top of the mound.

She tried to get down but fell instead. The bulldozer continued.

The oncoming pile came down on the fallen Corrie, trapping her underneath. The driver continued on.

With blade down the driver drove over her, destroying her, realised what he had done (according to your video, if you can call it a video) and reversed back over her again still with the blade down.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its not like these things are fast.

Exactly. All the more opportunity to see her from 20 metres away on flat ground.

studiorat

The ISM's website describes the organization as a "Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles." It emphasizes international volunteers are not there to "teach nonviolent resistance" but to support resistance through nonviolent direct action, emergency mobilization and documentation.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And? I said you were comparing the two which you then deny and confirm in the same statement.

You really can't see too well from that high horse. I compaired them post mortem. How they are seen by the militant pro Palestenian media. Both are called heros and martyrs.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you not agree that Palestine should have equal rights to defend itself? Or should they be stripped of this right also?

From BBC...

Development of Qassam technology (named after the early 20th-Century Islamist preacher Izzedine al-Qassam) has been spearheaded by Hamas since the outbreak of the current intifada in 2000 to use against Israeli civilians and retaliate for deadly incursions and assassinations of its militants.

Funny nobody seems to be talking about Israels right to defend itself. The ISM see Palestine as a country that encompases the whole of Israel. As they saying goes from "River to Sea, Palestine will be free" geddit? They want Peace alright, without Israel.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

IF "They openly embrace militants , even suicide bombers, as freedom fighters" Then it should be easy for you to find some information clarifying this. A single quote from a memberwould satisfy me, otherwise is pure fabrication on your part.

ISM spokesman Raphael Cohen was interviewed in May 2003. In the interview he admits that, on April 25, 2003, he hosted a group of 15 people at his apartment. Included in that group were Asif Mohammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, British nationals. They subsequently participated in various activities planned by the ISM. Five days later, the two carried out a suicide bombing in a popular pub next to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that is frequented by Embassy personnel. Hanif and Sharif entered Israel under the guise of "peace activists"

An ISM press release dated July 2, 2003 announced a demonstration to block construction of Israel's security fence (which ISM calls an "apartheid wall"), and invited participants to "Join the ISM, the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces and the Apartheid Wall Defense Committee" in these efforts to disrupt the fence's construction

In the spring of 2002 about 40 senior terrorists wanted by Israel took refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where IDF soldiers had them under siege. About a dozen ISM members snuck past Israeli troops and entered the church to give support to the terrorists. The ISM published on its own web site an account by the Guardian containing a proud proclamation that these ISM members were to act as "human shields."

Willing human-shields as a non-violent aproach to war crimes committed against civilians. How can they sleep at night? :rolleyes:

You don't realise the one-sidedness of your argument. It goes both ways. They are human shields for Palestinian soilders/terrorists whatever you want to call them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As for the Red Cross "eviction" please back this up as I suspect it is another fabrication

Sukiya, was "senior militant" (sic) who'd sent four suicide attackers into Israel. ISM insists he was an innocent, terrified teenager who'd asked for refuge during an Israeli sweep. But following the incident, the International Committee for the Red Cross, which occupies an office in the same compound, asked the ISM to leave the premises

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"Suprised" as in deserved or warranted. You've show your true colours with this statement. Advocating death and violence against a family that have done no wrong.

True colours? I doubt you have the facility to figure out my "true colours" considering how badly you misunderstand what the ISM are about. But for the record I would advocate a "Two State Solution".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"Militant"? Thats a disgraceful term to attribute to an unarmed, peaceful protestor, disgusting really. FYI she is called a "foriegn peace activist" by Human Rights Watch.

Yes Militant, as in vigoursly active. It's unbelievable the way you twist people words and feint indignation to serve your self percieved moral authority. You've never heard of Militant Tendancy? No?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is from the official Caterpillar site:

7) Wide Panoramic View

The operator station offers an exceptional viewing area. A large view hole in the single-shank ripper frame provides a view of the ripper tip. The tapered hood, notched fuel tank and narrow single-shank ripper carriage give the operator a clear line of sight to the front and rear work areas. The large single-pane door windows provide an excellent view to the sides and blade.
http://www.cat.com/cmms/13873485?x=7

I'll let you do the maths.

Do the maths... :rolleyes: Cop on. The official Caterpillar site doesn't say very much about the bullet proof screens and shielding does it.

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So the way to monitor a situation is to stand in front of a digger with a mega phone?

Thats not monitoring thats actively taking part in the disruption of the operation. .

An illegal operation, a war crime no less. Do you object to the peaceful disruption of war crimes?

J

PirateShampoo wrote: »

ust want to add, thats the 3/4 version of events you have posted.

Feel free to add the other 25%. I am curious to know what you mean.

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting depressing. Have you read any of the links?

She was crouching in her high-vis fluorescent jacket 20 Metres from the bulldozer between the pharmacists home they were trying to destroy and the bulldozer.

It is impossible it didn't see her from that distance.

The bulldozer continued towards her with the blade down. Gathering debris the whole time, which was accumulating as it approached here.

When it was a few metres away (and still moving) Rachel Corrie raised from her crouched position and climbed and stood atop the pile. She was standing higher than the blade at this point. This is another point where it is indisputable that he would have seen her.

The driver didn't change pace and continued forward with Corrie on top of the mound.

She tried to get down but fell instead. The bulldozer continued.

The oncoming pile came down on the fallen Corrie, trapping her underneath. The driver continued on.

With blade down the driver drove over her, destroying her, realised what he had done (according to your video, if you can call it a video) and reversed back over her again still with the blade down.





Exactly. All the more opportunity to see her from 20 metres away on flat ground.

Did she get up, clean all the rubble off her self and lie back down again?

Because for that explination the blade must of pushed the rubble over her as well.

I mean come on, even in top gear it only goes 7mph, its not like she was caught unaware. The more i read about it the more it seems it just was a tradgic accident, which certain people are trying to twist to further there own means.

Its funny that with all the cameras they had, that theres no actually pictures or videos of the accident happening. Or they just havent published them?

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

An illegal operation, a war crime no less. Do you object to the peaceful disruption of war crimes?

J

Feel free to add the other 25%. I am curious to know what you mean.

Meant 3rd or 4th version sorry.

studiorat

Considering no one knows whether she died on the site, in the ambulance or in the hospital. I guess another inquest is needed, to really find out what happened we certainly can't rely on Israel's official reportage or ISM's for that matter.

Brown Bomber

All you seem to have are lies from some zionist hack.

studiorat wrote: »

ISM spokesman Raphael Cohen was interviewed in May 2003. In the interview he admits that, on April 25, 2003, he hosted a group of 15 people at his apartment. Included in that group were Asif Mohammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, British nationals. They subsequently participated in various activities planned by the ISM. Five days later, the two carried out a suicide bombing in a popular pub next to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that is frequented by Embassy personnel. Hanif and Sharif entered Israel under the guise of "peace activists"

A peace activist today accepted £30,000 libel damages and an apology at the high court over false claims made in the Jewish Chronicle that he had harboured two suicide bombers.


Raphael Cohen instigated legal proceedings against the weekly newspaper after it published a letter in November 2008 alleging he had sheltered the bombers five days before they blew up a Tel Aviv bar.


Cohen's solicitor, Stephen Loughrey, told Justice Eady the letter suggested that his client was knowingly involved in the "atrocious crime" that occurred in April 2003, when three people were killed and 50 injured.
Loughrey added that Cohen, who is a British citizen currently working as a lexicographer in Cairo, did not "harbour" the bombers.

The Jewish Chronicle, Loughrey said, now accepted the allegations were false and should never have been published.


A British passport holder, Asif Mohammed Hanif, died in the attack on Mike's Place on the Tel Aviv waterfront in April 2003. His accomplice, another British national, Omar Khan Sharif, escaped the scene but was found dead in the sea days later.


Loughrey admitted that Cohen had met the pair briefly by chance at a memorial ceremony held five days before the bombing. However, he added that his client did not know them and certainly had no idea, or grounds to suspect, that they planned such an attack.


The Jewish Chronicle apologised for the distress and embarrassment caused and agreed to pay Cohen undisclosed damages and legal costs.
Solicitor Lindsay Hodgkinson, acting on behalf of the Jewish Chronicle, said it welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight.


Cohen is donating a substantial proportion of the damages to charities providing humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/03/jewish-chronicle-libel-damages-peace-activist-raphael-cohen

So are you going to apologise too for the false claim?

studiorat wrote: »

An ISM press release dated July 2, 2003 announced a demonstration to block construction of Israel's security fence (which ISM calls an "apartheid wall"), and invited participants to "Join the ISM, the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces and the Apartheid Wall Defense Committee" in these efforts to disrupt the fence's construction

This gets better. The World Court ruled on that wall

by a 14-1 vote the judges found the barrier, along its planned route, “gravely infringes” on the rights of Palestinians and cannot be justified by military needs or national security, and violates international law. The lone dissenter was U.S. judge Thomas Buerghenthal.

This is another attempt to turn morals on its head. They were calling for volunteers to non-violently protest the contruction of a wall in occupied territory that "gravely infringes" on the rights of Palestinians.

studiorat wrote: »

In the spring of 2002 about 40 senior terrorists wanted by Israel took refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where IDF soldiers had them under siege. About a dozen ISM members snuck past Israeli troops and entered the church to give support to the terrorists. The ISM published on its own web site an account by the Guardian containing a proud proclamation that these ISM members were to act as "human shields."

I bet you got all this crap from the same article. It is more twisting of the truth.

Anton Salman, a member of the Antonius Society, a humanitarian group in Bethlehem, talked with CNN anchor Daryn Kagan about the situation Wednesday. - http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/03/salman.cnna/

SALMAN: I have been inside the Church of the Nativity since [Tuesday] night.
KAGAN: How did you end up inside the church?
SALMAN: In the afternoon, when the people entered the church, there were many rumors around Bethlehem that ... there were problems inside the church. The governor asked me to come with him to the church to see what is going on ... to solve the problem, if there were any problems.
KAGAN: How many people are inside the church?
SALMAN: It's around 200.
KAGAN: Are we talking men, women, children?























Yes, mostly men.
KAGAN: Are they Palestinian gunmen?
SALMAN: They are from the Palestinian police (Civilians) and ... mostly from the Palestinian Authority police, who ran away to the Church of the Nativity to implore protection inside the church after [unintelligible] was bombed and shot at by Israeli tanks and soldiers.
And they saw their mosque, Umar, which is across from the Church of the Nativity, bombed. They were afraid, and they looked for a place to be secure. So they found the only way; they ran to the church and found a place to stay.

studiorat wrote: »

You don't realise the one-sidedness of your argument. It goes both ways. They are human shields for Palestinian soilders/terrorists whatever you want to call them.

I'd want to call them people actually, and as we have seen mostly civilian people who had to flee their homes for their lives. There were 40 Monks and other Christians there too. The bell-ringer was killed by an Israeli sniper for example. Only a handful of guns were found in the church afterwards, Only 13 Palestinians were on Israel's wanted list and these were deported. Another example of collective punishment.

studiorat wrote: »

Sukiya, was "senior militant" (sic) who'd sent four suicide attackers into Israel. ISM insists he was an innocent, terrified teenager who'd asked for refuge during an Israeli sweep. But following the incident, the International Committee for the Red Cross, which occupies an office in the same compound, asked the ISM to leave the premises

In a press release this is what they claimed happened; and since there was a total of zero arrests I would be inclined to agree.

One of the volunteers went into the hallway to see what was happening and met a young man coming up the stairs. He looked terrified, was soaking wet and appeared to be in pain. Concerned about his welfare—under Israeli military curfew, Palestinians spotted in the streets are shot on site—he was brought into the apartment. He spoke only Arabic, which none of the ISM volunteers present understood. He was given a change of clothes, a hot drink and a blanket… Eventually the military knocked on the ISM door and 30 soldiers entered with their machine guns trained. They arrested the young man, claiming he was “wanted.” The two women were not able to prevent the soldiers from taking the young man, whose name they did not even know, but requested that he be treated humanely.

You still have haven't given a source for the Red Cross eviction, therefore it is still a fabrication as far as I am concerned, unless you can prove otherwise?

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All you seem to have are lies from some zionist hack.

Quote CNN one minute and tell us they are illumaniti the next. whatever....

it's your soap box you're welcome to it