The Murder of Rachel Corrie: a American Insider Perspective

 Opinion, Rachel Corrie Was Murdered, after viewing the videos and the documentation, I have no choice but to render Judgement against the Israel Solder for Murdering Rachel Corrie. Rachel Corrie was a 23-year-old American peace activist from Olympia, Washington, who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer on 16 March 2003.

 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Rachel+Corrie

 

Gaza: The Killing Zone (Documentary)- YouTube

Views: 117

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

War is a mess... terrorism is worse than conventional war, as it focuses on  civilians as its victims... Arab Terrorist deliberately target civilians... Israel's miliary doesn't deliberately target non-combatants...

However, collateral damage is always a serious problem when the Arabs choose to use schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, and markets, as their FAVORITE TARGETS.  Arabs select where the violence occurs... they use civilians as human shields and to leverage in their propaganda campaign, by portraying  Arabs as victims of Israelis violence.

The young British civilian caught in the midst of a fire fight... was definety shoot in the head... but b whom... the calim it was an Israelis sniper is BS... they don't know who shot this idiot.  It is very possible it was an Arab... bullets don't discriminate.  British citizens who unlawfully engage in activities exposing them to combat can expect to be injured or killed... that is the nature of combat.

This entire video speaks of tragedy... SELF-INFLICTED tragedy... on the part of Rachel and the civilians caught in the ARAB's web of deciet and criminal terrorist activity... The car bombs, the sucicide bombers,, the random violence using firearms and knives, the constant use of civilians as cover for the Terrorist is appaling ... albiet, the progenators are the very ARABS complaining about the civilian casualties.  

Was Rachel drug from her home in America, placed in front of the Dozer by an Israelis soldier and was she tied down so she couldn't leave... vacate the area? No... she committed suicide by Dozer.

The commentary made by the male ... peace activist... is purely subjective. He was not in the Cab with the Dozer Operator, and the angel of sight from inside the cab of the Dozer may have precluded him seeing her... we don't know. We do know that Rachel voluntarily stood in front of the Dozer.. and paid the price for her illegal activity.

The lesson here is you don't interfer with military operations in a combat zone... or stand in front of Dozers, without risking ones life... She died from the results of her own actions not the Dozer Operators. The left would tell us that it was murder... She was in fact a casualty of war. Rachel engaged in direct criminal activity in a war zone an died. She should have stayed in the US... no one forced her to engage in criminal and highly risky activity.

The Arabs continue to attack Israel using missiles and rockets... Is the shrapnel from these illegal Arab weapons any different than Israelis shrapnel?  No. People are shot every day for carrying weapons, refusing to obey restricted zones, and otherwise engaging in unlawful activities. I would also warn that the Arabs are not above killing their own people as a ruse... it has been part of their propaganda campaign of terror.

Houses are bulldozed only after repeated warnings to halt the assaults on Israel from those homes and neighborhoods. The Arabs can and should police their own too ensure that rockets and small arms fire are not used from these buildings.

 Well, Ronald, opinions differ on this issue....

Wrong... facts are not opinions... Rachel was not compeled by Israel to enter a combat zone or to stand in front of a Military Dozer operating in a combat zone... Those are facts not opinions.  Fact, Raschel could have left, at any time, she was not tied down. Fact.  Rachel committed suicide by Dozer... She was there illegally, of her own free will. Sorry, those are facts.

An Israeli sniper admits to shooting someone... wearing camoflage fatigues and carrying a weapon... Was the young Britian in camoflage? Was he carrying a rifle?  I don't know... if he wasn't, then the Israeli sniper did not shoot him.  If he was he was a ligitimate military target.  As stated in an earlier post... Arabs stage events to involve civilians, they also murder their own, as they wage a perverted propaganda war too gain sympothy from idiots who refuse to review the facts... 

Arabs use hospitals, ambulances, residential homes, shcools and other civilian areas to engage in combat... Israelis don't.  Arabs target civilians in their terrorist campaigns and then cry fowl when civilians are injured or killed.  This is a well know tactic... So, stop with the BS, and read between the lines... Judge based on the facts, not some Arab or communist propaganda piece. 

The video is pure propaganda... Rachel was a victim of her own actions.  The young British subject was a victim of his own actions... and probably died from an Arab sniper as part of their propaganda campaign ... to gain misplaced sympothy.

You are an intellectual giant in your own mind... the problem is that the rest of the world see you for what you are:  one more troubled soul, waiving a Nazi Flag and screaming the JEWS ARE COMING, TH E JEWS ARE COMING... Oh, and before I forget, burn down the banks 

Oh, by the way Ronald, Why is there over 100 Muslim Synagogues in Israel: https://mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/Israel60/ch6.pdf

Because Israel is a democratic and pluralistic society... Isalm is not and in fact is the antithisis of liberty and democracy. 

 Well Ronald, even President Trump is Laughing His Butt Off...over that statement...:)

What statement... be specific at least as specific as you can.  It is often difficult to follow your arcane and arbitrary reasoning... or logic.

 opinions vary...:)

Exactly.. Fact: Israel permits religious pluralism by law.  Fact, Islam doesn't permit religious pluralism. Fact, Israel is a Constitutional Democracy; Islam is governed as an Islamic theocracy.

Fact, there are no Synagogues in any of the 57 Islamic States.  Fact, there are no public Christian Churches in the Islamic States... limited residential and private worship is permitted in a few of the Islamic States... but you will find no Catholic Cathedrals or Lutheran Churches. 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service