peacepalestine

Who killed Rachel Corrie?

Or did she actually commit suicide? There are rumors to the affect that she was pregnant by a married Palestinian. Did she risk death to prove to her man that he should leave his wife for her?

Posted: March 25, 20031:00 a.m.
Rachel Corrie, the Olympia, Wash., college student killed trying to protect a Palestinian house – a house, remember, not even a human being – against an Israeli bulldozer, will probably not merit a footnote in history books. That's too bad, because her life and death, the way she has been portrayed in some media, and the reactions of her college are powerful examples of an America with many morally confused individuals.
A Seattle Times columnist described her as a martyr. Her hometown paper, the Olympian, published numerous pictures of a sweet-looking woman from childhood on. It omitted the one photo of Rachel Corrie that USA Today, to its credit, published – Corrie screaming anti-American invective while burning an American flag in Gaza.
Anyone with a heart must extend the deepest condolences to Rachel Corrie's parents. But anyone with a conscience must regard Rachel Corrie's activities with contempt. One hopes that it is not asking too much of people to entertain simultaneously two conflicting emotions – grief for the parents and contempt for the daughter.
Rachel Corrie chose to side with a society that breeds some of the cruelest murderers of innocent people in the world. Rachel Corrie gave her life trying to protect people whose declared aim is to annihilate another country. In the name of saving children's lives, Rachel Corrie chose to defend a society that teaches its young children to blow themselves up and which deliberately targets children for death. And Rachel Corrie went to America's enemies to burn her country's flag.
She was one of the many fools our colleges annually produce. Evergreen State College is reputed to excel in such production. Is anyone aware of a single student or faculty member who repudiated her activities?
We are told repeatedly that Rachel was idealistic – as if that matters. Virtually every person who commits great evil – the Nazi, the communist, the Islamic terrorist – is idealistic. Idealism is morally neutral. It is good only when directed to good ends. But in young people, idealism is at least as likely to lead to bad as to good because few young people are wise – and idealism without wisdom is very dangerous.
We are told ad nauseam that Rachel Corrie was a "peace activist." So let it be said once and for all that most of these people are moral frauds. Why? Because "peace activists" routinely protest only against peaceful countries. Has there been one Evergreen State or other "peace activist" in Sudan during its Islamic government's slaughter and enslavement of millions of blacks? Are there any "peace activists" in Tibet to protect its unique culture from being eradicated by the Communist Chinese? Did you notice any "peace activists" trying to save the millions of North Koreans dying at the hands of their lunatic government? Of course not. Rachel Corrie and other "peace activists" only target peace-loving Israel and America.
Why do they do so?
Here is one answer.
The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism.
So, what's an idealist to do if she refuses to confront real evil but wants to feel good about herself? Ironically, confront those who fight real evil. That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism or North Korean gulags. Instead, they focus their animosity at the countries that confront these evils – the United States and Israel.
So, Olympia, grieve for Rachel Corrie's parents, but spare us the hagiography. Rachel Corrie died fighting for the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian group dedicated – in its own words – to "armed struggle" against Israel. She ended up being a useful idiot for, and one more victim of, Palestinian terror.

peacepalestine

Who killed Rachel Corrie?

Or did she actually commit suicide? There are rumors to the affect that she was pregnant by a married Palestinian. Did she risk death to prove to her man that he should leave his wife for her?

Posted: March 25, 20031:00 a.m. EasternBook Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times">
Rachel Corrie, the Olympia, Wash., college student killed trying to protect a Palestinian house – a house, remember, not even a human being – against an Israeli bulldozer, will probably not merit a footnote in history books. That's too bad, because her life and death, the way she has been portrayed in some media, and the reactions of her college are powerful examples of an America with many morally confused individuals.
A Seattle Times columnist described her as a martyr. Her hometown paper, the Olympian, published numerous pictures of a sweet-looking woman from childhood on. It omitted the one photo of Rachel Corrie that USA Today, to its credit, published – Corrie screaming anti-American invective while burning an American flag in Gaza.
Anyone with a heart must extend the deepest condolences to Rachel Corrie's parents. But anyone with a conscience must regard Rachel Corrie's activities with contempt. One hopes that it is not asking too much of people to entertain simultaneously two conflicting emotions – grief for the parents and contempt for the daughter.
Rachel Corrie chose to side with a society that breeds some of the cruelest murderers of innocent people in the world. Rachel Corrie gave her life trying to protect people whose declared aim is to annihilate another country. In the name of saving children's lives, Rachel Corrie chose to defend a society that teaches its young children to blow themselves up and which deliberately targets children for death. And Rachel Corrie went to America's enemies to burn her country's flag.
She was one of the many fools our colleges annually produce. Evergreen State College is reputed to excel in such production. Is anyone aware of a single student or faculty member who repudiated her activities?
We are told repeatedly that Rachel was idealistic – as if that matters. Virtually every person who commits great evil – the Nazi, the communist, the Islamic terrorist – is idealistic. Idealism is morally neutral. It is good only when directed to good ends. But in young people, idealism is at least as likely to lead to bad as to good because few young people are wise – and idealism without wisdom is very dangerous.
We are told ad nauseam that Rachel Corrie was a "peace activist." So let it be said once and for all that most of these people are moral frauds. Why? Because "peace activists" routinely protest only against peaceful countries. Has there been one Evergreen State or other "peace activist" in Sudan during its Islamic government's slaughter and enslavement of millions of blacks? Are there any "peace activists" in Tibet to protect its unique culture from being eradicated by the Communist Chinese? Did you notice any "peace activists" trying to save the millions of North Koreans dying at the hands of their lunatic government? Of course not. Rachel Corrie and other "peace activists" only target peace-loving Israel and America.
Why do they do so?
Here is one answer.
The world is filled with evil, and young idealists like Rachel Corrie don't like it. Which is lovely. But they don't confront real evil because they know they will get hurt. That's one reason there are no "peace activists" or "human shields" confronting Islamic terror, North Korean totalitarianism, or Chinese Communist despotism.
So, what's an idealist to do if she refuses to confront real evil but wants to feel good about herself? Ironically, confront those who fight real evil. That's why Rachel Corrie and the millions marching to protect Saddam Hussein's Iraq have never uttered a peep against Palestinian terror, Iraqi totalitarianism or North Korean gulags. Instead, they focus their animosity at the countries that confront these evils – the United States and Israel.
So, Olympia, grieve for Rachel Corrie's parents, but spare us the hagiography. Rachel Corrie died fighting for the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian group dedicated – in its own words – to "armed struggle" against Israel. She ended up being a useful idiot for, and one more victim of, Palestinian terror.

umkahlil

umkahlil: "Abed El-Fatah climbed over the Apartheid Wall in order to get to Al-Makkassed Hospital in Jerusalem for his open-heart surgery. The Israelis, who control every aspect of Palestinians’ lives, denied him a permit to go to the hospital."

This is a riot! A man who needed 'open-heart surgery' had the ability to scale a 25-foot wall? And who paid for the surgery? Perhaps he didn't need the surgery? Perhaps he just had a nose job?

Red Tulips tells the truth about Corrie!

: "Summing up why those who support the Palestinians are actually the Palestinians' worst enemy
I wrote this on Twosret's blog, but I fear she will delete it, and hence, I am pasting it here. I know much of this is repetitive, but I feel this all cannot be said enough. (here is a link to the blog which will not add to the number of people who link to twosret: (http://cheztwosret.blogspot.com/)

It started out as a follow up to my Rachel Corrie post. I wrote the following:

ISM absolutely is committed to the destruction of Israel by any means necessary, including terrorism. Rachel Corrie was a member of this organization.

This is a picture of Rachel Corrie that rarely gets distributed by the press.


The ISM absolutely is a pro-terrorist, anti-peace, pro-jihadist organization.
See the proof here and here.
It is clear as day for the world to see that Rachel Corrie and the ISM advocated terrorism. Twosret's support of these organizations shows she too supports terrorism.

---------------
Twosret replied with the following:
Redtulips,
Let me just point out one thing seriously wrong with Israel political structure and why we call it a terrorist, Invader, aggressor state.
When someone objects peacefully a military bulldozer in civil countries they get arrested, In Israel they get crushed under the bulldozer blade. This is how Israel started as a state. Their terrorists built it and their younger terrorist generation (including rapists, "corrupt judges etc...) is ruling it. The streets of Israel are named after terrorists that killed British envoy and they claim them heros.

Crushing someone with a bulldozer is a criminal act and a horrifying, cold blood murder. I'm sure this bulldozer killed many others and we never got to hear about them because they are not American.

The current Administration should call it an act of war on Israel. Isn't Rachel Corrie an American citizen?, after all Rachel Corrie is a citizen not a soldier like Jilad and the other Prisoners of war that they are still alive.

Rachel Corrie was never a terrorist nor she was pro-Jihadi. You need to pick new terms.
Since you justify a murder next time you hear of a sucicide bomber killing innocents you should praise him because you are advocating for violence and the killings of innocent people.
Do you understand now why the owner of this blog is not a pro-terrorism and you are? Do you understand now why you promote hate and murder?
I doubt it!12:25 PM

Twosret said...If Red tulips is an American citizen she should be on trial for treason.
--------------------
I replied to this with the following:Let me add that Rachel Corrie was not "murdered." She purposely stood in front of a bulldozer, in its blind spot. She purposely decided to die. That was her CHOICE.Anyone who stands for Hamas and the Palestinian 'cause' stands for genocide. It is written right in the Hamas charter that they seek to elliminate Israel off the face of the earth (in its entirety), and it quotes from the Protocols of Zion.This goes beyond Israel and America. Yes, Hamas has cells in the US, and yes, it is also linked to anti-US terror. So yes, supporting the Palestinian 'cause' is anti-American for that reason alone. But there is more to this.

Standing with this 'cause' means standing against all that is good and decent in the world. It means standing for genocide. It means standing for the degradation of women's rights. It means standing against minorities (as the Palestinians horribly mistreat minorities within the Territories - a dirty little secret). It means standing against gay people (who flee the Territories to live under house arrest in Israel). It means standing for Islamofascist hatred. That is what standing for the Palestinian 'cause' as defined by Hamas/Fatah/PRC/Islamic Jihad define it.

In contrast, I actually stand for Palestinian rights. I believe that the only way for peace is for them to give up terror and make a real pledge towards cooperation and egalitarianism. If the Palestinians hope to have a state, and one worth living in, they have to get their act together. Israel will NOT give up the territories at this point unless Olmert decides to be suicidally incompetant. Why? Because the Palestinian terrorism ensures they are too much of a threat to be given a state. I do not pander to the worst, most base instincts of the Palestinians. And in that way, I am pro-Palestinian, and you, Rachel Corrie, and her ilk, are the most virulently anti-Palestinian people out there.

Rachel Corrie died for her sins!

Rachel Corrie died for her sins!
Will the real Rachel Corrie stand up?

Shortly after her death, columnist Dennis Prager wrote to Corrie's native Washingtonian parents: "So, Olympia, grieve for Rachel Corrie's parents, but spare us the hagiography. Rachel Corrie died fighting for . . . a Palestinian group dedicated, in its own words, to "armed struggle" against Israel. She ended up being a useful idiot for, and one more victim of, Palestinian terror." Nothing could sum things up better.

Rachel's Words start off with lies.

They have a "Myth and Fact" sheet on the website.

The only problem is that they were already posting misinformation everywhere.

They say that Rachel died trying to prevent a bulldoer from destroying the house of a drug dealer while he was still in the house. yet the source they use is that he was a doctor. What was he? A pusher or proscriber?

If they can't even get that simple fact straight, why should we believe anything they post?

From http://www.rachelswords.org/2006/10/14/rachel-corrie-myths-and-facts/
Rachel was standing in front of the home of friends - pharmacist Samir Nasrallah

But from their source: http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1866&CategoryId=23
Peace activist Rachel Corrie, 23, is a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. She died Sunday, March 16, 2003, in the southern Gaza city of Rafah while trying to stop an Israeli bulldozer from tearing down a Palestinian physician's home.

Which was it? Pharmacist or physician? As the only witnesses for Corrie's antisemitic side are the 7 Palestinian Solidarity members, and we know what their agenda is, then there were no objective witnesses. And we know what kind of liars the 7 are.