You mega hypocrite! Just a few days ago, a US teenager was blown up to bits in Haifa by an Arab homicide bomber - you had nothing to say about that.

Today, we have news that this Corrie woman essentially committed suicide in a manner most reckless (she had the time, you see, since she was not busy burning US flags, as shown by an AP photograph), and here you are using that tragic incident of an adult woman with no brains or responsibility to defame our sister-democracy, Israel.

Shame on you!

What hypocrisy? The news is filled every few days condemning the murders by Hamas. I condemn Hamas and the suicide bombers. I oppose giving them money. There are murders around the world every day, but most of them are not happening on the US taxpayers dime.

But Sharon's government is getting billions of dollars from the US taxpayer to pay for these bombs and bulldozers and other implements of oppression.

I think every Hamas leader promoting murder of civilians should be in jail.

Do you agree that the same treatment should be given to Sharon and the present Israeli leadership?

If not, the only hypocrisy is on your side.

Response to Dr Newman:

First, see our Rachel burning a US falg at

http://www.honestreporting.com/graphics/articles/corrie.jpg
and
http://israpundit.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_israpundit_archive.html#90864262

To earn my sympathy, one has to come with clean hands, not Rachel's hands.

Second, your question,

"Do you agree that the same treatment should be given to Sharon and the present Israeli leadership?"

is equivalent to ""Do you agree that the same treatment should be given to Adolph Hitler and the present UK/US leadership?" My answer, brother Nathan, is NO. And that is one problem with today's Left (and the reason I abandoned it after decades of support): the inability to distinguish between good and evil, using the trite, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter".

The reason I support Bush, who is about to liberate Iraq, is his ability to distinguish between good and evil AND his ability to act against evil.

But I am wasting my time on you. My time would be better used promoting the liberation of Lebanon from Syria, the liberation of Tibet from China and promoting our sister-democracy, Israel. None of these find their place in your blog. Hence good bye.

Whew, I guess he told you!

For my part, I think Nathan's an okay guy, even though I disagree with him in a couple areas. I appreciate the fact that Nathan is open to dissent, and I find his perspective valuable and refreshing.

I hereby promise (a) to post less and not try to hijack Nathan's blog, and (b) to be unfailingly neighborly in the expression of my opinions.

I think Joseph comes from the Lee Atwater school of Republican attack politics. when they cannot attack the argument they attack the person making the argument.

Joseph Stated: "Do you agree the same treatment should be given to Adolf Hitler as the UK/US leadership.

Shit, this is the stupidest thing I have ever
seen posted on this website. You avoided the question, then responded with a fallacious attack on Nathan using that old time tested tool of Republicans questioning someones patriotism.

Joseph stated " the reason I support Bush who is about to Liberate Iraq"

Yeah, just his daddy liberated Kuwait even though Kuwait still has a Dictatorship"

Joseph stated "Is Bush's ability to distinquish between good and evil and his ability to act against evil"

Yeah, those great allies of ours Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait they are real good guys, so sweet and nice and would never hurt anybody in their country at all. Damn, what friggin fairy tale books do you read.

Joseph stated: "To earn my sympathy one has to come with clean hands not Rachel's hands"

There is no such thing as clean hands for all of us have made mistakes and all of us have sinned before the eyes of god. For you to be so sanctimonious to say that someone should die and her family and friends do not deserve sympathy because she burned a flag is revolting, disgusting, and arrogant.

Joseph Stated "Promoting our sister democracy Israel"

Israel is really a democracy Arab citizens living in the country are many times denied the right to vote in elections. All citizens are required for conscription to military service except for Ultra-Orthodox Jews who are exempted from military service and have many other privileges that even other fellow Jewish Citizens don't have. I am not even going to mention the abuses to Palestinians that Nathan has previously spoke about.

Joseph stated "Hence Good Bye"

that is about like somebody like you make stupid statements then run. Oh well good bye and good riddance.

"The Corrie woman committed suicide in a manner most reckless"

Gee, I wonder where you was during the Tianemen Square incident. Running over somebody is murder as it would have been during Tianemen Square if that man would have got run over.

The so called"Suicide incident" that you speak of is illegal under Israeli law.

A non-violent woman lies dead and you think burning a paper American flag justifies it, Mr. Norland? A pregnant Palestinian woman lies dead and somehow that makes Sharon some kind of democrat?

I have no problem labelling evil-- I have criticized so-called leftists who cannot label Saddam Hussein, Milosevic and Kim Il Jong as evil leaders, but I also have no problem condemning Sharon and his neo-fascist allies in government as evil as well.

Everyone should be praising the sky that non-violent protest has been highlighted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here people are fighting for justice by sacrificing their own bodies, not others lives, yet people attack their memory rather than honor them.

There's been some dispute as to whether the driver saw Rachel. If it's the same guy who ran over the pregnant woman, that does seem to settle the case. Expect the driver to be arrested at once.
Oh - the ones who said he couldn't see her were witnesses "across the political spectrum" of the IDF. I'm sure witnesses "across the political spectrum" of Hamas said the opposite.

The idea that the burning an us flag makes it okay for her to be bulldozed under is typical to rightwing thinking. It's the idea that opponents of their pet causes can be ignored when they're even slightly flawed or made to look flawed. It's the way in which a blowjob is morally equivalent to an unjust war. It's a defence mechanism to not have to think too much...

Martin Wisse....this woman was bulldozed under.?

get a clue..

Nathan Newman is a sly liar

"Deploying human shields is not a military strategy, it's murder, a violation of the laws of armed conflict and a crime against humanity, and it will be treated as such. Those who follow his (Saddam's) orders to use human shields will pay a severe price for their actions."

General Myers, referring to the arrival of the group from London, said:

"Using noncombatants to shield potential military
targets -- even those who volunteer for this purpose -- could be considered a war crime in any conflict."
"If death or serious injury to a noncombatant resulted from these efforts, the individuals responsible for deploying any innocent civilians as human shields could be guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions."

It is specifically Article 51 of the 1977 amendment of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that prohibits human shields.

"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations."

I assume that the wording of article 51 was based on the assumption that it would cover just the involuntary movement and presence of civilians and human shields, but would not cover the case of a non violent civil disobedient acting as human shields. Is that assumption wrong?
Is it legally possible to define a volunteer, who acts as a human shield on his own initiative, as being "deployed"? Saddam Hussein can and certainly will "deploy" Iraqi civilians to act as human shields, but he has no authority to "deploy" or "order" foreigners, who enter Iraq voluntarily, to act as human shields.

If foreign human shields can't be considered "deployed", can they still be treated as "war criminals" under International or US law?

Can the US Armed Forces, for example, take French human shields in Iraq as POW and then try them as war criminals under the Geneva Convention in front of the ICC? Or could the US Armed Forces take US human shields as POW and try them for treason in the US? Would it legally make a difference, if the US invades with an UN mandate versus a unilateral action? If so, which one?

Latest UPI article on this subject
Geneva Convention, 1977 Addition, Civilians

Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/21/122548/512

What coverage has there been in the usa, of that young woman being murdered by Israelians?
Here in Europe everybody has heard about it, just as everybody but the most stubborn knows that Sharon is a cold-blooded butcher.
Who can talk of "suicide" in the case of that young woman, when she was wearing a flashy orange jacket to make sure that she would be seen? Well, she was seen, and purposely murdered.
Shame on all the people who killed children and peaceful beings, be it Sharon, Saddam, Bush, or anybody else. This world is sick, run by sick people.

What coverage has there been in the usa, of that young woman being murdered by Israelians?
Here in Europe everybody has heard about it, just as everybody but the most stubborn knows that Sharon is a cold-blooded butcher.
Who can talk of "suicide" in the case of that young woman, when she was wearing a flashy orange jacket to make sure that she would be seen? Well, she was seen, and purposely murdered.
Shame on all the people who kill children and peaceful beings, be it Sharon, Saddam, Bush, or anybody else. This world is sick, run by sick people.

The full story may be read here:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Rachel_Corrie3_Continued.asp

"The problem with the AP photo caption is that readers are led to believe that this photo depicts the very scene and moment of the accident. The implication is criminal recklessness on the part of the IDF driver.

In fact, however, this photo was NOT taken in the moments before Corrie's death. Joseph Smith, of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement, was the photographer and wrote a chronological account of the incident (published on pro-Palestinian websites).

Smith says that the photo of Corrie "standing with megaphone" is ascribed to the time period 2pm-4pm. In addition, during this period, Smith notes that the bulldozer "always stopped in time to avoid injuring them."

At the time of Corrie's death (5pm), Smith describes Corrie as "sitting, with arms waving" (no megaphone), and another colleague holding the megaphone from a distance.

Additionally, one key point that Smith does not mention is that the bulldozers shown in the two photos are different types. The later photo is a bulldozer with much smaller windows, and hence reduced visibility.

Read Smith's account at:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1284.shtml

Thus, the AP photo and caption fails to note the two most essential factors in determining visibility or lack thereof: 1) Corrie was no longer standing, but had changed to a sitting position, and 2) she was no longer in possession of attention-grabbing megaphone.

When publishing such a photo, AP is obligated to explain details of chronology; in the absence of any information, readers presume that since the bulldozer appears 8-10 feet away from Corrie, the photographer must have snapped the picture moments before the bulldozer hit her.

This photo was published by many of the 15,000 media outlets that AP services. And though the accompanying articles may provide clarifying information, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, by not providing a caption that clearly counterbalances the easy "misread," AP has misrepresented Corrie's death and contributed to a worldwide slander of the IDF."

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Rachel_Corrie3_Continued.asp

pissing
dripping
wet see through bikinis
see through
wet t-shirt
wet t-shirt contest
t-shirts
wet t-shirts
t-shirt
70 t-shirts
funny t-shirts
caught
wet pants
underwear
mens underwear
men in underwear
boys underwear
mens underwear
piss
peeing
girls peeing
women peeing
pee
watersports
wet t-shirt
wet
wet pussy
wet t shirt
wet see through bikinis
wet t-shirt contest
wet panties
wet t-shirts
wet t
wet shirt
wet tshirt
wet girls
wet t shirts
wet t shirt contest
wet pants