Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Israeli ruling on Corrie death draws widespread condemnation

13»

Comments

  • #102
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    karma_ wrote: »
    This is a bit different. Sure for a construction worker who knew the risks, I'd accept that, however it would be very different if the heavy machinery hit a non-worker.
    I would agree it is a bit different, but only in that I can understand why she took such a risk, but it was still hers to take, it would be neither practical or possible to shift that entirely to the vehicles operator.

    Again I'm not blaming anyone I'm just saying I find this particular avenue of argumentation a tad ridiculous, if the driver saw her or was aware of her presence then he is to blame, if he was in a working environment where protesters were expendable the state is to blame, if he didn't see her it was a very unfortunate accident in a senario where such accidents were likely.

    At any rate I don't think the incident itself is what people should be focusing on, rather the way it was subsequently handled. Accidents happen, and horrific things happen in conflict, comparable incidents have happened involving British and American forces but there was transparency and accountability in dealing with them, the lack of these is all that makes this different.


  • #103
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Everyone on any site in Ireland is trained to get a drivers attention before entering their immediate vicinity, and to always ensure they know where you are. People have been run over in Ireland for failing to do this and it has been acknowledged they were in the wrong.

    Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the bulldozer wearing an orange fluorescent jacket and speaking to the driver through a megaphone. She did more than enough to get the drivers attention.


  • #104
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    czx wrote: »
    A non-worker who knowingly stepped in front of a moving the bulldozer.

    Rachel Corrie didn't step in front of a moving bulldozer. Eyewitnesses said Rachel stood unmoving a distance from the bulldozer. The driver of the Bulldozer then approached Rachel's position and drove straight over her.


  • #105
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Why not...?
    In both scenarios, protesters were protesting something they regarded as illegitimate, the army ordered them to desist, they refused, and were subsequently killed.

    How is refusing to move when a British soldier orders you to any different to refusing to move when an Israeli soldier orders you to?

    Had the Brits had bulldozers on Bloody Sunday would that have made it acceptable? Don't really understand your argument here.

    The difference is as clear as day. Why can't you just talk about the topic at hand?


  • #106
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Rachel Corrie didn't step in front of a moving bulldozer. Eyewitnesses said Rachel stood unmoving a distance from the bulldozer. The driver of the Bulldozer then approached Rachel's position and drove straight over her.

    So you're saying the bulldozer changed direction to hit her?


  • #107
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    So you're saying the bulldozer changed direction to hit her?

    How did you read what the poster typed and come to that conclusion?


  • #108
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    How did you read what the poster typed and come to that conclusion?

    They said she didn't step in front of the bulldozer but stood unmoving and the bulldozer approached her. If she stood unmoving the bulldozer must of changed position or else she was the one to step into its path. Which is it?


  • #109
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    They said she didn't step in front of the bulldozer but stood unmoving and the bulldozer approached her. If she stood unmoving the bulldozer must of changed position or else she was the one to step into its path. Which is it?

    I see where you're going with this. however, standing stationary some distance from an approaching vehicle is hardly the same as flinging yourself in it's path at the last second. If the eyewitness is to be believed then it would be literally impossible for the driver NOT to have seen her which doesn't quite marry with what you're saying.


  • #110
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    czx wrote: »
    The difference is as clear as day. Why can't you just talk about the topic at hand?

    The difference is not even remotely clear, why can't you answer a simple question?


  • #111
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    I see where you're going with this. however, standing stationary some distance from an approaching vehicle is hardly the same as flinging yourself in it's path at the last second. If the eyewitness is to be believed then it would be literally impossible for the driver NOT to have seen her which doesn't quite marry with what you're saying.

    Literally impossible? You would really have to define the last second. From when the field of view of the operator became obstructed would be more apt.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    The difference is not even remotely clear, why can't you answer a simple question?

    The question is charged. This thread is about the bulldozer scenario. Deal with it.


  • #113
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    Literally impossible? You would really have to define the last second. From when the field of view of the operator became obstructed would be more apt.

    To be honest mate, you're just changing your narrative every post at this stage, it's almost impossible to follow what your trying to say and I really don;t believe you want to discuss this rationally at all.


  • #114
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    One could literally say the exact same thing about Bloody Sunday protesters, that the burden of responsibility of them was to move when ordered to. Would you hold them more responsible than the military which chose to kill them anyway?

    Rubbish, bullets travelling at 2000 feet per second and bulldozers moving at 5 miles per hours are entirely different. Despite what you see in movies you can't duck out of the way of a speeding bullet.


  • #115
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Rubbish, bullets travelling at 2000 feet per second and bulldozers moving at 5 miles per hours are entirely different. Despite what you see in movies you can't duck out of the way of a speeding bullet.

    But they could have dispersed when ordered to by the Brits, or not protested at all when their protest was declared "illegal" beforehand.

    That's not relevant, the reason it's relevant is that in one context people seem to be saying protesters should not make a stand on principle, in another context people seem to be saying they should be.

    Either it's ok to protest an illegitimate military force or it isn't. Standing your ground is standing your ground. Doesn't matter if you're being threatened with a bulldozer or a rifle, you're ignoring an order from the military because you regard it as immoral.

    Either both are ok or neither, IMO. Don't see how you can have your cake and eat it on this.


  • #116
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    To be honest mate, you're just changing your narrative every post at this stage, it's almost impossible to follow what your trying to say and I really don;t believe you want to discuss this rationally at all.

    My point has been pretty clear. She chose to stand in front of the bulldozer, which is a dangerous thing to do.


  • #117
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    czx wrote: »
    My point has been pretty clear. She chose to stand in front of the bulldozer, which is a dangerous thing to do.

    Rachel was standing a safe distance from the bulldozer. She was not in any danger where she was standing. Witnessses say she did not approach the bulldozer, the danger arose when the driver of the bulldozer adavanced on Rachel in much the same way the tanks advanced on the protestor in Tiananmen square in 1989. The difference is the Chinese tanks stopped when they got too close to the protestor whereas the Israeli bulldozer kept going and drove right over rachel and crushed her to death.


  • #118
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Rachel was standing a safe distance from the bulldozer. She was not in any danger where she was standing. Witnessses say she did not approach the bulldozer, the danger arose when the driver of the bulldozer adavanced on Rachel in much the same way the tanks advanced on the protestor in Tiananmen square in 1989. The difference is the Chinese tanks stopped when they got too close to the protestor whereas the Israeli bulldozer kept going and drove right over rachel and crushed her to death.

    So she stood in the path of the bulldozer, yes?


  • #119
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    So she stood in the path of the bulldozer, yes?

    Now you're just repeating yourself with some pedantic point about which no one is even disputing.


  • #120
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    Now you're just repeating yourself with some pedantic point about which no one is even disputing.

    Just wanted to be clear that she chose to stand in the path of the bulldozer.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the bulldozer wearing an orange fluorescent jacket and speaking to the driver through a megaphone. She did more than enough to get the drivers attention.

    You get a drivers attention before you enter the area of the vehicle and you know you have it when they acknowledge your presence, obviously in a protest situation that's a silly ask but without doing it you can't guarentee a driver is aware you are there, even in a hi viz carrying a PA system.

    You missed the point though, you seem to be insisting he saw her, not what I was disagreeing with, I don't know that either way, I was disagreeing with the stupid idea that a driver is always to blame regardless of circumstance.


  • #122
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    You missed the point... I was disagreeing with the stupid idea that a driver is always to blame regardless of circumstance.

    I've re-read the thread and I can't see where anyone claimed a driver is "always to blame regardless of circumstance."

    The point I saw being made was this
    karma_ wrote: »
    If the driver is aware people are around he must make sure that his actions do not put them in harms way.

    I don't see anyone arguing the driver is still to blame even if he wasn't aware Rachel was there.


  • #123
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I believe he was aware that there were people in the vicinity, just as there are people in the vicinity of any construction or demolition site anywhere. Whether or not he was aware that there was someone in the direct path that his bulldozer was going is another matter. There were plenty of other protestors not in the path of the bulldozer, if they were all congregated together perhaps there might be a little warning bell going off in his head saying 'hmm... there were protestors here a minute ago, where did they all go?' (and they'd be easier to see than one individual who might be behind a blind spot).


  • #124
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Whether or not he was aware that there was someone in the direct path that his bulldozer was going is another matter.

    Well according to an eyewitness "it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it."


    Now remember, it was a clear day and rachel was standing in the drivers field of vision. Under those circumstances I think it's simply not plausible to suggest the driver would not have been aware she was there.


  • #125
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I wonder if the eyewitness has ever driven an armoured D9, or any armoured vehicle at all, for that matter. What may be inconceivable to him may yet be the truth. An Israeli soldier was run over and killed by another armoured vehicle two weeks ago as he slept, they are not built for close visibility and such incidents are not all that uncommon. I recall one training exercise in Louisiana when two US paratroopers (Not a group of people ordinarily familiar with the limitations of armoured vehicles) managed to get in the way of a tank and were killed. When cross-attached, I always gave a 'this is how not to get killed by a friendly armoured vehicle' brief, and this is to people who are already in the Army. Civilians generally have no idea the limitations.


  • #126
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I wonder if the eyewitness has ever driven an armoured D9, or any armoured vehicle at all, for that matter. What may be inconceivable to him may yet be the truth. An Israeli soldier was run over and killed by another armoured vehicle two weeks ago as he slept, they are not built for close visibility and such incidents are not all that uncommon. I recall one training exercise in Louisiana when two US paratroopers (Not a group of people ordinarily familiar with the limitations of armoured vehicles) managed to get in the way of a tank and were killed. When cross-attached, I always gave a 'this is how not to get killed by a friendly armoured vehicle' brief, and this is to people who are already in the Army. Civilians generally have no idea the limitations.

    I'm making the assumption that the driver of this vehicle, or any other large armoured vehicle has some form of forward view that enables him to see at least where he is driving. I don't need to have driven any kind of vehicle to make this assumption.

    Common sense dictates that if she was standing a 'distance' from the vehicle as it approached her then at some point along the way he must have seen her.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Well according to an eyewitness "it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it."

    Now remember, it was a clear day and rachel was standing in the drivers field of vision. Under those circumstances I think it's simply not plausible to suggest the driver would not have been aware she was there.
    Given that even some of the protestors' "eyewitness" accounts don't match eachother, I'm skeptical as to their merit.

    Some said she was kneeling in front of the dozer, others said sitting, others said she was standing.

    Surely if any of these eyewitnesses were in a position to tell you that it was "inconceivable" that the driver could not see Rachel, then why do they disagree on such a fundamental piece of information such as whether she was on her knees, her bum or her feet? The only way to reconcile this is to suppose that some of the "eyewitness" accounts were given by people who couldn't really see what was going on - i.e. they couldn't see Rachel clearly, but claim that the driver must have.

    What is obvious is that at some point Corrie became aware that the driver could not see her, and rather than get out of the way, she climbed up onto the mound being pushed by the dozer. There is no arguing whatsoever that her actions were exceptionally risky and she has to take at least partial blame for the incident.


  • #128
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    seamus wrote: »
    Given that even some of the protestors' "eyewitness" accounts don't match eachother, I'm skeptical as to their merit.

    Some said she was kneeling in front of the dozer, others said sitting, others said she was standing.

    Surely if any of these eyewitnesses were in a position to tell you that it was "inconceivable" that the driver could not see Rachel, then why do they disagree on such a fundamental piece of information such as whether she was on her knees, her bum or her feet? The only way to reconcile this is to suppose that some of the "eyewitness" accounts were given by people who couldn't really see what was going on - i.e. they couldn't see Rachel clearly, but claim that the driver must have.

    What is obvious is that at some point Corrie became aware that the driver could not see her, and rather than get out of the way, she climbed up onto the mound being pushed by the dozer. There is no arguing whatsoever that her actions were exceptionally risky and she has to take at least partial blame for the incident.

    Either way, if she was sitting or standing the driver had to be aware of her presence. I'm guessing he in all likelihood did not intend to drive over her and he probably assumed she would move, and she likely did try to get out of the way when a fatal mistake occurred. What I have a major problem with is that he took an incredible risk to assume she would get out of the way and that had dire consequences.


  • #129
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    karma_ wrote: »
    Either way, if she was sitting or standing the driver had to be aware of her presence.
    Why?


  • #130
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    seamus wrote: »
    Why?

    Well she didn't just jump infront of the blade at the last second and sit down. Yes, I accept that there is a limited view from the machine, but not so limited he couldn't see potentially what was 20' or 30' in front of him.


  • #131
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    What I have a major problem with is that he took an incredible risk to assume she would get out of the way and that had dire consequences.

    She took an incredible risk to assume that he had seen her and would stop.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Everyone should read Richard Silverstein's article about the Israeli court decision at thruth-out.org. He does an excellent job of dissecting the claims of the State.


Advertisement