It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rachel Corrie death: Israel rejects all blame

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by spoor

try reading the very first line of the post I quoted and responded to. and regarding your thoughts on propaganda and furthering agendas without knowing it, the same could be said about you and the ADL. propaganda... ironic you use that.

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by shepseskaf
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

It figures that a defender of the murderous apartheid regime in SA, which was abhorred by any civilized person, would be in agreement with the actions of a modern day apartheid regime.

Same dehumanizing mindset, same separation of races, same horrifying results.

Did you even read my post? I do not defend the actions of any apartheid government and if you knew anything about South Africa you would know that the apartheid laws were being dismantled in the mid-80's. I did however defend the common citizen in SA through technology primarily, against the ANC terrorists who had a perpensity for killing soft targets.

In the case of Rachel Corrie, she was another of Israel's soft targets and as I said, a death during the commission of a criminal act is generally deemed to be murder. Israel carries on a legacy of apartheid (which by definition is criminal) in it's own little space in the world. I really do not see how South Africa can be condemned to destruction for apartheid and yet Israel is not condemned for their apartheid. Israel is just another country, it isn't special.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:14 PM
I don't intend to take any side on this topic because quite frankly I don't care to, however I feel I must add something.

I operate heavy equipment where I work, and you do not mess around with those things. The largest 'dozer I have driven is a D6, and the D9 is way bigger. When one is in operation, everyone around it has to be 100% aware for a reason: if anyone fails to pay attention, it can kill you. Period. Irregardless of how much experience the driver has, the operator's field of vision directly around the machine is limited even in the most ideal of conditions. An operator many times has to depend on eye contact and hand signals from spotters and nearby workers to ensure safe operation when close around other people.

And this wasn't even a normal D9 - this was an armored D9 for the Israeli army, so the operator's field of vision was more than likely even more obstructed than a normal D9 by all the armor plates and grating over the windows.

So here we have a woman knowingly - and repeatedly - crossing into the path of a piece of equipment that weighs in excess of 70 tons, is incredibly loud, and has an even-more obstructed view for the operator than usual.

She was asking for it.

You don't play peek-a-boo around heavy equipment, irregardless of any political agenda or ulterior motive one might have. Any serious construction worker in the vicinity of a D9 would never move into its field of motion unless he was absolutely certain the driver knew of it. And I'm not saying this to absolve any blame from any party involved, especially the driver, but that's just my point of view from having been in the driver's seat of one of these mechanical monsters.

They aren't toys, and they don't discriminate any reasons for someone being in their way.

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by snewpers
And that's in the EU? Funny, all I see
is that max speed is 80km for any truck.
There's no specs on tannage, just 'truck'.

Guess not all of the EU is the same then.

all of the eu is the same any hgv vehicle has different speed limits to that of a car and the speed limit on a motorway is just under 100kph

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by ArchAngel_X

Then it is absolutely crystal clear to everyone involved that a bulldozer can easily kill a human being. It is also crystal clear to the IDF that their bulldozing actions were under protest, the IDF showed up prepared for a protest and dealt with an irrefutably visible, human protest of the bulldozing for HOURS before taking Rachael's life.

I see 2 distinct choices being made:
Rachael Corrie made the choice to stand in harms way to peacefully protest what she believes are crimes against humanity.

The IDF bulldozer crew made the choice to proceed forward while failing to make sure their actions would not directly cause injury or death to any human beings.

This was not a lawful killing of a peaceful and good human being.

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in