If I whack you over the head with a can of paint, can we blame Sherman-Williams?
I think the issue would be more analogous to Sherwin Williams knowingly selling paint to a government that would use it to mark non-combatants houses for destruction, in a campaign to punish and harass the supporters and relatives of dissidents, and those who fought against the government.
And what else are bulldozers used for?
Construction?
No. If Cat did not arm 'em they’re just tools.
I own a hatchet–I use it on firewood. If I suddenly use it on, say, Yahoo Serious ( Attention: I am not advocating violence!), is the Sears Craftsman Tool company responsible?
HELL NO! :mad:
Per Captain Amazing’s example and yours, I think the difference in the point the aunt of the dead girl is making and your random act of violence example, is that Caterpillar (at this poiint) has something of a heads up, constructive notice re what the Israeli government and military are using some of it’s products for.
And Craftsman knows that an X% of it’s hatchets shall be used for murder. But it doesn’t know if any given tool will be used.
And tell me–are these bulldozers new, or were they purchased years ago? :dubious:
If Cat signed the contract years ago, then they gotta honor it.
Does Israel use any American-made bona-fide weapons? I thought they used American jets.
If so, shouldn’t we worry about the actual weapons first, then worry about stuff made into weapons?
Well in 2000, Israel was using Caterpillars in “border improvements” along the Lebanese-Israeli border.
cite
I’m sure that the government of Israel actually uses Caterpillars, for the intended purpose, at least some of the time. As such, I kind of agree with Caterpillar that it’s kind of ridiculous to ask them to keep an eye on how their consumers use their products.
LilShieste
Not to mention, the foolish Rachel Corrie voluntarily chose to stand in front of one of these D9s. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that visibility sucks in them, especially forward and down. I imagine her death was sort of like that scene in one of the Austin Powers flicks; she could have just walked out of the way.
One person bears blame for her death: Rachel Corrie.
You accept correspondingly that the driver of the dozer knew that visibility in the dozer forward and down sucked, right? But he drove forward anyway.
I’m not saying he killed deliberately, but he certainly did something immensely dangerous, reckless as to whether driving forward would run someone over or not since (as you must accept) his visibility sucked and he didn’t know whether driving forward would kill someone or not, but knew there must be a high risk given that he knew protesters had been standing in the way.
Imagine if a US homeowner is killed when an armed burglar attempts to scare them off by firing over their head, but hits the homeowner instead. Would you say that because they voluntarily chose to defend their house against the burgler when it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that such people aren’t necessarily going to be able to shoot straight, and when you could have just left your house and walked away, the burgler is blameless and only person to blame for the death is the homeowner? Of course you wouldn’t.
Face it, you’re taking a moral or political viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine situation, and attempting to disguise that as a pragmatic matter of vehicles and visibility.
But as to the OP, no way, at least not in isolation. Is Bic responsible because Sharon signs an order using one of their pens? Unless you are going to take the viewpoint that Israel is a criminal regime and there should be a total trade embargo (not that that is unarguable), there’s no point in picking on a particularly visible tool and getting riled up about that.
I don’t think this is an accurate analogy, unless the homeowner told the burglar “You’re gonna have to shoot me in the head, if you want to burgle my house! C’mon! You don’t have the guts!”
If the driver actually saw the protester, he was probably thinking “Ehh… she’ll move.” The protester was obviously thinking “Ehh… he’ll stop.” All this tells me is something I already knew: playing “Chicken” is really stupid.
LilShieste
Sure. If someone wants to turn themselves into Soylent Green under the plow of one of those things, it is their own fault. It’s not like the can see them there, and it’s not like a D9 is going to sneak up on you. If you make the conscious decision to stand in front of the Cat, the fault for getting squished is on you. Not the driver, and certainly not the manufacturer.
Not at all. It is within the realm of common sense to expect those with a love for life will not stand in front of one of a D9. The IDF clears out the houses beforehand, so anyone that gets in front of a D9 once it’s lined up on the house really has no excuse to act all suprised.
Huh?
Of course I am. I am also advocating for the practical viewpoint that standing in front of a moving D9 is suicide, not murder.
It’s still just as stupid. Why don’t we blame the makers of the olive drab paint that they use to paint over the Caterpiller yellow?
(bolding mine)
I’d imagine the US government has bought many more D9s from Cat than they’ve shipped to Israel. Once Cat sells a machine to somebody, they have no influence over what is done with it. I could see an argument if Cat had sold the equipment directly to the Israeli army, not the US government.
A bulldozer is a tool. Caterpillar makes them functional, and they’re strong as hell to start with. I assume the machine that Cat sold to the US govnerment was a standard piece of equipment and not the amored, “weaponized” bulldozer the article talks about. I’d even bet that the machine the government sold to Israel wasn’t armored, and the Israeli army made those modification on their own. Cat simply isn’t a company that manufactures weapons.
I don’t think Cat would be responsible for what the customer chose to do with the machine if they’d sold it directly to Israel. I can’t imagine the company being responsible for what a third party who buys the machine from the original purchaser does with it.
Moses.
Act all surprised? Who’s talking about surprise? Your comment was that the only person to blame was the protester. It’s also within the realms of common sense that sensible behaviour is to check that someone has actually moved before you drive a bulldozer where you knew that they had been standing a few minutes before.
Don’t give me any of this IDF crap. I’ve seen the video. The dozer drivers knew damn well the protesters were still there.
What’s driving a bulldozer over somewhere that you know someone had been (and so far as you know still is) standing, on the assumption that they’ll move? It may not be murder, but it ain’t blameless.
What’s “huh” mean? Does that mean you don’t want to deal with my analogy?
Nah. Unless the moustachio-twirling 1920’s-style IDF villian tied her down in front of the D9, it was suicide, pure and simple. She learned the hard way that stupid decisions can result in undesirable (if entirely and plainly foreseeable) consequences.
Well, it was a really stupid analogy, and I was trying to be polite about it.
So if I take my corrrect right of way at an intersection assuming that other traffic will stop and they don’t and I die, was that suicide (unless of course I’ve been tied down by a moustachio-twirling 1920’s-style IDF villian)? Was the other driver blameless?
I remember when I was a child if some thickhead couldn’t understand something he’d call it “stoopid”. Or maybe he’d say something polite, like “huh?”
I don’t see how you’re coming up with these analogies.
Again, a (more) correct analogy would be:
“So if I come upon a state highway, with cross traffic traveling around 60mph (I’m at a stop sign), and I pull out to turn left onto the highway-- assuming any driver will hit their brakes if they need to-- and get hit by a car and die, was that suicide?”
I don’t know if I would call it suicide, though… more like a lapse in brain function.
I also take this time to re-iterate my comment on playing “Chicken”. One of the people involved in this incident was perfectly capable of preventing it- at any given time- but chose not to. (hint: not the operator of the bulldozer)
LilShieste
But do you accept that if my analogy is correct, then it was not suicide and the other driver was not blameless?
Answer that one and then we can move on.