AP: Israel to Raze With Robot Bulldozers

[Herschel]

- The giant Caterpillar bulldozer, used by the Israeli military to destroy Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, now comes with a controversial new feature: remote control.

Israel says its remote-control technology will lower risks to soldiers. But Palestinians fear it will lead to more frequent raids using the machines and make the three-year conflict even bloodier.

The remote-controlled D-9 bulldozer and a remote-control version of the Humvee, equipped with machine guns, were developed by the Israeli army and the Technion Institute of Technology. Both machines are U.S.-made, with Israeli modifications. They are expected to go into service in the next few weeks.

The army refused to comment or reveal further details about the new equipment.

cut

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/7142468.htm

=======================

Fascinating. Israel and America have long been technology leaders. When these demolitions are necessary, it is best to minimize risk to soldiers.

[Fovea]

1. a great new way to win Palestinian hearts and minds.

Not.

It only means that instead of attacking the dozer and killing the operator, they will bomb the operator's settlement.

This is a low tech 'Red October' a system designed to start hostility, not prevent it!

Smart move Sharon!

[Darranar]

2. Wee! Let's put a robot instead of a human behind the machine!

Let's increase the chance of harm to innocent people, and increase the devestation we cause!

Is is the IDF still so "moral"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. When Israel uses human beings

They get claims that accidents are deliberate. This way, no such claim. It is a machine, nothing more. If you stand in front of it, it will not stop and that will be your fault. If you wish to attack it, the operator will not be harmed.

[Darranar]

4. Exactly the problem...

the machine cannot think. It cannot tell the difference bwteen empty ground and an innocent civilian.

Do you understand my objection, now?

[The Magistrate]

6. There Will Be Video Control, Sir

This will not be a "point and forget" device.

Its most contemplated use is probably for clearance operations in engagements on the style of Jenin: sooner or later it will occur to someone to mine buildings in the dozer's path.

[Darranar]

8. Okay...

but I would still guess that the view of a driver from within the bulldozer is considerably better than a view from a camera.

[The Magistrate]

16. Speaking Purely Through My Hat, You Understand, Sir

Depending on where the sensors are placed, it might be a damned sight better view than a driver now has. They do not have to be placed just where he would otherwise sit, after all.

[Herschel]

17. A reasoned thought

These often come when people do not react emotionally.

[Darranar]

19. A possibility.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Might also be easier

If you aren't ducking from sniper fire. So video control might be easier.

[Darranar]

27. Sniper fire?

Not a single driver of a bulldozer has died sice the start of the second Itifadah.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. And you think

They aren't shot at?

[Darranar]

36. Occasionally, perhaps...

but if it was very common some would have likely died by now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Or they are just well shielded

Which takes us back to the reality that they probably can't see well. Just like guys who ride in a tank. That's why they need infantry around.

[Jackie97]

55. This all brings up a question.

If men on the bulldozers haven't died from being shot at yet, then why is the Israeli government so concerned about protecting their lives? They're obviously not that much in danger. What's the real purpose behind this machine?

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Perhaps better visibility

Or perhaps they have found mines lately that are targeting the bulldozers. For some reason or another, they have identified a problem.

[Aidoneus]

34. it is good that their job is made difficult

the work these people do should not be made easier or safer.

[bemildred]

21. I would expect it to be accompanied, in any case.

Much as tanks require infantry.

[Zhade]

33. Yeah, but not when a peace activist is in front of the bulldozer.

Then it's as if the person were invisible. Just ask Rachel Corrie.

You know, this is truly insane. I got a chance to give Rachel's parents my condolences, and the one thing I kept thinking while speaking with them was the look on the bulldozer operator's face. Did he at least wince when he ran Rachel down?

As was mentioned above, it's only a matter of time until measures are taken to destroy these Hunter-Killers. And since the explosion would only target property - since there is no driver - then I don't think anyone could blame Palestinian militants for targeting them.

[Jackie97]

54. Oh no, IDF will not run away from taking responsibility, Muddle.

They are using these machines knowing in advance that they will kill innocent people. Therefore, they are intentionally killing innocent people with this machine. Furthermore, not everybody who gets killed by those machines are standing out in front of it on purpose. Sometimes, they just end up in the way.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. actually creating such a machine that WILL hurt people

is an indication of intentional maliciousness.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Herschel]

7. The Corrie fable again

I should have anticipated this being drudged up again. Oh, my.

[Darranar]

9. How do you know it is a fable?

[Supply Side Jesus]

10. fabel?

she died for something she believed in...
instead you hide behind your pc and spout subhuman rhetoric at the palestinians.
More on the fabel. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml

on edit: spelling

[Herschel]

11. You two

She stood in front of a bulldozer. Yet people cry murder. This woman brought harm to herself.

[Darranar]

13. Let me ask you this:

If the driver had deliberately and purposefully ran her over, would you call it murder?

[GreenArrow]

14. Why waste your time?

Dude is in a hole.

[Herschel]

15. Yes

-

[Darranar]

18. So how do you know that that is not the case?

[The Magistrate]

22. The Point, My Friend

Is that there is certainly no proof it was done deliberately.

[Darranar]

26. Agreed!

But dismissing the entire affair as a "fable," as if the incident was fabricated, is going way too far.

[Herschel]

29. To clarify

The fable is those telling it as a murder when no such thing is known.

[dudeness]

28. Having said that ..

and please excuse my ignorance on this matter..has a coronial inquiry been established to ascertain cause of death and surrounding circumstances?..this would be normal pratice under Australian law..

[The Magistrate]

47. There Was, Sir

Both an autopsy and a military inquiry. My recollection of reports of the autopsy is that it concluded the lethal injuries came when the bull-dozer was backed up over her, though the basis for this reported conclusion is unknown to me. The driver testified that he moved the bull-dozer towards her, and when he lost sight of her, he put the machine into reverse, in fear of running over her. There had been a sort of "chicken" contest going on between the I.S.M. people and the bull-dozer drivers for some hours already by the time of the incident. Ms. Corrie seems to have been standing on a loose pile of debris as the bull-dozer drew near for the final time. What seems to have occured is that, as the bull-dozer began to mount that, she lost footing, and slid down towards the tracks. It must have taken the driver some small time to shift gears through neutral into reverse, during which interval she went under the tracks.

It is abundantly clear the driver was recklessly negligent in operating his machine. He would certainly be subject to a charge of vehicular homicide, or even involuntary man-slaughter, and there can be no doubt Ms. Corrie's family would prevail in a civil suit for wrongful death. A charge of murder, based on premeditation or depraved indifference to consequence, would seem to run far in excess of the available evidence. The idea that there was some order given the man by his military superiors to kill an I.S.M. activist seems farcical, though it has been a popular propaganda allegation here, and in other quarters.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. A military inquiry is not nearly the same as a coronial inquiry...

Coronial inquiries carry a fair bit of weight because they're not a case of an organisation like the military or the police investigating itself. I doubt anyway that if Israel has an equivalent of coronial inquiries, it would apply to deaths outside of Israel, and despite the belief of a small number posting here, the Occupied Territories are not part of Israel...

I've never been particularly interested in what the views of armchair pundits are on what evidence is available and whether or not that could constitute a charge of murder based on premeditation or depraved indifference. A proper and more transparent investigation was needed than merely a military investigation because without that it's clear that very few will ever know the full facts surrounding her death. I remember last year there was a case of Australian troops serving in East Timor being accused of being involved in some foul-play in the deaths of several members of the Indonesian militia. The UN investigated that one and had the full support of the ADF in doing so, and that's what should have happened in the case of Rachel Corrie...

Violet...

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

30. Go, Supply Side Jesus, Go... you rock

:yourock: :smoke:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

38. Huh. Deleted for "breaking the rules against inline images"

Yet, I see many other inline images in other posts on this thread.

What gives?

[Supply Side Jesus]

43. this whole not putting pics

in the mess., is just ridiculas. Meanwhile in the lounge u can drop ten pics and no one blinks eye. But for some reaosn we cant do it on his forum. because u know how 'hot' this forum can be.

</rant>

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

12. i wonder if they could

control an airplane remotely.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Tinfoil time

nt

[newyorican]

25. Shields at full power...

:smoke:

[tinnypriv]

35. I hear Sharon uses a toy chopper to bring him Burger King

Dunno about an aeroplane though.

[number6]

31. here come da BORG.

just what we need, machines that kill

T1..T2..T3 ...

[Resistance]

40. Doh

If only we'd thought of this before we murdered that Corrie girl ....!

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Her death

Actually death, not murder, may well have inspired this to happen.

[Zhade]

42. Not murder because you say so?

The evidence concludes, at best, some degree of avoidability on the part of the driver, which suggests less an accident than a deliberate act.

I wonder if I should ask if I'm about to be labelled 'anti-Semitic'? :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Actually, not murder

Because according to my trusty old AP stylebook, no one was charged with murder. It is, at best, a slaying of indeterminant nature. Frankly, we will never know more than that.

[Jackie97]

56. If.....

it was shown that the IDFer knew more than he let on and was able to stop the bulldozer, then how is that not murder? Who cares that he never got charged? Do you really expect the Isreali government to charge their IDFers of murder?

[Violet_Crumble]

63. What's an AP stylebook?

If it's saying no-one was charged with murder, it's correct. If it's saying that it wasn't murder because no-one was charged with murder, it's wrong. Clearly whether or not anyone is charged with murder has nothing to do with whether a death is murder or not. Maybe I'm wrong though and cops everywhere should stop referring to unsolved murders and start calling them unsolved slayings of indeterminant nature? ;)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Associated Press

The standard by which most journalists go by. You can't call it murder till someone is charged with murder. If no one is charged, then it's a slaying or some other term.

[dfong63]

44. a new low for cowardice- this makes the d9 essentially a missile on wheels

... or is it on tracks? either way, it allows the murderers to kill with the push of a button, from a nice safe distance. they don't even have to worry about getting blood on their nice white shirts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Cowardice?

Wow, that's...bizarre. Why put your people in the line of fire when it is not needed. Plus, it is very likely that this will result in better vision, not worse.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

49. I guess we're supposed to get in there and fight like men!

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Bulldozing people's homes is 'fighting like men'?

Wow, you make it sound so noble and brave!


Violet...

[number6]

59. Damn right ..Cowardice

and as far as I'm concerned it WAS murder.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

48. No.

The lowest form of cowardice would be walking onto public transportation or into a cafe or even a party so that you (think) you will go to paradise a hero, your family will indeed receive money, and innocent men, women and children (albeit most of them, if not all, will be Jews) will be blown to bits.

[bluesoul]

50. And

just how heroic is bombing a refugee camp with a combat airplane, sending a rocket into a heavy populated civilian area or shooting down children other civilians, rolling over peace activists or bulldozing down a house with it's family inside? Tell me please

[ForestsBeatBushes]

51. This is just ridiculous.

I am feeling like I am in the middle of a bunch of pre-schoolers, 1/2 on one side of the room and 1/2 on the other each trying to change the conversation.

Or, maybe it's Rashoman; whatever it is, it needs to stop.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Yes, it is ridiculous...

Why would you feel like yr in the middle of the room when two posts ago you were the one who was trying to change the conversation?


Violet...

[Supply Side Jesus]

52. bling!

well said, lets call call it what it is.

[Jackie97]

53. Is Israel and the US on drugs?

What am I saying? I know better than to ask that.

Anybody who thinks that bulldozers should be worked with a remote control instead of a person is nuts.

Who really cares how many Palestinians are killed by bulldozers, which are not worked by a thinking person so long as it reduces risks to occupying soldiers who shouldn't be there, right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Again

If you are operating a bulldozer in a war zone or its equivalent, you are probably pretty heavily under cover and no doubt can't see too well. If you are doing the same from safety and using cameras to see, you might well be a whole lot safer for yourself AND others.

[dArKeR]

60. Israeli army to get remote-controlled equipment - TGM

The giant Caterpillar bulldozer, used by the Israeli military to destroy Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, now comes with a controversial new feature: remote control.

Israel says its remote-control technology will lower risks to soldiers. But Palestinians fear it will lead to more frequent raids using the machines and make the three-year conflict even bloodier.
http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031031.wdoze1031/BNStory/Technology/