Ariel Sharon "close to the end"

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Osama Bin Ladan had every right to a Muslim funeral. That should not be disputed.

It isn't being, but I don't think you'd find many people mourning his passing or suggesting that it's a bad thing to have happened. People can criticize the manner of his death (personally I'm against killing human beings deliberately regardless of the reasons, so I'll always prefer people like him be taken alive and thrown in prison), but the fact that he's gone is a good thing for those in the world who value peace and freedom. Same will be true of Sharon.

Dignity and respect is an absolute unconditional right. Sharon's past does not affect this in any way.

Dignity is an absolute right. Respect is not. Respect is conditional on behavior - disrespectful behavior deserves disrespect.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It isn't being, but I don't think you'd find many people mourning his passing or suggesting that it's a bad thing to have happened. People can criticize the manner of his death (personally I'm against killing human beings deliberately regardless of the reasons, so I'll always prefer people like him be taken alive and thrown in prison), but the fact that he's gone is a good thing for those in the world who value peace and freedom. Same will be true of Sharon.

I would agree with all of that.

Dignity is an absolute right. Respect is not. Respect is conditional on behavior - disrespectful behavior deserves disrespect.

I disagree. A person's dignity can't be upheld when insults like "burn in hell" are being thrown around.

Respect is crucial for dignity.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would agree with all of that.




I disagree. A person's dignity can't be upheld when insults like "burn in hell" are being thrown around.

Respect is crucial for dignity.

Perhaps have orchestrated the mass murder of old men, women, and children, said individual sacrificed any dignity they ever had.

Iwasfrozen

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

Perhaps have orchestrated the mass murder of old men, women, and children, said individual sacrificed any dignity they ever had.

Dignity is an unconditional right.

Brown Bomber

valknut wrote: »

He is a jew and a warmonger, what do you fail to see?

Didn't you know?

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial,"
- Ariel Sharon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1241371.stm

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would agree with all of that.




I disagree. A person's dignity can't be upheld when insults like "burn in hell" are being thrown around.

Respect is crucial for dignity.

You speaking in such vague generalities its hard to understand what actual point you have.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

You speaking in such vague generalities its hard to understand what actual point you have.

Well let me make it more specific for you. No one, not even Hitler himself since Godwin's was already broken, deserves to have someone else come on a thread about their ill health and hope publicly that they burn in hell.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well let me make it more specific for you. No one, not even Hitler himself since Godwin's was already broken, deserves to have someone else come on a thread about their ill health and hope publicly that they burn in hell.

.....you might find more ears for your argument saying it plainly than talking about 'respect' etc.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

.....you might find more ears for your argument saying it plainly than talking about 'respect' etc.

I was saying it plainly.

valknut

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Didn't you know?

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial,"
- Ariel Sharon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1241371.stm

The teachings of the talmud is it any wonder that's how his mindset is.

The talmud would make mein kampf seem like it was written by a liberal!

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Dignity is an unconditional right.

No it is not, when you decide to kill thousands of innocents you lose your dignity in the eyes of honest humans!

Iwasfrozen

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

No it is not, when you decide to kill thousands of innocents you lose your dignity in the eyes of honest humans!

I would disagree totally, no matter what he did he's still a human being and entitled to dignity.

Brown Bomber

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well let me make it more specific for you. No one, not even Hitler himself since Godwin's was already broken, deserves to have someone else come on a thread about their ill health and hope publicly that they burn in hell.

I understand what you are saying and I respect you for your principled stance but I believe there should be exceptions to your rule.

For example, would you pass judgement on the parents of child who was sadistically killed who wanted her murderer to "burn in hell"?

As Sharon is guilty of crimes against humanity, we (humanity) become the parents of all the children whose names won't be recorded in history books who were massacred through this sociopath .

How can you expect people to mask their revulsion when a war criminal is celebrated as a war hero having never being brought to justice for his crimes?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would disagree totally, no matter what he did he's still a human being and entitled to dignity.

Those, held by humanity because of their actions to be beneath contempt, have no right to expect their names or reputation to be treated with dignity.
Sharon was no better in his mind-set and actions than Reinhardt Heydrich!

Scofflaw

valknut wrote: »

The teachings of the talmud is it any wonder that's how his mindset is.

The talmud would make mein kampf seem like it was written by a liberal!

Well, that's a three day ban for you for the anti-Semitic stuff, and a three day ban for Brown Bomber for posting pictures of dead children.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Tramps Like Us

Nodin wrote: »

You speaking in such vague generalities its hard to understand what actual point you have.

Some people just like to go against the flow - faux outrage rarely comes hand in hand with facts and coherence

Iwasfrozen

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Some people just like to go against the flow - faux outrage rarely comes hand in hand with facts and coherence

I was going to be done with this thread but I can't let that one slip. The people posting the likes of burn in hell are the only ones expressing faux outrage. You remind me of vultures circling a dying old man. It actually makes me feel sick and I want nothing to do with it.

wes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You remind me of vultures circling a dying old man.

Who is as per his own nations (who lets be fair would go out of there way to not be hard on him) Kahan commission said that he bared a "personal responsibility" "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge" and "not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. Most other people would be right imho to be fair less kind to the man, and suggest a far greater culpability. He is not just a frail old man, he is a frail old man with a great deal of blood on his hands.

Now, maybe some of the stuff being said may be lacking some tact, but I think it understandable, considering what this man has done. The simple fact, is that people like Ariel Sharon, Osama Bin Laden, and others of there ilk, will inspire a great deal of loathing in there directions, which they have earned via there own actions, and imho its the least they deserve.

Sharon is not just some frail old man, he is someone who has done awful things, which has rightly earned him a great deal of enmity, and while some of the things people are saying may lack tact, I find it had to have any kind of sympathy for him.

arybvtcw0eolkf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So anything bad that Israel does is bad, but anything good Israel does is not really good, just done to look good?

That happens a lot with Israeli haters ~ Haitian relief (the IDF had a field hospital on the ground 24hrs after the quack), Turkish earth quack (similar effort), the recent Phillipines tragedy (first with a field hospital) and lending humanitarian assistance to the injured in Syria ~ its all done to make Israel look good and for no other reason :rolleyes:

However back to the original topic ~ I can find little or nothing to admire Ariel Sharon for and won't mourne his passing.

Tramps Like Us

Ashley Ashy Troop wrote: »

That happens a lot with Israeli haters ~ Haitian relief (the IDF had a field hospital on the ground 24hrs after the quack), Turkish earth quack (similar effort), the recent Phillipines tragedy (first with a field hospital) and lending humanitarian assistance to the injured in Syria ~ its all done to make Israel look good and for no other reason :rolleyes:

However back to the original topic ~ I can find little or nothing to admire Ariel Sharon for and won't mourne his passing.

TBF it's hard to believe that their "humanitarian assistance" is genuine or anything other than PR when they cause suffering and deny humanitarian assistance to Palestinians

Its like the "helping the community" PR stuff the Brits would do every now and again in the north

Tramps Like Us

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I was going to be done with this thread but I can't let that one slip. The people posting the likes of burn in hell are the only ones expressing faux outrage. You remind me of vultures circling a dying old man. It actually makes me feel sick and I want nothing to do with it.

I think the outrage people have shown about the mass murder this man is responsible for is quite genuine

nacho libre

Perhaps i'm wrong but i get the impression some people wouldn't be as exercised about affording dignity and respect for a frail old person, if we were discussing the demise of the likes of Fidel Castro. That said i tend to agree with iwasfrozen, it does demean a person slightly to rejoice in the death of anyone,no matter how distasteful their conduct in life. although from an objective standpoint that's easy to say, i might think differently if i was the parent of a child murdered by an adult.

nacho libre

Ashley Ashy Troop wrote: »

That happens a lot with Israeli haters ~ Haitian relief (the IDF had a field hospital on the ground 24hrs after the quack), Turkish earth quack (similar effort), the recent Phillipines tragedy (first with a field hospital) and lending humanitarian assistance to the injured in Syria ~ its all done to make Israel look good and for no other reason :rolleyes:

.

Naturally as an Israeli supporter it would be hard for you to fathom why people would be cynical of their motives given Israel's double standards on human rights. However, the people getting the help obviously aren't bothered what their true motive is.

arybvtcw0eolkf

That was too easy!.

Eggy Baby!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Whoa, hang on there. When did *respect* become a human right to be given unconditionally? Respect is something you earn. Or to put it in a better way, perhaps, respect is something you start off with by default, but can throw away depending on your actions. Sharon deserves no respect from anyone.
The idea that everyone deserves respect is a bit ludicrous. If you want respect, you have to be respectable. I'd be of the latter type, I will afford everyone respect by default until they do something to throw it away, but I certainly will not continue to respect a person whose actions have done absolutely everything possible to lose it.

I agree with your post, but I would instead say that respect is something that everybody deserves by default: but it is a person's actions which determine whether or not they are still deserving of this respect in the end. Everybody deserves respect for their human rights, for example, at a basic level.

Son Of A Vidic

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If history was fair and unbiased he would receive similar treatment as Nelson Mandela. Mandela had a violent past and went on to practice peace. Likewise Sharon had a violent past but went on to make significant strides towards peace. Same too with Yasser Arafat.

Of course, Mandela's story is about personal courage and redemption rather than just the political acts, and maybe the nature of the violence is different, but to ignore what Sharon did right and curse him while he is seriously ill is unfair IMO.

Of course, the fact that he is Israeli and the political mood at the moment is very anti-Israeli makes some people think it is OK to view a personal tragedy and a complex political situation in a very black and white manner.

Mandela was a man who once pursued armed struggle in the absence of a viable alternative. His struggle was to obtain basic rights that many take for granted. Mr. Sharon on the other hand, spent a lifetime suppressing and denying human rights to those most in need of them. There is no comparison imo, his contribution to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process was mostly an exercise in tokenism.

Eggy Baby!

valknut wrote:

The purpose of the talmud is the justification of world dominance by israhell and the jews. The defiling and rape of 3 year old girls and gentile women. Slavery of the gentiles by jews. Lying, cheating and stealing to get ahead in life. The extermination of all christians. The idea that this is a jews world and we gentiles (as animals in human form) are just property.

Would be so kind as to provide what tractates you are referring to here?

tayto lover

I wonder will Alan Shatter attend this man's funeral?

Scofflaw

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Would be so kind as to provide what tractates you are referring to here?

Sorry, valknut will be unable to respond for at least a week, at least in that persona.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

"The condition of the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, in a coma since 2006, has deteriorated sharply in recent hours and he is close to death, the hospital treating him said on Thursday."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/ariel-sharon-close-death-hospital-israel

P_1

BBC reporting his death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25696601

Gael23

He's gone. Sky have it now.

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

Perhaps i'm wrong but i get the impression some people wouldn't be as exercised about affording dignity and respect for a frail old person, if we were discussing the demise of the likes of Fidel Castro. That said i tend to agree with iwasfrozen, it does demean a person slightly to rejoice in the death of anyone,no matter how distasteful their conduct in life. although from an objective standpoint that's easy to say, i might think differently if i was the parent of a child murdered by an adult.

Nah, it's trendy to hate Israel but love Cuba!

johnnyskeleton

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Some people just like to go against the flow - faux outrage rarely comes hand in hand with facts and coherence

Yes, which is why in this thread the phalangists seem to have been absolved of responsibility for the massacres that they committed, because years later his political opponents blamed Sharon.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

tayto lover wrote: »

I wonder will Alan Shatter attend this man's funeral?

Why would he , he is neither an Israeli nor the Minister for forigen affairs.
Unless you are referring to his religion is which case that is a low low dig, just because one is Jewish does mean one supports Israeli policy or that one supports war crimes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, which is why in this thread the phalangists seem to have been absolved of responsibility for the massacres that they committed, because years later his political opponents blamed Sharon.

Sharon willingly and knowingly provided them with the means and his protection to carry the massacre, he is as guilty as if he had carried out the tortures,rapes, and 2,000+ murders himself.

BlaasForRafa

Sharon was a great field commander. It's just a pity he went into politics

Sir Humphrey Appleby

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Sharon was a great field commander.

In the same way Ratko Mladic was !
He was a cold blooded war criminal with the murder, rape, and torture of thousands of innocents on his hands.

tayto lover

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Why would he , he is neither an Israeli nor the Minister for forigen affairs.
Unless you are referring to his religion is which case that is a low low dig, just because one is Jewish does mean one supports Israeli policy or that one supports war crimes.

Well he did defend their war crimes.

BlaasForRafa

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

In the same way Ratko Mladic was !
He was a cold blooded war criminal with the murder, rape, and torture of thousands of innocents on his hands.

Calm down.

Read some books on the six-day war and the Yom Kippur war, there's no comparison between his military skills and Mladic.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Calm down.

Read some books on the six-day war and the Yom Kippur war, there's no comparison between his military skills and Mladic.

Sabra and Shatila took real military skill!
The man was, and always will be, a butcher who should have been tried by an International war crimes tribunal.

Some more of great "military" prowess as a field commander:
Sharon began his military career at a young age, when he became involved in fighting with the Israeli Haganah, leading commando units specialising in behind-the-lines raids and forcing Palestinians to flee their homes.
In August 1953, Sharon founded and led the infamous Unit 101, which carried out a series of terror raids across the Israeli borders into refugee camps, villages and Bedouin encampments.

In September 1953, he led the Unit 101 in an attack on Bedouins in demilitarised Al Auja (a 145 square km juncture at the western Negev-Sinai frontier), killing an unknown number.

October 14, 1953, Sharon led Unit 101 into an attack on the village of Qibya in Jordan. Under his command, Israeli soldiers moved about in the village blowing up buildings, firing into doorways and windows with automatic weapons and throwing hand grenades, killing 69 civilians (mostly women and children). He later claimed he believed that the demolished houses had been empty of inhabitants, but according to the UN observer who inspected the scene, “One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them.”

In 1971 - The “Pacification” of Gaza. Under the euphemistic title the “Pacification of Gaza,” Sharon imposed a brutal policy of repression, blowing up houses, bulldozing large tracts of refugee camps, imposing severe collective punishments and imprisoning hundreds of young Palestinians. Numerous civilians were killed or unjustly imprisoned, their houses demolished and the whole area was effectively transformed into a jail.

Sand

I think on balance he is no worse than Yasser Arafat. Both of them engaged in forms of conflict that were at best questionable, both of them failed to negotiate a lasting peace. Both of them need to be judged in the context of the other. Many welcomed and rejoiced in Arafats death. Many will welcome and rejoice in Sharon's.

Gringo180

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Nah, it's trendy to hate Israel but love Cuba!

Or maybe its just common sense?

johnnyskeleton

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Sabra and Shatila took real military skill!
The man was, and always will be, a butcher who should have been tried by an International war crimes tribunal.

Some more of great "military" prowess as a field commander:
Sharon began his military career at a young age, when he became involved in fighting with the Israeli Haganah, leading commando units specialising in behind-the-lines raids and forcing Palestinians to flee their homes.
In August 1953, Sharon founded and led the infamous Unit 101, which carried out a series of terror raids across the Israeli borders into refugee camps, villages and Bedouin encampments.

In September 1953, he led the Unit 101 in an attack on Bedouins in demilitarised Al Auja (a 145 square km juncture at the western Negev-Sinai frontier), killing an unknown number.

October 14, 1953, Sharon led Unit 101 into an attack on the village of Qibya in Jordan. Under his command, Israeli soldiers moved about in the village blowing up buildings, firing into doorways and windows with automatic weapons and throwing hand grenades, killing 69 civilians (mostly women and children). He later claimed he believed that the demolished houses had been empty of inhabitants, but according to the UN observer who inspected the scene, “One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them.”

In 1971 - The “Pacification” of Gaza. Under the euphemistic title the “Pacification of Gaza,” Sharon imposed a brutal policy of repression, blowing up houses, bulldozing large tracts of refugee camps, imposing severe collective punishments and imprisoning hundreds of young Palestinians. Numerous civilians were killed or unjustly imprisoned, their houses demolished and the whole area was effectively transformed into a jail.

So at a time when both sides were engaging in cross border raids, unfortunately both killing more civilians than combatants, it is still Palestine good Israel bad? Or maybe, just maybe, the situation is a bit more complicated.

Tell me something - if the militant wing of the Conservative party in the UK started lobbing rockets into Ireland and the conservative government just said "whoops, it's beyond our control", what would your response be?

johnnyskeleton

Gringo180 wrote: »

Or maybe its just common sense?

Common sense would be looking at situations of conflict dispassionately and from the point of view of being a neutral observer. Assuming everything Israel does is wrong, and forgiving others more easily doesn't fit into that.

johnnyskeleton

Sand wrote: »

I think on balance he is no worse than Yasser Arafat. Both of them engaged in forms of conflict that were at best questionable, both of them failed to negotiate a lasting peace. Both of them need to be judged in the context of the other. Many welcomed and rejoiced in Arafats death. Many will welcome and rejoice in Sharon's.

The important point, which seems to be lost on some posters, is that while he didn't achieve peace, he at least tried.

paulmcshane

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So at a time when both sides were engaging in cross border raids, unfortunately both killing more civilians than combatants, it is still Palestine good Israel bad? Or maybe, just maybe, the situation is a bit more complicated.

Tell me something - if the militant wing of the Conservative party in the UK started lobbing rockets into Ireland and the conservative government just said "whoops, it's beyond our control", what would your response be?

He wasn't trying to justify what the Palestinians have done. The thread is about Sharon. Can you deny any of what the above poster mentioned about Sharon? The targeting and murdering of women and children is horrific.....and he got away with it.

wes

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The important point, which seems to be lost on some posters, is that while he didn't achieve peace, he at least tried.

Laughable claim:

Ariel Sharon: Peacemaker, hero... and butcher

He was respected in his eight years of near-death, with no sacrilegious cartoons to damage his reputation; and he will, be assured, receive the funeral of a hero and a peacemaker. Thus do we remake history

--SNIP--
He it was who had led Israel's catastrophic invasion of Lebanon three months earlier, lying to his own prime minister that his forces would advance only a few miles across the frontier, then laying siege to Beirut – at a cost of around 17,000 lives. But by slowly re-ascending Israel's dangerous political ladder, he emerged as prime minister, clearing Jewish settlements out of the Gaza Strip and thus, in the words of his own spokesman, putting any hope of a Palestinian state into "formaldehyde".
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
By the time of his political and mental death in 2006, Sharon – with the help of the 2001 crimes against humanity in the US and his successful but mendacious claim that Arafat backed bin Laden – had become, of all things, a peacemaker, while Arafat, who made more concessions to Israeli demands than any other Palestinian leader, was portrayed as a super-terrorist. The world forgot that Sharon had opposed the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, voted against a withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 1985, opposed Israel's participation in the 1991 Madrid peace conference – and the Knesset plenum vote on the Oslo agreement in 1993, abstained on a vote for a peace with Jordan the next year and voted against the Hebron agreement in 1997. Sharon condemned the manner of Israel's 2000 retreat from Lebanon and by 2002 had built 34 new illegal Jewish colonies on Arab land.
--SNIP--

The only Israeli leader who was serious about peace was Rabin (he was murdered for his trouble), the rest at best played lip service, and in the case of Sharon, he opposed it every step of the way. Sharon did not want peace, and did everything within his power to make sure if never happened.

Gringo180

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Common sense would be looking at situations of conflict dispassionately and from the point of view of being a neutral observer. Assuming everything Israel does is wrong, and forgiving others more easily doesn't fit into that.

You said the reason to hate Israel is because its "trendy" thats just a ridiculous statement to be fair. The reason there hated is because they are an apartheid state.

AlanS181824

R.I.P to him.