Ariel Sharon "close to the end"

Gael23

Reports saying he has entered renal failure which often only goes one way. Maybe he might finally be allowed to die peacefully.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25569704

woodoo

Can he not get a transplant. I hope he doesn't get one though.

Nodin

woodoo wrote: »

Can he not get a transplant. I hope he doesn't get one though.

....they'd never use an organ on somebody with little or no hope of recovery. He's been in a coma for 7 or so years.

wretcheddomain

Nodin wrote: »

....they'd never use an organ on somebody with little or no hope of recovery. He's been in a coma for 7 or so years.

The transplanted organ would reject him anyway such is the revulsion that even the organ would have for this terrible human vegetable.

Iwasfrozen

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The transplanted organ would reject him anyway such is the revulsion that even the organ would have for this terrible human vegetable.

Whatever the man did in life he's now a severely frail old man on death's door. Have some decorum.

P_1

Possibly OT but there's something that strikes me as being fairly unethical about keeping somebody in a coma for so long.

bumper234

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Whatever the man did in life he's now a severely frail old man on death's door. Have some decorum.

So his age should excuse him for the crimes he committed?

wretcheddomain

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Whatever the man did in life he's now a severely frail old man on death's door. Have some decorum.

bumper234 wrote: »

So his age should excuse him for the crimes he committed?

I despise Godwin's Law as much as everyone else but it must be enacted here.

If Hitler was captured by Allied forces and kept in a prison cell for the rest of his life, then suddenly, Hitler suffered a stroke and was left in a coma aged 86, would you demand 'decorum' during this time too? Indeed, hardline Nazi's today would demand this respect for a frail practically dead old man. Do we respect the Nazi's wishes in the name of 'decorum'?

For anyone unfamiliar with Ariel Sharon, I recommend this article here and then, on balance, see which position you arrive at. An important excerpt is quoted below:

Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, is currently facing possible war crime prosecutions for two massacres that occurred 20 years apart: the September 1982 massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, and the April 2002 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) mass killings in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.

Sharon is, without doubt, guilty of these crimes against humanity, and others. He is also unrepentant. For him, these mass killings are merely necessary steps on the path toward his objective of a "Final Solution" to the "Palestinian problem," through the mass expulsion and/or extermination of the more than 3 million Palestinians and Arabs now living in Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Under various labels, Sharon and a rogues gallery of collaborators inside Israel, Britain, and the United States, are now moving toward the final phase of their "mass transfer" plans for the Palestinians and Arabs.

Conclusion: Political correctness gone mad.

bumper234

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I despise Godwin's Law as much as everyone else but it must be enacted here.

If Hitler was captured by Allied forces and kept in a prison cell for the rest of his life, then suddenly, Hitler suffered a stroke and was left in a coma aged 86, would you demand 'decorum' during this time too?

Political correctness gone mad.

You seem to think that i have some feelings for AS? I personally hope he has been in his own personal hell for the last 6 years and could only hope if he was that he could last longer.

wretcheddomain

bumper234 wrote: »

You seem to think that i have some feelings for AS? I personally hope he has been in his own personal hell for the last 6 years and could only hope if he was that he could last longer.

While I was quoting you, that was merely in support. The questions I raised were directed at the other quote. I should have made that clear.

cometogether

ryanf1 wrote: »

Reports saying he has entered renal failure which often only goes one way. Maybe he might finally be allowed to die peacefully.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25569704

He'll certainly have an easier passing than the thousands of civilians that died at Sabra and Shatila

Scofflaw

Celebrating people's deaths is not now, and never has been acceptable. We don't require that you only express polite regrets, but that you refrain from wishing the person in hell etc, no matter how strongly you may feel about the person. cometogether's comment is acceptable, bumper234's is not.

moderately,
Scofflaw

renegademaster

lovely man deserves a lovely passing

johnnyskeleton

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I despise Godwin's Law as much as everyone else but it must be enacted here.

If Hitler was captured by Allied forces and kept in a prison cell for the rest of his life, then suddenly, Hitler suffered a stroke and was left in a coma aged 86, would you demand 'decorum' during this time too? Indeed, hardline Nazi's today would demand this respect for a frail practically dead old man. Do we respect the Nazi's wishes in the name of 'decorum'?

For anyone unfamiliar with Ariel Sharon, I recommend this article here and then, on balance, see which position you arrive at. An important excerpt is quoted below:

Conclusion: Political correctness gone mad.

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.

Nodin

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.

...when was this, might I ask?

Iwasfrozen

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If Hitler was captured by Allied forces and kept in a prison cell for the rest of his life, then suddenly, Hitler suffered a stroke and was left in a coma aged 86, would you demand 'decorum' during this time too? Indeed, hardline Nazi's today would demand this respect for a frail practically dead old man. Do we respect the Nazi's wishes in the name of 'decorum'?

Yes.

Sand

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I despise Godwin's Law as much as everyone else but it must be enacted here.

If Hitler was captured by Allied forces and kept in a prison cell for the rest of his life, then suddenly, Hitler suffered a stroke and was left in a coma aged 86, would you demand 'decorum' during this time too? Indeed, hardline Nazi's today would demand this respect for a frail practically dead old man. Do we respect the Nazi's wishes in the name of 'decorum'?

I guess what people are trying to say is that Ariel Sharon has never heard of you. Neither he nor his family probably cares what you think. Yet to demonstrate how much you hate this man you're invoking Godwins Law, breaching forum rules and making a few mean-spirited and nasty comments that Sharon will never hear but which you will forever own, proudly or otherwise. You suffer more from the comments you're making than Sharon ever will. The demands for 'decorum' are more about self-respect than anything else.

Granted its difficult when dealing with a polarising political figure, which is why I don't like condolence/health watch "politics" threads.

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

...when was this, might I ask?

Um, he was a senior military figure in the IDF and then the Israeli Minister for Defence, during, you know, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among other things. However, he also proposed the vacating of the Israeli settlements and appeared to be making genuine efforts towards peace towards the end of his career.

hatrickpatrick

ryanf1 wrote: »

Maybe he might finally be allowed to die peacefully.

Ah, peacefully, you mean like all those Palestinian kids who were blown to pieces by air strikes he ordered on land he ha no moral or legal justification to order them on?

I don't wish bad things on any human but there are some I would feel no sympathy for if such bad things befell them.
Like the ending of Batman Begins, "I won't kill you... But I don't have to save you."

hatrickpatrick

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sharon, having championed repeated theft in the form of settlement expansion, defend this policy to the last, did he not?
He may have talked about peace but he certainly never talked about giving back more than a pittance of what he took.

Nodin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Um, he was a senior military figure in the IDF and then the Israeli Minister for Defence, during, you know, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among other things. However, he also proposed the vacating of the Israeli settlements and appeared to be making genuine efforts towards peace towards the end of his career.

You may have him confused with somebody else. He ended the attempt to settle Gaza for a number of reasons - it was deemed far too draining of resources - large numbers of troops were required to protect just 8,000 settlers. The colonists were moved to the West Bank and effort is now concentrated there and in Arab East Jerusalem.

It also served the purpose of putting off peace talks, while making Israel 'look good' for seemingly giving up land without demands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Karl Stein

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If history was fair and unbiased he would receive similar treatment as Nelson Mandela.

Dear me what an incredible distortion of reality - fair and unbiased in a wingnut Fox News way is it?. One was standing up to a nasty, murderous, racist regime and the other was a extremist war-monger up to his neck in blood who blocked all attempts at achieving a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

he voted against a peace treaty with Egypt. In 1985 he voted against the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the so-called security zone in Southern Lebanon. In 1991 he opposed Israel’s participation in the Madrid peace conference. In 1993 he voted No in the Knesset on the Oslo agreement. The following year he abstained in the Knesset on a vote over a peace treaty with Jordan. He voted against the Hebron agreement in 1997 and objected to the way in which the withdrawal from southern Lebanon was conducted.

Source

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

It also served the purpose of putting off peace talks, while making Israel 'look good' for seemingly giving up land without demands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

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

Busted Flat.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Um, he was a senior military figure in the IDF and then the Israeli Minister for Defence, during, you know, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among other things. However, he also proposed the vacating of the Israeli settlements and appeared to be making genuine efforts towards peace towards the end of his career.

Paisley had a similar conversion, a little bit late for a tyrant

massacre by Lebanese militias of Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila,

johnnyskeleton

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Dear me what an incredible distortion of reality - fair and unbiased in a wingnut Fox News way is it?. One was standing up to a nasty, murderous, racist regime and the other was a extremist war-monger up to his neck in blood who blocked all attempts at achieving a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Well I set out my reasons and you haven't responded to them, so I don't think it is fair.

Interesting that you use that article citing his refusal to agree to peace with Egypt as one of his many "crimes". The peace that he refused to agree with Egypt arose from the state of war which existed since 1948. You know, when Egypt invaded Israel the day after it came into being as a state. Maybe FDR is a war-monger for not instantly suing for peace after the invasion of pearl harbour?

Karl Stein

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Paisley had a similar conversion, a little bit late for a tyrant

Indeed. Set fire to the world, scurry off denying responsibility, return at the last moment when the flames are dying holding a fire hose.

Busted Flat.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Indeed. Set fire to the world, scurry off denying responsibility, return at the last moment when the flames are dying holding a fire hose.

During the 1982 Lebanon War, while Sharon was Defense Minister, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred between 16 September and 18. Between 800 and 3,500 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were killed by the Phalanges—Lebanese Maronite Christian militias. The Security Chief of the Phalange militia, Elie Hobeika, was the ground commander of the militiamen who entered the Palestinian camps and killed the Palestinians. The Phalange had been sent into the camps to clear out PLO fighters while Israeli forces surrounded the camps, blocking camp exits and providing logistical support. The killings led some to label Sharon "the Butcher of Beirut".[26]
An Associated Press report on 15 September 1982 stated:

johnnyskeleton

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sharon, having championed repeated theft in the form of settlement expansion, defend this policy to the last, did he not?
He may have talked about peace but he certainly never talked about giving back more than a pittance of what he took.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Not all, but hardly a pittance.

Karl Stein

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well I set out my reasons and you haven't responded to them, so I don't think it is fair.

I drew attention to the utter ridiculousness of the Mandela/Sharon 'comparison' rendering the rest of the post moot.

Interesting that you use that article citing his refusal to agree to peace with Egypt as one of his many "crimes"...

I was highlighting his long extremist history of opposing peace settlements and didn't mention 'crimes'. Sharon's crimes stand on their own 'merits'.

Nodin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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

....everything I've said in that post is true. I've presented evidence to support it. You might also remember that Israel still controls Gaza's borders etc, so it was hardly a giveaway. You may note that expansion has continued apace in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Tramps Like Us

Ariel Sharon "like Mandela"? Well, fcuk me, thats a new one

rockatansky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Whatever the man did in life he's now a severely frail old man on death's door. Have some decorum.

Ah the poor man.

Why does the fact that somebody is a frail old man mean that they are entitled to some sort of respect?

Just because he is elderly and frail does not absolve him of his crimes.

Would you have demanded that we show Fr Brendan Smyth this same 'decorum' had he lived on an innocent frail old age of 85?

Mods have stated that celebration of any death is not allowed on boards and that's fair enough. I for one will be thinking of the children, women and men he had butchered when he finally passes away.

The world will be a better place without him.

Iwasfrozen

rockatansky wrote: »

Ah the poor man.

Why does the fact that somebody is a frail old man mean that they are entitled to some sort of respect?

Just because he is elderly and frail does not absolve him of his crimes.

Would you have demanded that we show Fr Brendan Smyth this same 'decorum' had he lived on an innocent frail old age of 85?

Mods have stated that celebration of any death is not allowed on boards and that's fair enough. I for one will be thinking of the children, women and men he had butchered when he finally passes away.

The world will be a better place without him.

No being sick does not absolve him of his crimes and his legacy will live on but personal attacks against an elderly man on death's door are vile and speak more about the person making the attacks.

Busted Flat.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No being sick does not absolve him of his crimes and his legacy will live on but personal attacks against an elderly man on death's door are vile and speak more about the person making the attacks.

We have found ... that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office—and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority ... to ... remove [him] from office."[28]

Good riddance to a terrorist, he will meet his friends in hell if there is a place like that. He will join the likes of Hitler, Stalin and several of the tyrants that tried to rule and murder their people. Bushes and Blair are waiting at the gate.

rockatansky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No being sick does not absolve him of his crimes and his legacy will live on but personal attacks against an elderly man on death's door are vile and speak more about the person making the attacks.

Again with the frail elderly man at deaths door line. Young, old, living, nearly dead, i couldn't care less. He should always be accountable for his actions.

You've already stated to a previous posters question that you would show decorum to Aldolf Hitler if in the same position therefore I presume you would also include Brendan Smyth in that also.

Speaks more about the person to be honest.

Iwasfrozen

rockatansky wrote: »

Again with the frail elderly man at deaths door line. Young, old, living, nearly dead, i couldn't care less. He should always be accountable for his actions.

You've already stated to a previous posters question that you would show decorum to Aldolf Hitler if in the same position therefore I presume you would also include Brendan Smyth in that also.

Speaks more about the person to be honest.

And that's where your lack of respect is obvious.

Sound of Silence

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And that's where your lack of respect is obvious.

I've never understood the expectation that dead or dying public figures should be held by default in a sort of mock reverence.

You argue that it's a matter of self-respect, but I'd argue that to fake anguish would be an even greater disservice to one's own self-respect than to continue expressing your actual opinion on the man and his actions.

endacl

Seems to be a tricky line to walk commenting here on this one. My honest response to the news might be that I'm sorry for the loss that his family might feel. I'd have to include of course the observation that the world is a worse place for his having being in it, and became a better place when ill health forced him from any position of influence. I wouldn't rank Sharon with Hitler. He is on the same mental folder though, as far as I'm concerned. Thatcher's in there too. Lower down the list, but same folder.

The tab on the folder reads 'nasty poisonous people. Best avoided'.

Iwasfrozen

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I've never understood the expectation that dead or dying public figures should be held by default in a sort of mock reverence.

You argue that it's a matter of self-respect, but I'd argue that to fake anguish would be an even greater disservice to one's own self-respect than to continue expressing your actual opinion on the man and his actions.

Because dignity and respect are human rights to be given unconditionally. It's not a question of ignoring his crimes but even a criminal deserves respect.

Scofflaw

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I've never understood the expectation that dead or dying public figures should be held by default in a sort of mock reverence.

You argue that it's a matter of self-respect, but I'd argue that to fake anguish would be an even greater disservice to one's own self-respect than to continue expressing your actual opinion on the man and his actions.

There's no requirement that anyone fake anguish, or even regret, only that they rise above pointless and frankly meaningless trash-talking. If you have a harsh judgement on his life, actions, or legacy, feel free to express it, as long as you can do better than "good riddance" or "rot in hell".

It's a politics forum, not a toilet door or a book of condolences. Neither empty platitudes nor empty bombast is of particular value.

moderately,
Scofflaw

rockatansky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because dignity and respect are human rights to be given unconditionally. It's not a question of ignoring his crimes but even a criminal deserves respect.

After death, yes. Even Osama Bin Laden was given a burial in accordance with his religious beliefs (I think).

However to demand that respect is shown to somebody alive who had absolutely no respect for Human Rights ( or Human Life for that matter) whatsoever is offensive.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

The man is now and always will be a war criminal.
That he is now dying is irrelevant, I would show him the same sympathy and respect that he showed the old men, women, and children of Sabra and Shatila in 1982.

FTA69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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

No. Nodin correctly pointed out that the Gaza settlements were abandoned as they were a massive drain on resources; it wasn't done out of goodwill. If it was done out of goodwill, the Israelis wouldn't have intensified their efforts to expand similar settlements in the West Bank.

valknut

Would have more respect for Hitler then this jewish warmonger.

Nodin

valknut wrote: »

Would have more respect for Hitler then this jewish warmonger.

Along with the rather bizarre reference to Hitler, I fail to see the relevance of his faith/ethnicity.

valknut

Nodin wrote: »

Along with the rather bizarre reference to Hitler, I fail to see the relevance of his faith/ethnicity.

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

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No being sick does not absolve him of his crimes and his legacy will live on but personal attacks against an elderly man on death's door are vile and speak more about the person making the attacks.

Personal attacks on a person who has done the things Sharon has done are either ok or they're not. Their moral status does not change depending on the state of Sharon's health or on his age.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personal attacks on a person who has done the things Sharon has done are either ok or they're not. Their moral status does not change depending on the state of Sharon's health or on his age.

Exactly. Every person has the unconditional right to dignity and respect. Even monsters like Sharon. You might not like it but you don't have to.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because dignity and respect are human rights to be given unconditionally. It's not a question of ignoring his crimes but even a criminal deserves respect.

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.

Iwasfrozen

rockatansky wrote: »

After death, yes. Even Osama Bin Laden was given a burial in accordance with his religious beliefs (I think).

However to demand that respect is shown to somebody alive who had absolutely no respect for Human Rights ( or Human Life for that matter) whatsoever is offensive.

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

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

Iwasfrozen

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 absolutely disagree. Sharon is a human being with an unconditional right to dignity and respect. He might be a monster but even monsters deserve respect.

You might not like it but you don't have to like it.