ARIEL SHARON kicks the bucket...

 

THE old war criminal finally croaked...

After some eight years in a coma..   I wouldn't pee on his grave, just personally.

I doubt that the world will genuinely mourn another warmonger on his way to whatever hell the universe has in reserve for all of those old despots and troublemakers..

 

Good riddance.

disgusting replies.

 

SOUNDS like "nicko" didn't pay any attention in history classes back in school...

A lack of knowledge of a subject can definitely easily add to his ignorance on this subject..

  

I know my history son,i'v had more time than you to learn it. I know you think of him as a monster,how would you like it if people made those remarks about a close relative of yours? just after their death.

:D   NO DOUBT you could also find some good points in Robert Mugabe, or the actions of the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Taliban as well, if you put your mind to it, nicko...

BUT that doesn't mean that your opinions are any more right or just here, than hen you were considering "climate change" a "myth" in another thread, as well..

AND NO, Nicko ~ obviously you are one of those who will NEVER learn from History, unfortunately. NO matter how long you might live, age doesn't always lead to wisdom (Drinky's living proof of that..).  Pity...   

what a self important prat you are.

nicko wrote:
what a self important prat you are.

  

Looked in a mirror lately, you senile old turd ???

Pot... kettle.. black !

You foolish little man..

  

Beekeeper wrote::D   NO DOUBT you could also find some good points in Robert Mugabe, or the actions of the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Taliban as well, if you put your mind to it, nicko...

BUT that doesn't mean that your opinions are any more right or just here, than hen you were considering "climate change" a "myth" in another thread, as well..

AND NO, Nicko ~ obviously you are one of those who will NEVER learn from History, unfortunately. NO matter how long you might live, age doesn't always lead to wisdom (Drinky's living proof of that..).  Pity...     

Actually Nicko has a very valid point, yes he did wrongs in his life but then what also did he do later on?

Yet he was the architect of Israel's most decisive concessions toward a possible Palestinian state - the removal of all Jewish settlements and Israeli military from Gaza.

If we take your view of wrongs done by people that they are then wrong for life, that would place Mandela aw wrong, yet it was his ability to reconcile which made him great.

So Sharon is dead, he did wrongs, you do not like him, but he also did things right, which should be given credit for, as people have done wrongs throughout their lives but it is what they do last which should count the most, as it shows they can change

Oh God he's back to Mandela again. Concessions towards a Palestine state? You mean he got them out of Gaza, where they had INVADED and butchered thousands. Gimmee a break. When did Mandela ever invade anywhere.

Sassy wrote:Oh God he's back to Mandela again.   Concessions towards a Palestine state?   You mean he got them out of Gaza, where they had INVADED and butchered thousands.  Gimmee a break.   When did Mandela ever invade anywhere.  

So he removed the forces out, are you saying that is not a step in the right direction now sassy to peace?

PhilDidge wrote:

Beekeeper wrote::D   NO DOUBT you could also find some good points in Robert Mugabe, or the actions of the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Taliban as well, if you put your mind to it, nicko...

BUT that doesn't mean that your opinions are any more right or just here, than hen you were considering "climate change" a "myth" in another thread, as well..

AND NO, Nicko ~ obviously you are one of those who will NEVER learn from History, unfortunately. NO matter how long you might live, age doesn't always lead to wisdom (Drinky's living proof of that..).  Pity...     

Actually Nicko has a very valid point, yes he did wrongs in his life but then what also did he do later on?

Yet he was the architect of Israel's most decisive concessions toward a possible Palestinian state - the removal of all Jewish settlements and Israeli military from Gaza.

...............................................  

  

SURE, Sharon began cleaning out the illegal settlements in his last term in government ~ but this as basically correcting what he had been one of the architects of 20 and 30 years earlier, Didge.

AND none of this negates his earlier behaviour as an Army officer in the 1960s that cemented his reputation, and that would have seen him labelled as a "war criminal" if he had been in ANY other country except Israel at that time..

*************************************************************************************************************


I HAD an odd and mildly humorous thought a little while ago ~ considering how similar in general outlooks and shared philosophies nicko, Cantankerous and Drinky ("Clarkson") are, I can just imagine this terrible troika holding court in the "cranky corner" down at the pensioners centre on a Thursday or Friday afternoon !     

Beekeeper wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Actually Nicko has a very valid point, yes he did wrongs in his life but then what also did he do later on?

Yet he was the architect of Israel's most decisive concessions toward a possible Palestinian state - the removal of all Jewish settlements and Israeli military from Gaza.

...............................................  

  

SURE, Sharon began cleaning out the illegal settlements in his last term in government ~ but this as basically correcting what he had been one of the architects of 20 and 30 years earlier, Didge.

AND none of this negates his earlier behaviour as an Army officer in the 1960s that cemented his reputation, and that would have seen him labelled as a "war criminal" if he had been in ANY other country except Israel at that time..

Yes as stated he has done many wrongs, but towards the end try to correct this, of which he should be given credit for, which is the point I am making. So I am not disputing any crimes he did, they were wrong, but he was not all bad as seen

how old are you beekeeper? about 16 I'd guess.

nicko wrote:
how old are you beekeeper? about 16 I'd guess.

 

About 220 in honeybee years...

Or nearly 8 if i were a dog or a cat..

As old as the hills; or the universe that surrounds us...

Or as fresh as the evening breeze..

  

Cut it out you guys, both of you have lived good full lives, no need for any pettiness

PhilDidge wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:
  

SURE, Sharon began cleaning out the illegal settlements in his last term in government ~ but this as basically correcting what he had been one of the architects of 20 and 30 years earlier, Didge.

AND none of this negates his earlier behaviour as an Army officer in the 1960s that cemented his reputation, and that would have seen him labelled as a "war criminal" if he had been in ANY other country except Israel at that time..

Yes as stated he has done many wrongs, but towards the end try to correct this, of which he should be given credit for, which is the point I am making. So I am not disputing any crimes he did, they were wrong, but he was not all bad as seen

He may have got some credit if he had pulled the illegal settlers out from all the occupied territories and not just from Gaza where they shouldn't have been in the first place. And why do you think he didn't do it in the other occupied territories as well then?

And if you remember his senior adviser Dov Weisglass gave the real reason why he pulled the people out of Gaza and it had nothing to do with trying to bring about peace and reconciliation.

Still Irn he did the right think in the end did he not and was a move towards peace was it not?

PhilDidge wrote:Still Irn he did the right think in the end did he not and was a move towards peace was it not?

What was the right thing, Didge? Please explain it to me in detail because I really can't see it

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Still Irn he did the right think in the end did he not and was a move towards peace was it not?

What was the right thing, Didge? Please explain it to me in detail because I really can't see it

Of course it was the right thing to do to help move forward to peace.

nicko wrote:disgusting replies.

Interesting; do you remember these replies on the death of the great statesman Nelson Mandela?

should be rest in pieces, I saw first hand the results of some of the ANCs bombing of civilians.he did not plant any bombs him self [or so he said] but he was responsible for ordering the placement of some of them. people who are lauding him should of stood among the dismembered bloody remains of women and CHILDREN that he was responsibe for.you apoligists make me sick!

thousand of black died and mandela was responsible for a lot of them!

Hardly respectful thoughts for the death of such a man   

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What was the right thing, Didge? Please explain it to me in detail because I really can't see it

Of course it was the right thing to do to help move forward to peace.

I asked you to try and explain how that act moved the peace process forward because I simply cannot see it. You don't have to answer and of course that is your choice.

I am telling you Irn

So I will ask you, is a step to peace removing an army out of an area it is occupying?

Perhaps you didn't notice Irn's point:

And if you remember his senior adviser Dov Weisglass gave the real reason why he pulled the people out of Gaza and it had nothing to do with trying to bring about peace and reconciliation.



Dov Weisglass said it was to put the peace process on hold while he did other things.

Again is a step towards peace removing armed forces occupying an area?

Not if its done with the aim of STOPPING the peace process.

That's hilarious! Beekeeper lists his age right under his avatar.

Ben_Reilly wrote:That's hilarious! Beekeeper lists his age right under his avatar.

Had to work my way back to realise you were referring to Nicko's post of: how old are you beekeeper? about 16 I'd guess.

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Who knows? Thi s could present another chance for Dave to get in on some selfies.

Anyway am away for my tea

in answer to eilzil, I saw first hand what the anc did,i did not see any thing that sharron did!

nicko wrote:in answer to eilzil, I saw first hand what the anc did,i did not see any thing that sharron did!

Then you must have a selection attention. See what you want to see I guess. But if you demand respect for one it should at least count for the other. Funny the Butcher of Beirut, an enemy of Muslims, escapes your attention; but a black south African receives you full condemnation even in death...

did you read what I said? I saw first hand what the anc did because I was there. I was involved in other activities and did not concern myself with what Sharon did because I did not know.

nicko wrote:did you read what I said? I saw first hand what the anc did because I was there. I was involved in other activities and did not concern myself with what Sharon did because I did not know.

Were you actually in South Africa at the time of the ANCs battles for freedom? And fair enough YOU did not know about Sharon and what he did (though there is plenty information out there if you cared to look) but OTHERS DO- so a bit presumptuous to go telling other people their condemnation of Sharon is a disgrace when actually they are just better informed about the man that you are.

give me a rest mate,i know I upset you with my remarks on flap,don't have a down me all the time.i did apologise.

eilzel,i was in Africa when the anc were blowing up women and children.

Where you there when the S.African forces were terrorising and killing women and children? And beating Steve Biko to death?

I was there yes, but what the sa police were doing was kept from us.

nicko wrote:I was there yes, but what the sa police were doing was kept from us.

Which is why you thought what the ANC was doing was terrible, because you didn't see what they were fighting against. Killing is never right, but you can't expect people not to fight back if you terrorise them, corral them in areas and stop their free movement, deprive them of every opportunity, demean them, treat them as sub human and kill their children.

nicko wrote:give me a rest mate,i know I upset you with my remarks on flap,don't have a down me all the time.i did apologise.

I'm not having a down on you nicko. I'm debating a point you made. You made out it was a disgrace to condemn Ariel Sharon for his actions immediately after his death; you claimed you didn't know he had done anything bad- but he did, and many people are more than aware of it and still suffer today because of his actions in the past. Yet immediately after Mandela's death you condemned him. You can see how that might come across as hypocritical can't you?

And to be fair I could just easily accuse you of having a 'down on me all the time' over gay issues- but I don't, I argue and debate them, cause that's what I like to do and why I join 'discussion forums'   

As you didn't know Nicko, here is just a taste of one of the things he was in charge of:

Robert Fisk, a journalist with the Independent newspaper, was one of the first people to arrive in Shatila after the Israelis withdrew. He describes the extent of the atrocity in his book Pity the Nation:

"What we found inside the Palestinian camp at ten o'clock on the morning of September 1982 did not quite beggar description… But these people, hundreds of them had been shot down unarmed. This was a mass killing, an incident - how easily we used the word 'incident' in Lebanon - that was also an atrocity. It went beyond even what the Israelis would have in other circumstances called a terrorist activity. It was a war crime.

Bill Foley of AP had come with us. All he could say as he walked round was 'Jesus Christ' over and over again. We might have accepted evidence of a few murders; even dozens of bodies, killed in the heat of combat. But there were women lying in houses with their skirts torn up to their waists and their legs wide apart, children with their throats cut, rows of young men shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. There were babies - blackened babies because they had been slaughtered more than 24-hours earlier and their small bodies were already in a state of decomposition - tossed into rubbish heaps alongside discarded US army ration tins, Israeli army equipment and empty bottles of whiskey.

Where were the murderers? Or to use the Israelis' vocabulary, where were the 'terrorists' ?When we drove down to Chatila, we had seen the Israelis on the top of the apartments in the Avenue Camille Chamoun but they made no attempt to stop us. It was only when we were driving back past the entrance to Chatila that Jenkins decided to stop the car. 'I don't like this', he said. 'Where is everyone? What the f**k is that smell?'

Down a laneway to our right, no more than 50 yards from the entrance, there lay a pile of corpses."

eilzel,as far as I remember I only made one comment on your sexuality,and apologised for that.

nicko wrote:eilzel,as far as I remember I only made one comment on your sexuality,and apologised for that.

You're jumping on one point I made there nicko. I'm not interested in whether or not you ever had a 'down' on me. I'm just saying I am not deliberately having a go at you here, just trying, so patiently, to get you to see how your saying others comments are disgraceful may be hypocritical.

nicko wrote:
did you read what I said? I saw first hand what the anc did because I was there. I was involved in other activities and did not concern myself with what Sharon did because I did not know.

  

WAVING your Union Jack loud and proud at those evil black savages no doubt, nicko !

Working for the British mining companies, were you back then !?!

Saw N.M. leading those riots, did you !   

nicko wrote:
eilzel, i was in Africa when the anc were blowing up women and children.

  

THAT would have take a big bicycle pump, no doubt !


DID you support paying one group six times more than another for doing the same job, side by side, purely on the basis of skin colour, nicko ?   

Absolutely brilliant piece on Sharon today in The Guardian by Avi Shlaim, professor emeritus of international relations at St. Antony's College, Oxford University, the author of Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations.


'Man of peace'? Ariel Sharon was the champion of violent solutions
Sharon's legacy is the empowerment of some of the worst elements in Israel's dysfunctional politics

Ariel Sharon, who died on Saturday after eight years in a coma, was one of Israel's most iconic and controversial figures. His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption. Yet despite these flaws he holds a special place in the annals of his country's history.

Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.

The title he chose for his biography aptly summed him up in one word – Warrior. Like Shakespeare's Coriolanus, Sharon was essentially a fighting machine. His critics denounced him as a practitioner of "gun Zionism", as a perversion of the Zionist idea of the strong, fair-minded, and fearless Jew. To the Palestinians Sharon represented the cold, cruel, militaristic face of the Zionist occupation.

In 1953 Major Sharon committed his first war crime: the massacre of 69 civilians in the Jordanian village of Qibya. In 1982, as minister of defence, he led Israel's invasion of Lebanon in a war of deception that failed to achieve any of its grandiose geopolitical objectives. A commission of inquiry found Sharon responsible for failing to prevent the massacre by Christian Phalangists of Palestinian refugees in Beirut's Sabra and Shatila camps. This verdict was etched on his forehead like a mark of Cain. But who foresaw that the man who was declared unfit to be minister of defence would bounce back as prime minister?

During the 2001 elections campaign Sharon tried to reinvent himself as a man of peace. His spin doctors cultivated the notion that old age was accompanied by a personal transformation from a sanguinary soldier into a genuine peace-seeker. President George W Bush famously described Sharon as "a man of peace". For the last 40 years the Arab-Israeli conflict has been my main research interest, and I have not come across a scintilla of evidence to support this view. Sharon was a man of war through and through, an Arab-hater, and a pugnacious proponent of the doctrine of permanent conflict. Following his rise to power Sharon therefore remained what he had always been – the champion of violent solutions.

The dominant preoccupation of Sharon's premiership was the "war on terror" against militant Palestinian groups. No peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority took place between 2001 and 2006, and Sharon regarded this as something to be proud of. To his way of thinking negotiations necessarily involve compromise, and he consequently avoided them like the plague.

For this reason he also rejected all international plans aimed at a two-state solution. One was the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which offered Israel peace and normalisation with all 22 members of the Arab League in return for agreeing to an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital city in East Jerusalem. Another was the 2003 Quartet road map, which envisaged the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2005.

Sharon was the unilateralist par excellence. His ultimate aim was to redraw unilaterally Israel's borders, incorporating large swaths of occupied territory. Stage one was to build on the West Bank the so-called security barrier which the Palestinians call the apartheid wall. The international court of justice condemned this wall as illegal. It is three times as long as the pre-1967 border, and its primary purpose is not security but land-grabbing. Good fences may make good neighbours, but not when they are erected in the neighbour's garden.

Stage two consisted of the unilateral disengagement of Gaza in August 2005. This involved the uprooting of 8,000 Jews and the dismantling of many settlements − a shocking turnaround by a man who used to be called the godfather of the settlers. Withdrawal from Gaza was presented as a contribution to the Quartet's road map but it was nothing of the sort. The road map called for negotiations; Sharon refused to negotiate. His unilateral move was designed to freeze the political process, thereby preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state and maintaining the geopolitical status quo in the West Bank.

The legal term "depraved indifference" refers to conduct that is so wanton, so callous, so reckless, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant criminal liability. Sharon personified this kind of indifference in his approach to the Palestinians.

Towards the very end of his active life he bolted from the Likud to create the centrist party Kadima, but Kadima did not survive his demise. Today it has only two seats in the 120-member Knesset. So Sharon's last-minute attempt to bring about a realignment in Israeli politics ended in failure.

His enduring legacy has been to empower and embolden some of the most racist, xenophobic, expansionist, and intransigent elements in Israel's dysfunctional political system.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel

But of course that is not what we will be hearing at his funeral, the spin will be spinning at twice the normal rate to make him a hero. And before someone tries bring Mandela into this, I consider it an insult to Mandela, comparing an anti-apartheid combatant (Mandela) with an apartheid warrior (Sharon).

beekeeper,are you accusing me of being racist?

beekeeper, I asked you if you thought I was being racist? be so kind as to answer the question.