Ariel Sharon to undergo surgery to close hole in his head

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Ariel Sharon, still comatose after a massive stroke, will undergo surgery to close a hole doctors made in his head in previous operations, hospital officials said on Monday.

Late last week, experts on treatment of neurological ailments visited Sharon to consult on his treatment, in advance of a decision about moving him to a long-term care facility.

Channel 2 TV News reported last week Sharon would be moved to a long-term care facility following the head surgery."

<snip>

"The statement said the heads of neurology departments from two Tel Aviv hospitals were brought in last week to consult with doctors handling Sharon's case about future treatment.

Channel 2 said the operation, Sharon's eighth since he was hospitalized, would be necessary to allow his transfer to another facility."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/702029.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. You're having WAY too much fun here.

[Scurrilous]

2. Sorry...

...couldn't resist.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Somehow this headline doesn't translate well into English

It is funny but at the same time let us not lose sight of what the story really is about and show the proper decorum.

[Tom Joad]

4. Proper decorum for one of the most notorious war criminals of the

20th century. And i don't mean to downplay his war crimes of the 21st century, either.

[King Mongo]

5. Many nationalists support their war criminals

Here is another modern example:


NATO: Serbia not cooperating with UN war crimes court
http://www.dtt-net.com/en/index.php?page=view-article&article=1298&CMSSESSID=d845faa94a40d8712dad9c41fae0e9b3

Support for war criminals is a problem shared by many international individuals everywhere.

[IndianaGreen]

6. If we were to hang every war criminal in the I/P conflict

there wouldn't be anyone left on either side of the conflict!

Only Sharon could have pulled out of Gaza, just as only Nixon (another war criminal) could have gone to China.

From a medical point of view, Sharon is in a persistent vegetative state. He is already dead.

[Tom Joad]

7. I don't think anyone here said that Sharon was unique....

or that he should be hung.
Only the fact the historical fact that he was a war criminal.

[Jim Sagle]

8. And yet he was an angel compared to most ME leaders.

[King Mongo]

9. I was unaware...

...that war criminals are angels. But, certainly some may believe such. Afterall, there are people in evey nation who think that war criminals are angels.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. well...

Jim didn't say he was an angel, except when compared to other ME leaders.

You are right, there are some that think war criminals are angels...look at the "deification" of Arafat.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Look at it this way...

The folk who claim Sharon was an angel compared to so and so might like to stop and think for a moment what the reaction would be if they used the same argument to claim that Bush is an angel compared to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam is an angel compared to the Turks back in 1915. My reaction is so what? All of them, including Sharon, are still war criminals...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

14. The only problem with that is that w is clearly WORSE than Saddam.

And he's just getting started.

[King Mongo]

16. Our understanding of "good" or "bad"...

... is often motivated by our preferences. We believe that he is better than him because we like what he does and not what he does, or we think that she is worse than her because she has more power and the other appears to be weak.

Bush is thus good or bad to us, depending upon how we choose to understand his words and/or actions. If, however, a fair and just court can prove that an individual was responsible for a crime, then maybe our understanding of good or bad can be influenced by the hard and fair work of others, by their ability to prove to us what is really good and what is really bad.

If a fair and just court can prove to us that someone intentionally murdered innocent civilians, then that individual is not better than any other individual who intentionally murdered innocent civilians. It is not less wrong to kill civilians A instead of civilians B. Both Sharon and Arafat were leaders of terror organizations and thus both are equally guilty of such.

[King Mongo]

17. That's how I see it...

If A kills B, then A is not better or worse than C who killed D because both A and C killed B and D. Both A and C are killers who unjustly harmed B and D. It doesn't matter if B is an E or C is an F. B and D should not have been harmed. Even if A practiced X and C practiced Y, both unjustly harmed B and D. It is simply not better or worse to harm B or D.

[King Mongo]

10. Anyone can end the unnecessary occupation...

... with the right amount of international pressure. I think that Sharon worked with international pressure to the best of his ability in order to annex as much land as possible.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Were this true.

Whereas you think that "...Sharon worked with international pressure to the best of his ability in order to annex as much land as possible.," personally, I think that terrorism against Israel is routinely excused as "just."

[King Mongo]

15. Many everywhere argue that terrrorism is just....

.... For instance, when the US nuked Hiroshima, they believed that such terrorism was just. Or, when the British targeted to kill 13 million German civilians by bombing the civilian parts of cities, it was argued that such terrorism was just. Even during the Korean war, Vietnam war and many other wars, terror was believed my different folks on different sides to be just. A popular reason why many argue that terrorism is just, is for self-defense purposes. As long as people are not defending themselves, then they are more likely to criticize those who are defending themselves for the methods of self-defense that they practice. It is easy to criticize others, when one does not find oneself in their situation.

Yet, regardless of what people think about terrorism, Sharon did indeed work hard towards annexing as much land as possible. Certainly, he could have focused on building the wall along the green line, but he chose not to, preferring to build it on land that did not belong to Israel.