Sharon isn't Mr. Innocent. Sharon will be going to the world court once he is out of power for war crimes. Belgium rules Sharon can be tried Belgium's highest appeals court has ruled that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could face war crimes charges, but only after he leaves office. The court was responding to an appeal by a group of 23 Palestinian survivors of a massacre in Lebanon more than 20 years ago, when Mr Sharon was Israel's defence chief. The killings in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were carried out by Lebanese Christian militia allied to Israel, which then occupied southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew its ambassador to Belgium "for consultations" in response to the court ruling. The suit was brought under Belgium's 1993 "universal jurisdiction" law, which allows for the prosecution of alleged war crimes no matter where they took place. Last summer a lower court ruled that Mr Sharon could not be tried under the law because he was not in Belgium, but the government has since moved to amend the legislation. The change, which allows for prosecution even if the defendant is not in the country, is expected to be passed this spring. Indirect responsibility Mr Sharon was Israel's defence minister at the time of the killings at Sabra and Shatila in 1982. An Israeli investigation found Mr Sharon indirectly responsible for failing to prevent the killings of between 800 and 2,000 refugees. Mr Sharon was forced to resign from government but never faced charges over the incident. In the run-up to the 2001 Israeli elections, he expressed regret about the "terrible tragedy" at the refugee camps - but rejected any responsibility. Besides Mr Sharon, war crimes proceedings have been brought in Belgium against a number of world figures. These include Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo. But those trials were suspended in June, after the Brussels appeals court ruling. So far, the only people tried under Belgium's controversial war crimes law are four Rwandans sentenced in 2001 for their role in the 1994 genocide of the country's Tutsi ethnic minority. PS-Hitler was elected too... don't forget that...
Jokes are funniest when there is some truth involved in their premise. Your joke is not funny- in fact it is insulting.
Anyone know if this johnheath character is jewish? He seems to really feel pride for the state of israel
Again, just to set the record straight, if he "allowed it to happen" while taking no direct action himself, he's INDIRECTLY responsible, which, contrary to your post below, is what the Israeli commission concluded.
Buck, I have this guy on ignore, but since you answered his post, I see his last post. He starts out in this thread by telling three people to **** themselves, and now he wants to make my religious background an issue.
Turg, did you read the part where I said I can't stand those who make one side good and the other side bad>
Final points If you think Sharon is a defender of innocense and peace or If you think Arafat is a defender of innocence and peace Then you are ignorant. I don't like the ignorant. If you have a problem with my opinion, then maybe you too are ignorant.
I try to stay out of Israeli/Palestinian discussions because they always degenerate into name-calling and little of real value, unfortunately, but I have to say that this statement is a steaming pile of ****. Why say something like that? Talk about immaturity. You sound like a fascist.
have you resigned yourself to just signing in with a new name each week, only to get banned again once clutch figures out who you are?
Why did this thread get out-of-hand? (And I mean regular posters, not troll antimav). I find nothing that glynch posted here, nor most other's comments regarding Sharon, to be worthy of rebuke. What's the problem? I.e., which specific statements were incorrect?
I think it was Khan's coment equating Sharon to Arafat and Saddam Hussein. I think that is pretty bad comparison. Say what you will about his methods, Sharon is trying to protect his people, and he's democratically elected. Saddam murders his own people, and Arafat pretty much oppresses his own people (and murders some of them as well).
That will be a diffcult issue for Israel. They may argue, why give full citizenship to a people that they are at war with and have sworn to destroy the nation, but a blanket statetment like that certainly does not apply to the Israeli Arabs (is that right, Francis? ) It really is an issue similar (but still different) to what many European countries are experiencing with immigrants. They are afraid of losing their identity and culture. Magnify that by 10, and I think you have the Israelis' concerns. Based on millenia of abuse from others, I think they will only trust themselves and will not allow their voice to be diluted within their own country. That's not necessarily 'right' by Israeli Arabs; just trying to analyze the issue. I'm really stretching my knowledge here, so a big fat IMHO.
So your ingenious plan is to force the Israelis, whose only benefit in making concessions to Palestine is the flimsy promise of reduced terrorism, give in to all of the Palestinian demands, and once they have done so, to allow Palestine to continue their campaign of terror with impunity? I can't believe the Israelis haven't decided to go with that idea.
Oh you really do think you have it all figured out, don't you? In fact you OBVIOUSLY understand NOTHING about the situation. Retreat back to the 1967 borders and you'll STILL have attacks. Plain and simple. The Palestinians see ONE thing. They see "infidels" living in the promised land. That's all that matters. That is all the justification they feel they need. Just watch. What then, glynch? Hmmm...perhaps they can then declare war? Maybe, but then we'd have guys like you on here screaming and moaning about how unfair it is. Ridiculous. Here's a thought...maybe Houston city Counsel can try to dictate THIS policy decision as well. they are trying in regard to Iraq. What a genius move...they can't fix potholes but they'll fix up the Middle East. In response to the topic of this thread...I don't think that the US should disarm Syria and Lybia...but does it really suprise you that Israel would want the nations disarmed when they currently have scud missles pointed at Israel. Good job at giving about a third (and I'm being VERY generous here) of the story.
there is hundred of thousands of misslie pointing at many cites of the world from america, will it suprise u if other countries like china ask the un or say they want to disarm the american.....!!
When will you acknowledge that a democracy that respects human rights is different from an autocracy that doesn't? A democracy doesn't murder it's own people and doesn't have an interest in war. You see the exact opposite with rogue regimes. The US has those weapons for self defense. Countries like the Sovite Union and Iraq want them so they can conquer other countries and gain power.
