[PacHead]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
his death will give Israel one less excuse to make peace. But mark my words... they won't.

Who gives a crap about peace ? You don't make peace with people who are plotting to kill you/blow you up.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Who gives a crap about peace ? You don't make peace with people who are plotting to kill you/blow you up.

Who does one make peace with then?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Who does one make peace with then?

One makes peace with people who really want peace, that's who.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by typoon:
Would you have said the same thing about Hitler? Stalin? I don't see why people are giving respect to this terrorist. Yes he is a human being, but his trail of blood has gone on for too long and he hasn't earned any respect except maybe from his terrorist thugs in the P.L.O and other groups. He doesn't deserve respect. Same thing as if it were Hitler, Stalin, Mousellini (SP).

Your opinion of him as a terrorist stems mostly from your point of view. There are plenty of innocent people in Yugoslavia you have had their homes and families killed by Clinton's (and NATO's) bombing campaigns and think that he's a terrorist. There are plenty of innocent people in Iraq who have killed or had their homes destroyed by Bush's little war who would say that he is a terrorist. So I don't think you should put such importance on yourself, a person who has never been personally bombed by anyone, to judge who is and who is not a terrorist.

So in answer, yes, they all, including Hitler should have their burial wishes fulfilled, but not by us. His case was interesting because we conquered his country right before his death, so there really want anyone around to do it. I mean, if Hitler had requested to be buried in Arlington, VA, we would have probably denied that request had we not decimated the nation (with good reason) because the location was created by the US for our soldiers and had no significance to him, but if he requested to be buried in his hometown and had supporters to do so, I'm sure that that the US wouldn't have said no and stolen his corpse to desecrate. Does that answer outline why trying to use Hitler as a counterexample make no sense?

Stalin was a bit better of an example, though he suffers a bit form the point of view syndrome. But Stalin did have his burial wishes fulfilled. So that's that. Mussolini too, incidentally.

So basically yes, because the man died, that's enough reason to try to let him be buried where he wants.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by PacHead:
One makes peace with people who really want peace, that's who.

I would disagree. If both sides want peace, odds are, they already have it. In this case, both sides NEED peace. Both sides need strong leadership to make this happen but Sharon isn't exactly doing his part.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
So in answer, yes, they all, including Hitler should have their burial wishes fulfilled, but not by us. His case was interesting because we conquered his country right before his death, so there really want anyone around to do it. I mean, if Hitler had requested to be buried in Arlington, VA, we would have probably denied that request had we not decimated the nation (with good reason) because the location was created by the US for our soldiers and had no significance to him, but if he requested to be buried in his hometown and had supporters to do so, I'm sure that that the US wouldn't have said no and stolen his corpse to desecrate. Does that answer outline why trying to use Hitler as a counterexample make no sense?

I disagree 100%, one does not bury beasts such as Hitler. The Russians had the right idea. I believe they ended up keeping his bulletholed skull and throwing his dirty ashes in some river, if I'm not mistaken.

People like Hitler don't need any grave, so that all sorts of wacko dirtbags/followers will have a shrine/place to visit.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
I would disagree. If both sides want peace, odds are, they already have it. In this case, both sides NEED peace. Both sides need strong leadership to make this happen but Sharon isn't exactly doing his part.

for a left winger... you sure have this one right.

[itai195]

It's surprising how many folks don't understand how horribly offensive the idea of burying Arafat at Judaism's holiest site is. My opinion is worth as much as anyone else's here, but I think Jews are right to be incensed about the prospect of burying him there. Personally, I don't mind him being buried in Jerusalem, but not at the Temple Mount. It's not as if he's a particularly religious figure, so I don't see how he belongs at that site even by that simple standard.

[Logic]

I've posted this question before and still no answer:

I'm wondering how many know the history of the Al-Haram al-Sharif?

What the state of the Jewish Temple was, how it was used etc etc when it was decided to build a Mosque there.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's surprising how many folks don't understand how horribly offensive the idea of burying Arafat at Judaism's holiest site is. My opinion is worth as much as anyone else's here, but I think Jews are right to be incensed about the prospect of burying him there. Personally, I don't mind him being buried in Jerusalem, but not at the Temple Mount. It's not as if he's a particularly religious figure, so I don't see how he belongs at that site even by that simple standard.

I��agree.
I agree with itai. I thought that wouldn't happen for awhile, or until�

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
I've posted this question before and still no answer:

I'm wondering how many know the history of the Al-Haram al-Sharif?

What the state of the Jewish Temple was, how it was used etc etc when it was decided to build a Mosque there.

It doesn't particularly matter. I'm aware of the history and of the Muslim claims of exclusivity. It doesn't change the fact that there's still a deep Jewish connection to the site, and that Arafat is hated by many Jews.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
It doesn't particularly matter. I'm aware of the history and of the Muslim claims of exclusivity. It doesn't change the fact that there's still a deep Jewish connection to the site, and that Arafat is hated by many Jews.

In fact it does matter. It shows who took the time and effort to build up the site and preserve it.

There also a deep Muslim connection to that site. But for some reason that doesn't matter to some. Is it because Arabs usually have darker skin than Israeli Jews?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
There also a deep Muslim connection to that site. But for some reason that doesn't matter to some. Is it because Arabs usually have darker skin than Israeli Jews?

It matters a lot, but burying Arafat there would clearly violate any understanding that the site is holy to both religions. My previous post was written under the assumption that you share this understanding.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
In fact it does matter. It shows who took the time and effort to build up the site and preserve it.

There also a deep Muslim connection to that site. But for some reason that doesn't matter to some. Is it because Arabs usually have darker skin than Israeli Jews?

You know, last I saw the people who commited those crimes in the prison are being punished, and will likely spend a large portion of their lives in a federal prison (where nightmares come true)... far more than Arafat would have done. That's justice, something Arafat has (had) no understanding of.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I disagree 100%, one does not bury beasts such as Hitler. The Russians had the right idea. I believe they ended up keeping his bulletholed skull and throwing his dirty ashes in some river, if I'm not mistaken.

Not quite. He died of brain hemorrhaging, possibly from poisoning. According to another site:

"Stalin's body was embalmed and placed next to Lenin's in the tomb at Red Square. But in 1961, with Stalin falling into disgrace, the corpse was quietly removed and buried."

Originally posted by PacHead:
People like Hitler don't need any grave, so that all sorts of wacko dirtbags/followers will have a shrine/place to visit.

Well, Hitler incinerated himself and no longer had any supporters with any means to do something like that so we'll never know, will we? But generally the US is pretty respectful of the dead, even the dead of our dirtbag enemy scum.

Do I get a *SMACKDOWN* or are those only reserved for right wingers?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
Not quite.
"Stalin's body was embalmed and placed next to Lenin's in the tomb at Red Square. But in 1961, with Stalin falling into disgrace, the corpse was quietly removed and buried."

I've not mentioned anything about Stalin, I'm talking about Hitler. Perhaps you assumed I was talking about Stalin when I mentioned Russians, but I wasn't. You do know the Russians were the ones who discovered Hitler's worthless corpse ?

Well, Hitler incinerated himself and no longer had any supporters with any means to do something like that so we'll never know, will we?

Sure we can know, because there are still quite a few Hitler fanboys and various other lowlifes who gather in various places/towns every year to celebrate his birthday etc. To have the animal buried somewhere in a grave = extremely bad idea.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I've not mentioned anything about Stalin, I'm talking about Hitler. Perhaps you assumed I was talking about Stalin when I mentioned Russians, but I wasn't. You do know the Russians were the ones who discovered Hitler's worthless corpse ?

It sure seemed that way, just the way we'd been talking about Stalin.

Originally posted by PacHead:
Sure we can know, because there are still quite a few Hitler fanboys and various other lowlifes who gather in various places/towns every year to celebrate his birthday etc. To have the animal buried somewhere in a grave = extremely bad idea.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9910...ler.bunker.02/

Hitler's ashes are is an unknown location although they're thought to be there. There is debate over what to do with them. The bunker is unmarked and has been uncovered an reburied a few times. So basically they just left him where he was, since he was already buried. It was a good idea not to mark the spot because, as you said, it would probably attract a lot of neo-nazis but no one has dug up his remains and tossed them around (except his teeth, which were used to verify that it was indeed Hitler down there). But Hitler was a pretty extreme case. Even if I conceded that Arafat was all the things you say he is, he's still nowhere near the likes of Hitler.

I'd say the situation is more like that of Saddam's sons, which you never commented on, instead focusing on the way I misunderstood a pronoun in an example that didn't really apply.

[Buckaroo]

Is where the big issue? Maybe it should be when to bury him. How about right now.













j/k

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's surprising how many folks don't understand how horribly offensive the idea of burying Arafat at Judaism's holiest site is. My opinion is worth as much as anyone else's here, but I think Jews are right to be incensed about the prospect of burying him there. Personally, I don't mind him being buried in Jerusalem, but not at the Temple Mount. It's not as if he's a particularly religious figure, so I don't see how he belongs at that site even by that simple standard.

It might be horribly offensive to the Jews because of partisan bickering, but it certainly isn't on religious grounds.

From The Jerusalem Post:
The last Palestinian to be buried on the Temple Mount was Faisal Husseini, the former PLO representative in Jerusalem, who died of a heart attack in 2001. Husseini was buried at the site despite fierce opposition from some Palestinians, who said the privilege should be reserved only to devout Muslim figures.

So first they bury a man not holy enough for Muslims there in 2001 but now Arafat isn't holy enough for the Jews? In all honesty, Faisal Husseini and Yasser Arafat held just about the same amount of importance to Muslims. The only difference is that way more propaganda hours have gone into Arafat, to say that he has been organizing terror attacks. None of the accusations have been proven. Faisal Husseini even believed that there should be no such thing as Israel and that Palestine should eventually control the whole area.

Even the Zionists, the ones opposing Arafat now, say:
Husseini served with PLO forces in Syria, where he was an explosives expert and later boasted that he personally trained 1,200 terrorists in the art of making and placing explosives.

But it's Ok for him to be buried at Temple Mount. It's all politics so don't pretend that religion has anything to do with it.

[Lefterer Guy]

Double Post.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
So first they bury a man not holy enough for Muslims there in 2001 but now Arafat isn't holy enough for the Jews? In all honesty, Faisal Husseini and Yasser Arafat held just about the same amount of importance to Muslims. The only difference is that way more propaganda hours have gone into Arafat, to say that he has been organizing terror attacks. None of the accusations have been proven. Faisal Husseini even believed that there should be no such thing as Israel and that Palestine should eventually control the whole area.

But it's Ok for him to be buried at Temple Mount. It's all politics so don't pretend that religion has anything to do with it.

Most Jews also opposed Husseini's burial at the Temple Mount. Apparently many Palestinians also thought it was a political statement, according to the article.

[Mithras]

Anyway, I believe most of Arafat's family is buried in Gaza (the dead ones anyway), and that seems a sensible place. The impetus for Jerusalem would be purely political and not at all personal.

I think his death will mark a real moment of opportunity, and I hope all sides can seize it.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by itai195:
Most Jews also opposed Husseini's burial at the Temple Mount. Apparently many Palestinians also thought it was a political statement, according to the article.

I understand that* but if Husseini was buried there, even if just for a political gesture (a puzzling one), it would be pure hypocrisy to deny Arafat, the elected leader of Palestine, that same burial.

* Though saying "most" is debatable, and you can't even take a crap over there without being protested by one group or another.

[CreepingDeth]

Israel OK's Gaza Burial