Sabra and Shatila

Father Damo

losthorizon wrote: »

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the massacres at Sabra and Shatila.

I was 13 at the time and I think that along with Bosnia I found it the most shocking thing to have occurred in my lifetime (twin towers as well).

What made this worse in mind was the savegery of the killings, the fact that the Israeli army let in the killers, could see what was going on from their command posts, could monitor all the radio traffic inside the camp and during the night fired shells to light up the night sky so the killing could continue. Truly awful stuff.
http://www.euronews.com/2012/09/17/sabra-and-shatila-massacre-30-years-on/

You have to shake your head at the fact that any journalist, politician or commentator who has used the words Israel and Nazi in the same sentence in regards to similar incidents to the above has been roundly condemned,

Gee Bag

Slurryface wrote: »

It wasn't Israelis who carried out this alleged crime. It was Christians, Lebanese.
But dont let that stop you from using the alleged actions of Lebanese Christians to attack Israel.

It wasn't 'alleged', it happened.

El Siglo

Yamanoto wrote: »

A more pertinent problem being some fail to fully comprehend its meaning, yourself included - read the OED definition.

trag·e·dy Noun /ˈtrajidē/

tragedies plural

An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe

So are we just going to go around in circles then? I discussed why one should avoid the use of the word tragedy. You didn't respond, you've provided a dictionary definition. However well intentioned that may be, it does not fully explain any such massacre of people it is used to shift the blame. Same argument could be made for "clashes", what a "clash" is I do not know. Or the for the "disputed" territory in the West Bank, you have a dispute over a bit of land not a country. The same could again be said for the "fences" surrounding Israeli "settlements", I would hardly call a 20 foot wall a "fence". Such language is dangerous, it can at best sanitise an horrific situation and at worst de-humanise an entire people.

May also be folks are unaware of the event or however ghastly a prospect this may seem to you, are simply not exercised by it. It happens.

Yes, massacres do happen. Does that not mean we shouldn't condemn them? That people shouldn't be made aware of them? Or do we just close our eyes etc... because they're not in our backyard, they're in the middle east and everything is always fucked up over there? I suppose unarmed men, women and children being tortured, raped and murdered just happens.

Are we to word every post on the basis of how we'd typically interact in a social situation?

Is this not a social situation?

If that were the case, I doubt you'd have pontificated in quite such an irate manner toward a complete stranger.

I haven't pontificated anything, I've said language when in reference to the middle east is sanitised to detract blame from various parties, that the massacre at the camps was supported by the Israelis etc. That's not pontificating, that just stating the obvious and if you think I'm wrong go and read Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Robert Fisk, David Hirst etc... It's a discussion, if a person however makes such a ridiculous statement then they're going to be brought up on it. Such as you might consider with the posts I've made, you've brought me up on them.

Transition year line of argument imo.

Well you see it's all the more terrible by the fact that people are still living in those camps, and they have forgotten not in all the years Fisk has gone back to visit people.

This thread is open to those with a passing interest, a casual curiosity or those of a 'meh' persuasion.

Thread was started on the basis of discussing the massacre since it's the 30th anniversary, I didn't see the fucking Mod warning that it was open only for the "'meh' persuasion". That's a fucking transition year argument.

You cannot lock it down, demand solemnity and pounce on those who feel differently to you.

I'm not demanding solemnity, just no more ridiculous posts comparing the names of the camps to celebrity baby names.

Slurryface wrote:

It wasn't Israelis who carried out this alleged crime. It was Christians, Lebanese.
But dont let that stop you from using the alleged actions of Lebanese Christians to attack Israel.

Looks fairly alleged alright...

Yamanoto

El Siglo wrote: »

So are we just going to go around in circles then? I discussed why one should avoid the use of the word tragedy. You didn't respond, you've provided a dictionary definition. However well intentioned that may be, it does not fully explain any such massacre of people it is used to shift the blame. Same argument could be made for "clashes", what a "clash" is I do not know. Or the for the "disputed" territory in the West Bank, you have a dispute over a bit of land not a country. The same could again be said for the "fences" surrounding Israeli "settlements", I would hardly call a 20 foot wall a "fence". Such language is dangerous, it can at best sanitise an horrific situation and at worst de-humanise an entire people.


Yes, massacres do happen. Does that not mean we shouldn't condemn them? That people shouldn't be made aware of them? Or do we just close our eyes etc... because they're not in our backyard, they're in the middle east and everything is always fucked up over there? I suppose unarmed men, women and children being tortured, raped and murdered just happens.



Is this not a social situation?



I haven't pontificated anything, I've said language when in reference to the middle east is sanitised to detract blame from various parties, that the massacre at the camps was supported by the Israelis etc. That's not pontificating, that just stating the obvious and if you think I'm wrong go and read Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Robert Fisk, David Hirst etc... It's a discussion, if a person however makes such a ridiculous statement then they're going to be brought up on it. Such as you might consider with the posts I've made, you've brought me up on them.



Well you see it's all the more terrible by the fact that people are still living in those camps, and they have forgotten not in all the years Fisk has gone back to visit people.


Thread was started on the basis of discussing the massacre since it's the 30th anniversary, I didn't see the fucking Mod warning that it was open only for the "'meh' persuasion". That's a fucking transition year argument.



I'm not demanding solemnity, just no more ridiculous posts comparing the names of the camps to celebrity baby names.



Looks fairly alleged alright...

If you're going to quote me Siglo, have the good grace not to misrepresent me, deliberately misinterpret me, obfuscate or embark upon tangential flights of fancy to the degree you have done above. It renders a reasoned and reasonable argument a real impossibility.

Slurryface

castletownman wrote: »

Without diverting away from the tragedy, it some indictment of today's society that both Sabra and Shatila sound like some celebrity baby names.

Saaabraaa Shaaatilllla cum in her will yiz, yizzer tea is ready.:D

Nodin

Slurryface wrote: »

Saaabraaa Shaaatilllla cum in her will yiz, yizzer tea is ready.:D

Very droll. Are you a professional comedy writer?

Zebra3

El Siglo wrote: »

So are we just going to go around in circles then? I discussed why one should avoid the use of the word tragedy. You didn't respond, you've provided a dictionary definition. However well intentioned that may be, it does not fully explain any such massacre of people it is used to shift the blame. Same argument could be made for "clashes", what a "clash" is I do not know. Or the for the "disputed" territory in the West Bank, you have a dispute over a bit of land not a country. The same could again be said for the "fences" surrounding Israeli "settlements", I would hardly call a 20 foot wall a "fence". Such language is dangerous, it can at best sanitise an horrific situation and at worst de-humanise an entire people.

Yep, it was a wall in Berlin (when the West didn't like it), but it's a fence in the West Bank (when the West's ally put it up).

I don't think we'll hear any US president genuinely call for it to be torn down.

Stples

Slurryface wrote: »

Saaabraaa Shaaatilllla cum in her will yiz, yizzer tea is ready.:D

It would appear that your username is well chosen. Pathetic.

end of the road

Slurryface wrote: »

It was 30 years ago ffs, move on, build a bridge, get over it!

yeah your absolutely right, shur it was only 1,700 people murdered, lets move on get over it and sweep it under the carpet like it never happened. you and people like you make me sick.