The Forgotten Shiite Massacre at Sabra and Shatila

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Reading this Bulletin Board you would think the only massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps was perpetrated and/or the responsibility of Israel and Sharon. In no way do I minimize the 1982 massacre which I have described elsewhere as “subhuman.” But it was the Shiite militia under the sponsorship of Syria that tried to finish off the work of Sharon 3 years later. According to UN estimates, more than 650 Palestinians were slaughtered and more than 2000 wounded. Yet, we hear no words of condemnation for this heinous massacre. No calls for war crimes tribunals. Just dead silence.

The link provided gives a good background of these events.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1095/9510028.htm

Here are some excerpts:

“Less than three years after the Israeli-backed 1982 massacre, the camps again were attacked with almost the same ferocity by the Syrian-backed Shi’i-dominated Amal militia. Amal’s full-scale military attack on the Sabra-Shatila and Bourj al-Barajna refugee camps in west Beirut in May 1985 was the first of three separate sieges that lasted through 1988 and became known in Lebanon as “The Camp Wars.” “

“On the eve of the attack on the Palestinian camps in Beirut in the spring of 1985, Amal leader Nabih Berri, who now is a member of Lebanon’s cabinet, stated that Amal refuses “to go back to the situation prevailing before 1982 and the rebuilding of a [Palestinian] state within a [Lebanese] state.” Most Lebanese explained that Amal was doing the dirty work for Syria which, as the occupying power in most of Lebanon, had a vested interest in seeing the Palestinians remain weak and powerless.”

“The first battle of the camps erupted in May and lasted for a month. Some Sabra camp refugees fled deeper into adjoining Shatila camp but when Sabra fell after two weeks, many of the remaining inhabitants were massacred or again made refugees. At Gaza Hospital in Sabra, 70 patients were taken from their beds and killed by Amal soldiers. “What the Israelis and their Christian allies could not finish in Sabra camp in September 1982 was completed by Amal in two weeks,” says Akram.”

“In November, 1986, however, the war of the camps resumed and this time the Palestinians were driven to near starvation during a six-month siege. “I didn’t even have food for my baby,” says Umm Mohammed of Shatila. “We would have to go get water through snipers, and every day a mother was shot down.” By March 1987, besieged camp inmates had requested a special religious dispensation to allow those still living to eat the dead. Fortunately the siege was lifted before that happened, but the last battle of the camps was a harrowing test of Palestinian resistance and determination. “

2

Re: The Forgotten Shiite Massacre at Sabra and Shatila

:teary1: Too bad the Americans can’t be blamed for this, it would receive the condemnation it deserves. The silence IS deafening.

3

sorry but I still dont' get why the shia miltia killed the palestinians.

4

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by little human: *
sorry but I still dont' get why the shia miltia killed the palestinians.
[/QUOTE]
Why would any muslim kill another muslim? Ignorace, hatred etc.

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by little human: *
sorry but I still dont' get why the shia miltia killed the palestinians.
[/QUOTE]

I find this to be an interesting statement. Why is there a necessity for you to understand "why" the Shia slaughtered these folks? It's almost as if you are searching for an explanation or justification for the massacre. Is there a "why" that will make it OK or less horrid for ** the Amal militia to take 70 patients from their beds at Gaza Hospital and murder them? ** Tell me, is there a "why" that soothes the soul when a Muslim milita ** starves the populace to the extent that those still living must seek a special religious dispensation to eat the dead? **

For the love of God, in many ways the Shia massacres at Sabra and Shatila surpass in brutality the actions in 1982 for which so many Guppies call for Sharon's head on a war crimes tribunal. Those the Shias couldn't kill in a matter of weeks were starved to death over a period of years!!!

To me, the sole difference between the two events is the identity of the killers/attackers. In one case, they are Jews or under the control of Jews and in another they are Muslim. Ugliness and inhumanity is not reserved to people of a particular race or religion. It's sort of important for people to recognize the ugliness and frailties they possess when they look in the mirror before pointing the finger at others don't you think?

As to the poor Palestinians, they have always been relegated to the bottom of the garbage pile by everyone, including their Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters. Their homeland was sacrificed by the Arabs following the 1947 Partition in favor of nationalistic land grabs. The West Bank was stolen from them by Jordan. Syria and the Amal militia brutally massacred them to keep them weak and powerless in Lebanon.

6

First a muslim never kills another muslim. So all this is a lie about muslims killing other muslims. all is propganda.
Second, if a muslim did kill another muslim..particularly in hundreds, there got to be soemthing wrong with the those muslims and they probably needed to be killed. They probably disobeyed soem commands from above and punishment for that is very clear.
Thirs, if the killed ones were good muslims then there got to be something wrong with the killing ones, because no muslim in his right mind would kill another muslim.

If you really have some hard proof of that this happened, then it is very clear that someone else instigated them to do it. Someone manipulated them to kill other muslims because we know muslims by themselves don't kill other muslims. So clearly the responsibility of thse murders lies somewhere else. Now considering the geographical situation, we can't blame, China, Japan, India, or Soviets so it got to be someone from this side of the globe. No one needs to point any fingers though, we all know who is the big criminal on this side of the globe.

so case closed.:)

7

muslims don;t kills muslims..guns kill muslims. :snooty:

8

indians kill muslims too…gujarat…:snooty:

9

One wonders how Indians killing Muslims at Gujurat entitles someone to feel “snooty” ( :snooty: ) about Muslims killing and starving Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila. :konfused:

10

Don't scratch your head too much mv :) . It goes without saying, that incident should be strongly condemmed.

11

The difference is that Syria's leadership has stopped sponsoring the opression and killing of innocent Palestinians. And so people are willing to forgive and forget. Palestinian refugees today temporarily live peacefully within Syria.

Amal's leadership has stopped ordering the oppresion and killing of innocent Palestinians. And so people are willing to forgive and forget. Palestinians temporarily live pretty much peacefully in Lebanon

Sharon and Israel continues to sponsor and order the oppression killing of innocent on a virtually daily basis. And to top it off, Israel does not permit the presence of Palestinian refugees.

12

Re: Re: The Forgotten Shiite Massacre at Sabra and Shatila

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
The silence IS deafening.
[/QUOTE]

6:21 original post by MV
6:45 post by you

patience brotha patience.

Here we go...

(condemn,condemn,condemn)^infinity

apply this to all atrocities from anyone, without excuses :)

P.S.

This statement "silence is deafening" is so over used that the statement is deafening now :)

13

^
What?

Seriously Mr. Fraudia,

You seem to get somewhat hacked off by what's suggested in this kind of post time and time again-in short that mod Muslims are not taking their brethren to task.

We get into the KKK vs. Islamic Terror argument. Do think that there is absolutely no point to be made in the topic of this post? That Islamic society is as harsh effective in controlling terrorist that take cover among them?

So for anyone who wishes to answer:

  1. Do you believe that American right-wing/Christian militant groups currently pose a danger to their opponents on a scale that is greater or lesser than that danger posed by politicized Islamic terror group to their opponents?

  2. Which society has demonstrated a greater control over idealogically based terrorists in terms of Laws on the books/incarceration/and creating a negative public opinion?-
    U.S. or Islamic socieites(collectively or individually if you wish)?

14

^ nuthin man..dont ya worry :)

15

*Originally posted by storch: *
^
What?

Seriously Mr. Fraudia,

Okay seriously then

*You seem to get somewhat hacked off by what's suggested in this kind of post time and time again-in short that mod Muslims are not taking their brethren to task. *

You seem to get somewhat forgetful by what is suggested in these kinds of posts that just because you dont see it does not mean it does not happen.

If you are going to base your opinion on the microcosm of a handful of posters here or the media you are exposed to that is fine, but that does not change the reality that these things have been condemned many many times, whether it was Iran-Iraq war, syrian actions, jordan-palestinian struggle there is enough written about it when it happened, now everytime Israel kills yet more innocent palestinians and the list of their lameness is mentioned does not mean that the lameness of others has to be mentioned in the same breath.

What is the difference.. it is not ongoing..so people condemned it when it happened, other cases is a repeat performance and thus it keeps coming up.

speaking of deafening silence..

Let me count the number of times I have seen one of our non-msulim members here post something about the vandalizing of mosques, attacks on muslims in US and condemn it. I can repeat "the silence is defeaning" like a parrot each time too, but what does that solve. Does it mean that people are for it? or does it mean that I have not seen them condemn it in their community and while talking to their friends and neighbours..

**We get into the KKK vs. Islamic Terror argument. Do think that there is absolutely no point to be made in the topic of this post? That Islamic society is as harsh effective in controlling terrorist that take cover among them?

So for anyone who wishes to answer:
1. Do you believe that American right-wing/Christian militant groups currently pose a danger to their opponents on a scale that is greater or lesser than that danger posed by politicized Islamic terror group to their opponents?

They are both a threat, if we are talking about the racist, bigots like Pat Robertson, who have the ear of the administration and see this as an us versus them, good versus evil thing, spoken not only by robertson and other morons of his ilk but also top military personnel..which lame ass general was it who mouthed off recently.

No matter who is a bigger threat, direct, indirect, through terrorist activities or by influencing the govt. They are all

*2. Which society has demonstrated a greater control over idealogically based terrorists in terms of Laws on the books/incarceration/and creating a negative public opinion?-
U.S. or Islamic socieites(collectively or individually if you wish)? *

Lets not forget how long it takes to create and implement laws and create awareness to try and develop a negative public opinion.

So US has defintely demonstrated a greater control over ideological terrorists. although i am still troubled at the IRA raising funds in US, but they had time to do it.

Before 9/11 how big was the extremism problem in Saudi Arabia for example.. it was brewing but under control, now they hafta go back to the drawing board. other countries...bahrain, kuwait, UAE, Indonesia, Bangaldesh, how often did we see them in the news?

so more needs to be done, but there is no "silence" that is deafening. There are programs, groups, laws that are in effect, more work being done, efforts being made. Just because you do not see them does not mean there is "silence" it will take some time. heck it will take CIA 5 years to fix itself up..it may take other countries which have the extremism problem the same time if not longer to be able to combat this properly. dont forget UK never really was able to control IRA, it took them decades.

16

Fraudz, he was talking about coverage of this in the Islamic media that has a habit of front page coverage if a dead fly is killed by the Israelis. He didn’t mean to implicate the lowlife Jihadis who post here. Silence may be deafening to him, it is the head in the arse attitude which I find comical. And you were saying what?

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

**If you are going to base your opinion on the microcosm of a handful of posters here or the media you are exposed to that is fine, but that does not change the reality that these things have been condemned many many times

What is the difference.. it is not ongoing..so people condemned it when it happened, other cases is a repeat performance and thus it keeps coming up. **

Is it the kind of condemnation that brings thousands to the streets seeking justice? Is it the kind of condemnation that can change public opinion? Why then have Muslim criminals Assad or Saddam not been targeted perpetually with the wrath of the masses when their crimes were mostly offensive in nature and in pure numbers more damaging.

I think meaningful condemnation that has the effect of changing things is what we are in disagreement over. Sit ins, landmark legal cases, massive popular protest. On the contrary, we continue to hear more about U.S. and Zionist caused reasons for terrorism. The "deafening silence" is the absence of active and meaningful marginalization of "Islam's KKK".

[/QUOTE]

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
The difference is that Syria's leadership has stopped sponsoring the opression and killing of innocent Palestinians. And so people are willing to forgive and forget. Palestinian refugees today temporarily live peacefully within Syria.

Amal's leadership has stopped ordering the oppresion and killing of innocent Palestinians. And so people are willing to forgive and forget. Palestinians temporarily live pretty much peacefully in Lebanon

Sharon and Israel continues to sponsor and order the oppression killing of innocent on a virtually daily basis. And to top it off, Israel does not permit the presence of Palestinian refugees.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reply and the attempt at differentiation. A couple things prevent me from buying into the theory you have advanced though.

A. There was no hue and cry in the Muslim world anywhere near the equivalent of what we see on a daily basis when the "injustice" is layed/laid at the feet of the US or Israel. Where was the outrage when Syria DID sponsor the Amal massacre in the refugee camps. The 1982 massacre lasted days. The Syrian sponsored Amal militia slaughtered Palestinians for years and starved them to the point of contemplating eating the dead. The lack of outrage cannot be attributed to the end of the massacre unless there was outrage when it happened. I don't think there was a single UN Resolution asked for or passed regarding the 1985-1987 slaughters. I simply cannot imagine that Sabra and Shatila circa 1982 would be easily forgotten and forgiven if the Israelis and the Palestinians somehow agreed to peace tomorrow.

B. If indeed the slaughter at Sabra and Shatila circa 1982 was a war crime and an act of genocide, so too was the 1985-1987 slaughter. Can you think of any genocidal war crime perpetrated against Muslims or Palestinians by non-Muslims that the Arab and/or Muslim masses have so easily forgiven and forgotten?

In this case, I think the most obvious explanantion is also the correct one. Violence perpetrated on Muslims and/or Palestinians by non-Muslims is used to whip the Muslim and Palestinian masses into a frenzy against the perpetrator to advance a political agenda while Muslim on Muslim violence is accepted and/or ignored. If a Muslim is killed or brutalized, the first question is "who did it" before deciding whether condemnation is warranted.

19

*Is it the kind of condemnation that brings thousands to the streets seeking justice? *

In majority of these countries, thousands dont come to the street asking for their rights let alone condemn some statements or actions by extremists. political demonstrations have been outlawed in countries like KSA and crushed in places like egypt and kuwait.

countries that do have

*Is it the kind of condemnation that can change public opinion? *

Speaking of the people above, they do not have the ability to demonstrate, there is no freedom of political action so. No in those cases they can only stay underground.

*Why then have Muslim criminals Assad or Saddam not been targeted perpetually with the wrath of the masses when their crimes were mostly offensive in nature and in pure numbers more damaging. *

As far as the masses of Iraq or Syria go, they had no choice, they have no voice, when they tried to speak up even for their own rights they were brutally crushed.

Before the fall of USSR, do you recall many protests by the locals? did it mean they were okay with what their govt did, How about China.

In other countries there were condemnations, heck I have taken part in rallys against Iran Iraq war myself. I was a kid and went with my uncles who took part in a Rally against the war.

*I think meaningful condemnation that has the effect of changing things is what we are in disagreement over. Sit ins, landmark legal cases, massive popular protest. *

okay so once again. many of these countries that suppress political activity do not allow, sit ins, massive (or even tiny) popular protest, and "any" legal cases. The people living there have not been able to do it for their own representation..

Then you have countries where the masses mind their own business for the most part kuwait, bahrain, UAE..although if you read websites run in these countries or some of their papers, they are pretty scathing equally to all involved.

Dont forget that prior to Al Jazeera losing favour with US for un popular opinion, it had lost favour with governments of KSA/Syria/Egypt etc due to its criticism of their systems and all.

*On the contrary, we continue to hear more about U.S. and Zionist caused reasons for terrorism. *

Yes, because that is what is newsworthy and that is what is picked up. There is a lot said against the governments too, read any pakistani paper and see how they criticize government's actions.

*The "deafening silence" is the absence of active and meaningful marginalization of "Islam's KKK". *

1) in many places people have no voice, so there is no active and meaningful marginalisation of anything. KSA for example.

2) In countries where there is an ability for people to be politically active...What goes on, you may or may not hear about it. It surely does not get picked up by network news.

2) For the majority of people, they see it as a bunch of extremists who have made their lives miserable for ages, and are now broadening their reach. The people have suffered already..without the type of protection somone should have, no one likes to openly stick their neck out and put an X on their heads for the extremists. Plus it is understood that extremists are a minority, however troubling they may be, just like you dont think that Pat Robertson or KKK represent you, these people do not think that extremists represent them. when was the last time an average white chritian americans protested against the lameness of pat robertson en masse? hey I have pals who hate this guy but have never really written about it or had a demonstration to distance themselves from it. They take it that it is understood that he is a loony and majority of ppl have nothing to do with him. Similarly others feel the same on the other side of the globe...

are the extremists more outspoken, stick out like a sore thumb etc etc..sure, but the majority sits back and chills, pretty much anywhere. Growing up in the UK, i dont recall any massive sit ins by irish or catholics against the IRA, it was understood that IRA did not represent an avg catholic and an average irishman.

But please go read some papers, some publications, look at satellite broadcasting and the discussions on news shows on networks like PTV Prime, GEO and ARY.

How many news sources picked out the story of one US military general mouthing off his extremist views. How many captured stories about christian groups condemning it..again.. it did not mean that groups and people did not voice their opinions against that. We hear about yet more moroninc statements by Pat robertson and his buddies, but do we hear much about moderates who tell people to not listen to that garbage?

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
In this case, I think the most obvious explanantion is also the correct one. Violence perpetrated on Muslims and/or Palestinians by non-Muslims is used to whip the Muslim and Palestinian masses into a frenzy against the perpetrator to advance a political agenda while Muslim on Muslim violence is accepted and/or ignored. If a Muslim is killed or brutalized, the first question is "who did it" before deciding whether condemnation is warranted.
[/QUOTE]

Even if this is the case..is the violence perpetrated by Israel for example justified, and right? especially if it is ongoing..

if there was no violence, and not this habitual routine killing of innocent civilians, what argument would anyone have then?

So Israel got rid of Hamas leaders, boo friggin hoo, no one cares. but when lil kids are killed, then unless one is really biased, one can not condone it.

now someone against Israeli agression does not have to be for Palestinian aggression. Murder by extremists is a lil bit different than murder by a democratically elected government..and if it is not they are both judged by the same standard. Hamas blowing up kids in some pizza place is no diff than IDF blowing up some building full of innocent civilians