This Day In History--Sabra and Shatila - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

OFKU0 · 09-16-2004, 01:17 PM

Flashback: Sabra and Shatila massacres

An unknown number of Palestinians died in the 40-hour slaughter

The 1982 massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps claimed the lives of at least 800 civilians, murdered by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel during its brief occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut.
The killings are considered the worst atrocity of Lebanon's 15-year civil war and perhaps during the entire Middle East conflict.

Elie Hobeika was the Phalangists head of military intelligence

The victims had been left defenceless after Israel drove the Syrian army and fighters belonging to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) from the Lebanese capital.

The expulsion of the PLO was the result of Israel's "Operation Peace for Galilee" invasion, masterminded by then-Defence Minister Ariel Sharon, to eradicate the "terrorist threat" posed by the Palestinians' military presence in Lebanon.

The slaughter was carried out by fighters from the Lebanese Forces militia (LF), linked to the Christian Phalange group, who were hungry for revenge for the killing of the Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel in a car bomb two days earlier.

They didn't spare anyone; they killed everyone they came across

Survivor Muhammad Faqih
PLO forces withdrew in a US-mediated ceasefire at the beginning of September.

Mr Sharon declared that "2,000 terrorists" remained in Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. Sabra and Shatila were surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, with checkpoints to monitor the entry or exit of any person.

But on the afternoon of 16 September about 150 LF fighters moved into the camps.

Massacre begins

Survivors say that the killers went from house to house, threatening to blow up buildings if the residents did not come out.

The survivors reported overhearing the Phalangists telling one another to use axes to kill their victims, because the sound of gunfire would alert others to their fate.

The camps today: Little sympathy for Hobeika's assassination

"They killed my sister's husband in front of me," said survivor Nadima Nasser. "I saw them shooting at the men. They killed them all. I fled."

Mrs Nasser is one of 23 survivors who have lodged a legal case against Mr Sharon in Belgium, where the law allows him to be tried for alleged crimes committed abroad.

Her testimony, along with others is included on a newly-launched internet site about the massacres, Justice for the Victims of Sabra and Shatila.

Israeli inquiry

Mr Sharon resigned his post after an Israeli commission of inquiry established that he bore indirect responsibility for the deaths for "having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance" by the militias when he allowed them into the camps.

Mr Sharon denies responsibility for the massacre

The Kahane Commission inquiry said LF intelligence chief Elie Hobeika had direct responsibility, because he ordered the killings.

Mr Hobeika denied involvement in the killings right up to his death in a car bomb attack on 24 January 2002.

Outside Israel, human rights groups have long argued that Mr Sharon and the Lebanese Christian perpetrators should be tried for war crimes.

In January 2001, in the run-up to Israeli elections in which he won a resounding victory, Mr Sharon expressed regret about the "terrible tragedy," but refused to apologise or accept any responsibility for the massacres.

The Belgian court is still deciding whether to pursue charges of crimes against humanity against Mr Sharon.

Hobeika had said he would testify against the Israeli Prime Minister and had "important revelations" to make.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1779713.stm

The thought I have regarding Ariel Sharon is that to apologize is an admission of guilt. Politically speaking this is an open door for him to be held liable for further persecution,...perhaps held responsible for war crimes or through monetary settlements. I'm not saying he wasn't responsible or was because I don't know. This isn't unusual in the political forum which is why people "can't recall" in order to protect themselves.

But then what about morally speaking? Given the environment of the mideast, would a simple phonecall from Sharon to Lebanese officials as a sign of humanity recognizing the massacre be suffice? Not that Sharon to apologize but rather send a message as one human being to another outside of all else. Or is taking the high road seen as a sign of weakness by Sharon by his Arab neighbors or even by Israeli's themselves? What do you think?

Journeyman · 09-16-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

They didn't spare anyone; they killed everyone they came across

Survivor Muhammad Faqih

Well... which is it?

Anyway, yeah, it's a bummer. But, there's history.

Quote:

Background
After a PLO attack on a bus full of civilians in northern Israel, killing many, and the Israeli retaliation also causing casualties, Israel launched Operation Litani in March 1978, occupying most of the area south of the Litani River. In response, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 425 calling for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces and creating the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), charged with maintaining peace. Israeli forces withdrew later in 1978, turning over positions inside Lebanon along the border to a Lebanese ally, the South Lebanon Army (SLA) under the leadership of Maj. Saad Haddad, thus informally setting up a 12-mile wide "security zone" to protect Israeli territory from crossborder attack.

In 1981 heavily armed forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) occupied large areas of southern Lebanon. Attacks against the State of Israel increased; The PLO's armed forces used Lebanon as a base to attack Israel with rockets and artillery. PLO militants fought with Lebanese forces, and killed many thousands of Lebanese citizens. Due to continued civil war since 1975, Lebanon had no effective central government at the time.

In June 1982, following an assassination attempt against its ambassador in London by the Abu Nidal Organization, Israel launched Operation Peace of Galilee, in another attempt to drive the PLO forces out of the country, and secure peace for its northern towns and villages.

Furthermore:

Quote:

The slaughter was carried out by fighters from the Lebanese Forces militia (LF), linked to the Christian Phalange group, who were hungry for revenge for the killing of the Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel in a car bomb two days earlier.
...
Mr Sharon denies responsibility for the massacre

What's the problem, here?

Turtleboy · 09-16-2004, 05:49 PM

It's amazing.

Christian Arabs kill Muslim Arabs, and who gets blamed?

The Jews.

oktjabr · 09-17-2004, 01:54 AM

Interesting to note how the article quoted from http://www.fact-index.com - that takes articles from Wikipedia - doesn't have text at all under Course of fighting unlike in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War). Though of course Wikipedia is a wikimedia source, editable by all.

There is also some other differences.

The Phenomenon · 09-17-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtleboy

It's amazing.

Christian Arabs kill Muslim Arabs, and who gets blamed?

The Jews.

ROFL - That's exactly what i was JUST thinking.

Pacifier · 09-17-2004, 03:06 AM

During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, while Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister, the Sabra and Shatila massacre took place, in which several hundred Palestinians in refugee camps were killed. The massacre was perpetrated by the Phalangists, a Lebanese-Christian militia believed at the time to be allied with Israel, who had been sent into the camps at Sharon's command. The Kahan Commission investigating the events of Sabra and Shatilla, recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister for reasons of negligence, though not complicity, in the massacre.

I think thats the reason why some blame "the jews" or more precisely Israel

The Phenomenon · 09-17-2004, 03:56 AM

Well they did not exactly commit the crime.

seretogis · 09-17-2004, 04:04 AM

Three cheers for Anti-Israel propaganda. Hip-hip-whocares?

roachboy · 09-17-2004, 07:32 AM

i was not going to look at this thread becuase i knew the reactions--in the double sense of the word--would run like this.
where to start...

there is no doubt that sharon allowed the phalangists to carry out these massacres. does that fact that without "you guys go ahead and murder some palestinians and we'll wait here." mean that in any way sharon is not responsible?
why would you try to shortcircuit the question by routing it through even a general debate about the status of israel as a state?
it is wholly possible among rational people to accept the existence of israel, even if you oppose its political policies, and not have that acceptance result in a shorting out of your capacity to look at the past and draw conclusions about it.

a counter example: when the soviet army stopped in front of warsaw to allow the nazis to wipe out the jewish ghetto ("put down the uprising") who was responsible for the massacre? only the party that carried it out? was the soviet army absolved because all it did was not move while the massacre (which they knew about) was happening?

i assume that it would be easier for you to think about this matter if i put forth an example that involved parties that you would have an easier time assigning blame to,

and that maybe you would have an easier time still if the example involved parties that did not allow for the idiotic reversion to religious identity categories, which too often have precisely the effect that they did here: from turtleboy's post on, the thread tanked. from that post on, nothing coherent (attempts at rebuttal aside, which were of course ignored in due course) was said.

of course i would expect that some might still struggle with this.
maybe some grander historical explanation--you get taught the doctrine of manifest detiny in elementary school as if it is a normal aspect of american history---later you might learn that it was and remained a cover for genocide.
but then there are also the thousands of western films that stage the effects of manifest destiny in a displaced way as an existential struggle between good and evil, and that is a nice fantasy world, so you go there.
in most of these films, native americans are prototypes of the "terrorist" in contemporary discourse, as they appear on the scene in great number, unmotivated and evil, and so it is just fine to watch them die in great number and to read their deaths as a vindication of the "good"....
as for the explicit massacres, most obviously wounded knee--well there are not alot of films that address this.
little big man does.
but that is not a happy nationalist film, is it?
better to not watch it so you dont find yourself having to think too much about history.
fantasy is better.

there is a significant element in the american nationalist mythology that allows folk to practice explaining massacre away.
so maybe it is easy for folk to explain away these.

another way of concluding: what i see here is a displaced example of how the american right nationalism works: if you criticize particular actions by particular people who occupy a relation to a politics that you endorse, then you betray the nation itself. so sharon cannot be held to account for these massacres because to do so is to delegitimate the state of israel.
the two are not connected.
the connection is idiotic.
it is a pretty repellent business, folks.

OFKU0 · 09-17-2004, 10:24 AM

Alright. Let me try it this way for the sensitive folks who think this is a jew bashing thread.

Several years ago, the then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien was on a diplomatic tour of eastern Europe. One of his stops was in Poland to meet that countries dignitaries. A storm of controversy starting brewing because there was not a planned stop at a jewish memorial of holocaust victims. In Canada the Canadian Jewish Congress felt that this was a huge slight that the prime minister wouldn't pay his respects even though that day was not of note as a day of remembrance.

Long story short, the PM made a stop and laid a wreath. The bottom line is that he didn't have to do that. I don't think he was even born while the holocaust ensued. And certainly he had nothing to do with WWII as well. But it was a respectful diplomatic gesture to those who died under such conditions.

Now a hypothetical. What if for some reason the British were in charge of watching jewish settlements in the West Bank in 1982 and for some reason let in Palestinian's to root out the enemy and a massacre of 800 jews happened. Does anyone for any reason think the jews wouldn't be looking for an apology from the Brits or at least some type of acknowledgement of sorrow? What if the Brits reaction of said massacre was 'fuck them',...the jews are always whining about being the victims. How do you think that would go over?

Now back. Is it so unreasonable that the Israeli's pass on condolences since after all, they (Sharon) were apparently in charge of the 'master plan' spearheaded by Sharon? In terms of diplomatic resolve, should the Israeli's make such a gesture or are gestures as such only reserved for them and suffering of jews? Discuss.

98MustGT · 09-17-2004, 11:52 AM

To quote Rodney King...
"Can't we all just get along?"

How come those Jews and Arabs can't just live together WITHOUT KILLING ONE ANOTHER!

Where I live we have Asians Mexicans Blacks Christians Muslims and we don't GO AROUND KILLING ONE ANOTHER!

I am glad to live here in the US

SLM3 · 09-17-2004, 03:15 PM

I've been to Sabra and Chatila. I've met with the people and I know the history. The Phalange were full fledged allies of the Israelis. They met and got permission for the move into the camps beforehand. Furthermore, the people in the camp took me to the mass graves and showed me where the Israeli soldiers stood and watched over everything. This was after promising that nothing would happen to the people in the camp. There's so much to this heartbreaking story and it pains me to see people write this off as simply "anti-Israeli propoganda". There's a reason Sharon is known as the Butcher of Beirut in these parts. There's a reason over 200,000 ISRAELIs marched in protest against Sharon when the massacres occured. If you're actually interested in learning more, I recommend "Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon" by Robert Fisk and "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East" by David Hirst.

If anyone wants to hear/see more let me know and I'll take some more time.

SLM3

Journeyman · 09-17-2004, 03:36 PM

How many women and children were killed? I'm just asking because I'm hearing the words massacre, genocide and "They didn't spare anyone; they killed everyone they came across." I'm starting to open up to the side of events that claims Sharon knew the Phalangists were going to indiscriminately kill, but I'm curious as to why I don't hear anything about dead women and children.

Surely there were women and children in the refugee camp, what happened to them? Were just the, you know, late-teen to adult men slaughtered, or what?

09-16-2004, 01:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	This Day In History--Sabra and Shatila Flashback: Sabra and Shatila massacres An unknown number of Palestinians died in the 40-hour slaughter The 1982 massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps claimed the lives of at least 800 civilians, murdered by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel during its brief occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The killings are considered the worst atrocity of Lebanon's 15-year civil war and perhaps during the entire Middle East conflict. Elie Hobeika was the Phalangists head of military intelligence The victims had been left defenceless after Israel drove the Syrian army and fighters belonging to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) from the Lebanese capital. The expulsion of the PLO was the result of Israel's "Operation Peace for Galilee" invasion, masterminded by then-Defence Minister Ariel Sharon, to eradicate the "terrorist threat" posed by the Palestinians' military presence in Lebanon. The slaughter was carried out by fighters from the Lebanese Forces militia (LF), linked to the Christian Phalange group, who were hungry for revenge for the killing of the Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel in a car bomb two days earlier. They didn't spare anyone; they killed everyone they came across Survivor Muhammad Faqih PLO forces withdrew in a US-mediated ceasefire at the beginning of September. Mr Sharon declared that "2,000 terrorists" remained in Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. Sabra and Shatila were surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, with checkpoints to monitor the entry or exit of any person. But on the afternoon of 16 September about 150 LF fighters moved into the camps. Massacre begins Survivors say that the killers went from house to house, threatening to blow up buildings if the residents did not come out. The survivors reported overhearing the Phalangists telling one another to use axes to kill their victims, because the sound of gunfire would alert others to their fate. The camps today: Little sympathy for Hobeika's assassination "They killed my sister's husband in front of me," said survivor Nadima Nasser. "I saw them shooting at the men. They killed them all. I fled." Mrs Nasser is one of 23 survivors who have lodged a legal case against Mr Sharon in Belgium, where the law allows him to be tried for alleged crimes committed abroad. Her testimony, along with others is included on a newly-launched internet site about the massacres, Justice for the Victims of Sabra and Shatila. Israeli inquiry Mr Sharon resigned his post after an Israeli commission of inquiry established that he bore indirect responsibility for the deaths for "having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance" by the militias when he allowed them into the camps. Mr Sharon denies responsibility for the massacre The Kahane Commission inquiry said LF intelligence chief Elie Hobeika had direct responsibility, because he ordered the killings. Mr Hobeika denied involvement in the killings right up to his death in a car bomb attack on 24 January 2002. Outside Israel, human rights groups have long argued that Mr Sharon and the Lebanese Christian perpetrators should be tried for war crimes. In January 2001, in the run-up to Israeli elections in which he won a resounding victory, Mr Sharon expressed regret about the "terrible tragedy," but refused to apologise or accept any responsibility for the massacres. The Belgian court is still deciding whether to pursue charges of crimes against humanity against Mr Sharon. Hobeika had said he would testify against the Israeli Prime Minister and had "important revelations" to make. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1779713.stm The thought I have regarding Ariel Sharon is that to apologize is an admission of guilt. Politically speaking this is an open door for him to be held liable for further persecution,...perhaps held responsible for war crimes or through monetary settlements. I'm not saying he wasn't responsible or was because I don't know. This isn't unusual in the political forum which is why people "can't recall" in order to protect themselves. But then what about morally speaking? Given the environment of the mideast, would a simple phonecall from Sharon to Lebanese officials as a sign of humanity recognizing the massacre be suffice? Not that Sharon to apologize but rather send a message as one human being to another outside of all else. Or is taking the high road seen as a sign of weakness by Sharon by his Arab neighbors or even by Israeli's themselves? What do you think? __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

09-17-2004, 01:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
oktjabr Crazy Location: Fünland	Interesting to note how the article quoted from http://www.fact-index.com - that takes articles from Wikipedia - doesn't have text at all under Course of fighting unlike in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War). Though of course Wikipedia is a wikimedia source, editable by all. There is also some other differences. __________________ "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever." -G.O. Last edited by oktjabr; 09-17-2004 at 02:11 AM.. Reason: not erased, just not written then

09-17-2004, 03:06 AM	#6 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, while Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister, the Sabra and Shatila massacre took place, in which several hundred Palestinians in refugee camps were killed. The massacre was perpetrated by the Phalangists, a Lebanese-Christian militia believed at the time to be allied with Israel, who had been sent into the camps at Sharon's command. The Kahan Commission investigating the events of Sabra and Shatilla, recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister for reasons of negligence, though not complicity, in the massacre. I think thats the reason why some blame "the jews" or more precisely Israel __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

09-17-2004, 04:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Three cheers for Anti-Israel propaganda. Hip-hip-whocares? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

09-17-2004, 07:32 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i was not going to look at this thread becuase i knew the reactions--in the double sense of the word--would run like this. where to start... there is no doubt that sharon allowed the phalangists to carry out these massacres. does that fact that without "you guys go ahead and murder some palestinians and we'll wait here." mean that in any way sharon is not responsible? why would you try to shortcircuit the question by routing it through even a general debate about the status of israel as a state? it is wholly possible among rational people to accept the existence of israel, even if you oppose its political policies, and not have that acceptance result in a shorting out of your capacity to look at the past and draw conclusions about it. a counter example: when the soviet army stopped in front of warsaw to allow the nazis to wipe out the jewish ghetto ("put down the uprising") who was responsible for the massacre? only the party that carried it out? was the soviet army absolved because all it did was not move while the massacre (which they knew about) was happening? i assume that it would be easier for you to think about this matter if i put forth an example that involved parties that you would have an easier time assigning blame to, and that maybe you would have an easier time still if the example involved parties that did not allow for the idiotic reversion to religious identity categories, which too often have precisely the effect that they did here: from turtleboy's post on, the thread tanked. from that post on, nothing coherent (attempts at rebuttal aside, which were of course ignored in due course) was said. of course i would expect that some might still struggle with this. maybe some grander historical explanation--you get taught the doctrine of manifest detiny in elementary school as if it is a normal aspect of american history---later you might learn that it was and remained a cover for genocide. but then there are also the thousands of western films that stage the effects of manifest destiny in a displaced way as an existential struggle between good and evil, and that is a nice fantasy world, so you go there. in most of these films, native americans are prototypes of the "terrorist" in contemporary discourse, as they appear on the scene in great number, unmotivated and evil, and so it is just fine to watch them die in great number and to read their deaths as a vindication of the "good".... as for the explicit massacres, most obviously wounded knee--well there are not alot of films that address this. little big man does. but that is not a happy nationalist film, is it? better to not watch it so you dont find yourself having to think too much about history. fantasy is better. there is a significant element in the american nationalist mythology that allows folk to practice explaining massacre away. so maybe it is easy for folk to explain away these. another way of concluding: what i see here is a displaced example of how the american right nationalism works: if you criticize particular actions by particular people who occupy a relation to a politics that you endorse, then you betray the nation itself. so sharon cannot be held to account for these massacres because to do so is to delegitimate the state of israel. the two are not connected. the connection is idiotic. it is a pretty repellent business, folks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-17-2004 at 07:36 AM..

09-16-2004, 05:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
Turtleboy Upright	It's amazing. Christian Arabs kill Muslim Arabs, and who gets blamed? The Jews.

09-17-2004, 03:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
The Phenomenon Psycho Location: I think my horns are coming out	Well they did not exactly commit the crime.

09-17-2004, 10:24 AM	#10 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	Alright. Let me try it this way for the sensitive folks who think this is a jew bashing thread. Several years ago, the then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien was on a diplomatic tour of eastern Europe. One of his stops was in Poland to meet that countries dignitaries. A storm of controversy starting brewing because there was not a planned stop at a jewish memorial of holocaust victims. In Canada the Canadian Jewish Congress felt that this was a huge slight that the prime minister wouldn't pay his respects even though that day was not of note as a day of remembrance. Long story short, the PM made a stop and laid a wreath. The bottom line is that he didn't have to do that. I don't think he was even born while the holocaust ensued. And certainly he had nothing to do with WWII as well. But it was a respectful diplomatic gesture to those who died under such conditions. Now a hypothetical. What if for some reason the British were in charge of watching jewish settlements in the West Bank in 1982 and for some reason let in Palestinian's to root out the enemy and a massacre of 800 jews happened. Does anyone for any reason think the jews wouldn't be looking for an apology from the Brits or at least some type of acknowledgement of sorrow? What if the Brits reaction of said massacre was 'fuck them',...the jews are always whining about being the victims. How do you think that would go over? Now back. Is it so unreasonable that the Israeli's pass on condolences since after all, they (Sharon) were apparently in charge of the 'master plan' spearheaded by Sharon? In terms of diplomatic resolve, should the Israeli's make such a gesture or are gestures as such only reserved for them and suffering of jews? Discuss. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

09-17-2004, 11:52 AM	#11 (permalink)
98MustGT Crazy Location: San Diego	To quote Rodney King... "Can't we all just get along?" How come those Jews and Arabs can't just live together WITHOUT KILLING ONE ANOTHER! Where I live we have Asians Mexicans Blacks Christians Muslims and we don't GO AROUND KILLING ONE ANOTHER! I am glad to live here in the US

09-17-2004, 03:15 PM	#12 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	I've been to Sabra and Chatila. I've met with the people and I know the history. The Phalange were full fledged allies of the Israelis. They met and got permission for the move into the camps beforehand. Furthermore, the people in the camp took me to the mass graves and showed me where the Israeli soldiers stood and watched over everything. This was after promising that nothing would happen to the people in the camp. There's so much to this heartbreaking story and it pains me to see people write this off as simply "anti-Israeli propoganda". There's a reason Sharon is known as the Butcher of Beirut in these parts. There's a reason over 200,000 ISRAELIs marched in protest against Sharon when the massacres occured. If you're actually interested in learning more, I recommend "Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon" by Robert Fisk and "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East" by David Hirst. If anyone wants to hear/see more let me know and I'll take some more time. SLM3

09-17-2004, 03:36 PM	#13 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	How many women and children were killed? I'm just asking because I'm hearing the words massacre, genocide and "They didn't spare anyone; they killed everyone they came across." I'm starting to open up to the side of events that claims Sharon knew the Phalangists were going to indiscriminately kill, but I'm curious as to why I don't hear anything about dead women and children. Surely there were women and children in the refugee camp, what happened to them? Were just the, you know, late-teen to adult men slaughtered, or what?