Play Nice The NM Devil's Chessboard Thread - Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Neither of those incidents were massacres by Lebanese Shia.

Well to be fair I said "Lebanese Shia, etc". Wasn't singular.

This was as much a conflict between Palestinians as it was a conflict between Amal and the PLO. It lasted years.

It was very much the Shia as the primary involved party. The Amal were Lebanese Shia. Let's not pretend otherwise.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well to be fair I said "Lebanese Shia, etc". Wasn't singular.

You lumped Lebanese Shia (and people will think Hezbollah) in with the fascist Christians responsible for both those massacres and Lebanese/Isreali military responsible for Sabra and Shatila. Given this discussion is in the context of the current war its not fair to name the Lebanese Shia in this discussion or associate them with those massacres.

It was very much the Shia as the primary involved party. The Amal were Lebanese Shia. Let's not pretend otherwise.

It was nearly three years of conflict between all sorts of groups, mostly framed as Amal v the PLO with Amal acting on behalf of Al-Assad in Syria. That's fairly accurate but it also involved periods where Palestinians fought each other, the Druze fought Amal and the Syrian army killed thousands of Lebanese Shia. Its not as simple as PLO vs Amal.

And even if it was the entire death toll for the conflict, on all sides, is probably lower than that of both the other massacres you cited combined. The ones committed by Christian Fascists. Officially it is tho the official toll is probably an undercount. As far as I'm aware there no actual massacres of Palestinian civilians during that conflict tho civilians were killed during shelling and street fighting.

This was your statement:

But let's not forget that there's been multiple instances of massacres of Palestinians in refugee camps conducted by Lebanese Shia forces, etc.

Its completely wrong. Whatever massacres have been conducted in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon didn't involve Lebanese Shia forces and they were the only group you named as responsible.

Why is that?
 
For what?
Domestic violence. Yes
Indigenous rights. No.

I could name twenty better countries without even thinking about it.

Australians don't even appreciate the unique freedoms that they have.

It must be easy to win an argument when you can just make stuff up

Please provide evidence Australia is no 1 in the world for domestic violence.

It’s 8th out of G20 and when you factor in poorer countries doesn’t look like it would crack the top 100.

Next

Indigenous rights……

Not sure what this means

I’ll overlook the over representation of domestic violence amongst the indigenous community (which may only be an issue for you when I white man bashes a woman) and say that I’m pretty comfortable in saying despite “indigenous rights” Australia is number 1.

“Australians don’t even appreciate the unique freedoms they have”

Well i at least appreciate what a great country we live in.

I can only assume you’re not Australian given your description of Australians as “they”. If you are I’d rework your sentence to

“Australians don’t even appreciate what a great country they live in”
 
The point is the video, not the handle. I don't like that person's politics, but they have good war content.

And facts aren't pro or anti anyone.

Or are we at the point where you're going to deny your own lying eyes because what you see doesn't fit what you want to see.

(What you're doing here - attack the the source to distract from the content - is harsh right politics 101. Trumpism writ large)

That’s the problem I have re what handle I find what I’m looking for, usually dont have the time to search through the handles posting history.

I just search and find the first one with the video or news ..etc that I was looking for.
 
Whatever massacres have been conducted in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon didn't involve Lebanese Shia forces and they were the only group you named as responsible.

Why is that?

Chill, man. There's no sinister meaning here.

The War of the Camps is the primary massacre I was thinking of, which was primarily perpetrated by Lebanese Shia.

It was relatively fresh in my memory because a) I learned about it from a Lebanese Lecturer at uni back in the day and he was very passionate about the subject (tbf, I don't recall if he was Lebanese Christian, or Muslim, and I acknowledge it could influence the way it was taught), and also because earlier this week I was reading this article, which refers to the War of the Camps as follows:

"And just three years after the Shatila massacre, in 1985, something started called the “War of the Camps.” That was Lebanese Shia, backed by Syria and Iran, laying siege to the Shatila and Bourj el-Barajneh camps for almost three years with untold numbers of dead and wounded among the Palestinians."

Also, I disagree with your assessment on the War of the Camps in several regards. I'll link sources where I can to support my positions, too.

1) The death toll of Palestinians was higher in the War of the Camps (3800 Palestinians, but that number is widely acknowledged to likely be much higher due to the number of undocumented Palestinian refugees~) than Tall al-Zatar (1600~) or the Sabra/Shatila massacres (which killed an estimated 2000-3000 Lebanese Shia and Palestinians)

2) The War of the Camps was unquestionably a massacre of Palestinian refugees, conducted primarily by Lebanese Shi'ites, in Beirut.
 
For what it's worth, Israel aren't the only state in the region who likely don't want to see a Palestinian 'army'.

Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan all would be very uneasy with it, and the Gulf states have a very problematic history with Palestinians. (e.g Kuwait took in Palestinian refugees in the 80s, and then those same refugees actively supported Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).

Palestine's history in the region is tragic and full of despair. It's awful. And of course, Israel has been by far the #1 cause of their suffering, don't for a second get me wrong. But let's not forget that there's been multiple instances of massacres of Palestinians in refugee camps conducted by Lebanese Shia forces, etc.

And unfortunately, in the instances where Palestinian refugees have been welcomed into neighbouring countries, it's almost always resulted in violence. It happened in Jordan. It happened in Egypt. It ruined Lebanon...

Don't forget, Israel literally offered the entirety of Gaza to Egypt as part of the peace deal that saw the Sinai return to Egypt. And Egypt refused Gaza.

There's no simple solution to the issue - but the most realistic solution is for a genuine two-state system. It won't be perfect, but as long as Palestine is legitimately independent and free, it's a start.
What occurred in the 1960s and 1980s is no longer relevant.

In 2024 Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan could care less if Palestine had an arm.
Their preference is the that the Palestinians achieve self-determination and a right of return.

They all believe that they should return to their homeland because sadly they have had to shelter refugees for 76 years. The issue is they cannot.

We know the SLA's role in the 80s and the Civil War. The SLA no longer exists.

When Palestinians take up arms arm and attempt to fight back from a neighbouring Arab nation, when Israel responds that country becomes collateral damage.
This shit will continue for years to come.

The world will end before we see this conflict resolve itself. Thats the reality of the situation.
 
In 2024 Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan could care less if Palestine had an army.

Sorry brother. I know you mean well, but what you've said here is unfortunately not at all accurate.

Egypt especially.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice The NM Devil's Chessboard Thread - Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top