Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Russ
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromRuss
Date2002-04-13 20:44 (2002-04-13 20:44)
Message-ID<20020413144432.01774.00001263@mb-cg.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsConrad Dunkerson
FollowupsConrad Dunkerson (47m) > Russ
In article <HPZt8.21725$Rw2.1743513@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net>writes:

Conrad Dunkerson
"Russ" <mcresq@aol.com>wrote in message news:20020413114753.21870.00005348@mb-ch.aol.com...

He was Israeli Defense minister. Lebanese Phalangist militiamen committed the massacres.

Lebanese Phalangist militiamen... whom Sharon personally ordered the IDF to turn the camps over to. Just after the assassination of the Lebanese president.

Thousands of Palestinian civillians systematically massacred?

UN Observers put the figure at 7-800.

Setting aside the whole question of why the murder of 700 people would not STILL be a heinous crime...

No one said it was not. But it's a question of sourcing. If you're getting your facts as to the events at the camps from the same sources that are incorrectly inflating the death toll, that leads one to question the source as a whole.

the 700-800 figure came from Israeli intelligence Russ. Not the UN. The UN was never allowed in to fully investigate the matter. The International Committee of the Red Cross (which was there at the time) on the other hand put the count in the thousands.

Funny that the Washingon Post recently put the death toll in the "hundreds"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentIdA63603-2002Mar8&notFound=true

Sharon found responsible even by Israel?

The Kahan Commission said he was 'indirectly responsible' and more specifically, "the Defence Minister made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps. These blunders constitute non-fulfilment of a duty with which [he] was charged"

As I said. He was found responsible even by Israel.

"We have no doubt that no conspiracy or plot was entered into between anyone from the Israeli political echelon or from the military echelon in the I.D.F. and the Phalangists with the aim of perpetrating atrocities in the camps ... We assert that in having the Phalangists enter the camps, no intention existed on the part of anyone who acted on behalf of Israel to harm the non-combatant population, and that the events that followed did not have the concurrence or assent of anyone from the political or civilian echelon who was active regarding the Phalangists' entry into the camps. . . . the direct responsibility for the perpetration of the acts of slaughter rests on the Phalangist forces " The Beirut Massacre - The Complete Kahan Commission Report

Other reviews of the situation put his involvement in an even more damning light. The fact that he unquestionably knew about the massacre by the evening of the first day (if not from the start) and did nothing to stop it also goes a long way towards explaining just WHY the Palestinians were outraged by the election of this butcher. The smaller massacres at Qibya and other locations under his PERSONAL command prior to that didn't help either.

The Palestinians have absolutely ZERO right to be outraged by anything. *Their* leader, Arafat, is one the great barbarians of the 20th century. If the Israeli's have to suck it up and deal with Arafat, then the Palestinians have to suck it up and deal with Sharon.

The Kahane Commission further found no evidecne of a conspriacy between the Phalangists on theone hand and the IDF and Israeli police on the other.

The Kahane Commission found a number of things which are demonstrably false. That is one of them.

Simply because you do not like the conclusion of the report does not make it false.

The IDF were right on top of the camps. They sent the Phalangists in. They intervened to stop the execution of a medical team that had been working in the camps. They had lookout towers from which the piles of bodies could be clearly seen. They had to let the trucks carrying people away pass. They knew perfectly well what was going on and allowed it to happen for three DAYS. That an Israeli goverment report found (mostly) otherwise just makes that report false.

Make up your mind. First you cite the report and now you say its false.

BTW, your prior assertions about the Time Magazine suit were incorrect. The jury did in fact find that the Time Magazine article was false and careless and negligent. However, under U.S. law for a public figure to win a libel suit he must prove what is called 'actual malice'. The jury found Time did not act with actual malice.

You are obviously mis-remembering. None of the above contradicts what I had previously said;

"The libel suit against Time did not address the massacre at all (though that was the main point of the article). What Sharon objected to was a single paragraph stating that 'Time had learned that the Israeli report censoring Sharon for the massacre had included a note indicating that Sharon had visited the family of the former president of Lebanon and suggested that they seek revenge on the Palestinians for his assassination'. However, Sharon didn't get a penny. The article was found to be in error (there was no such note in the Israeli report), but not libelous."

Actually, it was libelous. The jury found it was false and that Time was negligent. What they did not find was they Time acted with actual malice.

Russ

Google
Conrad Dunkerson (47m) > Russ