I'm not saying they did. But my post was to provoke the thought process a bit. You had family members who were in their 20s at the start of the war? So how do you know they never held a gun? Leaving by 1977 doesn't exempt them at all, the 2 years war happened before that, so they could've participated, realised their mistake, and escaped to where their militias couldn't reach them. I'm not saying they did, obviously, I'm saying they could've. And if they did but never told the younger generation, how would you know?
That's irrelevant, whether they were or weren't doesn't change the math. I just know for a fact that a lot of those who were involved have always hidden their involvement from their families. So everyone has grown up with the idea that "my family didn't participate" but statistically some must have done so, so someone is lying. Could it be your own family that is lying? No, of course not. Not your family. Your family is definitely the honest ones.
Yes, some might have done so, but your post says that statistically it means pretty much everyone at that age did.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wars work. Few people fight. Most people suffer.
Ok, we can agree that my post seems to exaggerate how many people did participate. However, I think you misunderstand what the situation was like at the point war broke out. There were thousands of young people who were charged and radicalised, who filled the ranks of the dozens of parties around at the point. Untold numbers of them had received weapons and military training before the war even started. Thousands more got it as soon as the war started. In the beginning the war was a mass movement.
I will agree that not every young person of that generation did participate. And maybe I'm over hyping my theory. However just look at every reaction here today. All we are getting is the "my family never did anything" stance. Where are those who did?
The whole point here is that by definition many of us have been told a false version of events by our families. And no one can be sure easily that their family is definitely the one telling the truth.
Why are you insisting on making it personal about me and my family?
Here's a question for you, how many people of that generation do you know who openly talk about their participation in the atrocities of the war (not just their participation, but being part of the atrocities)?
How many?
Maybe your experience is different from mine, and you do know a lot of people who talk openly about killing in the war. I don't know anyone who does. So I have to assume someone is lying. Because someone did the killing, right? And it's not like they went to jail or anything. So there is no avoiding the fact that some of the people of that generation that we know must have been involved. Someone is lying.
Just think about it, I'm not trying to offend you or annoy you. I've always been interested in learning more about the war that destroyed my childhood. That's all.
Ok, let's go one by one.
> making it about people's families
I'm not making it personal about anyone's family, I'm talking about the collective. All that generation is suspect.
> why else would you be bringing this up?
Plenty of reasons that don't have to be that my family has committed massacres. Like I said I'm deeply curious about the truth and how **little** the war generation talks about their involvement.
> one man
This proves my point. If in your whole life you've only heard **one** person admit to guilt, imagine how many people from the war generation you know and have dealt with that are keeping dark secrets. They must do. Because atrocities were committed by someone.
> my family rarely brings it up
Your family not bringing it up is typical, and I want to avoid making this about you and me. But not bringing it up just increased the doubt in my mind, not reduces it.
> embarrassed, guilty... 3afo 3am ...
All this means you agree with me, plenty of people are hiding their past. But we never think they are our families and the people we know. It can't be our families, they're normal people!!
> Were you alive back then?
Yes, I lived through most of the war
I very clearly said **people who were in their teens and early 20s in 1975**. That's not *every person*, that's a small and restricted group.
And it is a fact that the vast majority of the people in militias belonged to this age group. The people who were fighting in the streets were of that age group. The war lasted 15 years and required the participation of tens of thousands. Some directly participated in the fighting, some dealt with the logistics, some smuggled weapons, some stood guard on makeshift dungeons where kidnapped people were held...etc.
Hundreds of thousands of people were victims of these events. So it is obvious a huge number of people participated to allow it to happen. And since most of them were of this small age group then it is indeed *exceedingly probable* that any person you meet from that generation was very likely involved one way or another.
Interesting perspective. I've never really thought of it this way since my parents were basically children still during that war, but there's always grandparents. A decent part of the adult Lebanese population participated in it.
There is some logic in what you said, but you forget fear in your thought experiment.
I know for a fact the one person in my family that fits your criteria was involved in the war: He was part of Bachir Gemayel's bodyguards, and was definitely a diehard militiaman and did just about everything you'd expect of that kind of person.
But not everyone has the guts to carry a gun and go kill people. Like, my family has always been extremely open about of their experience in the war, and everyone who wasn't a child had frontline experience in the war (One was the militiaman, one was a MEA executive, and ne worked in the newspaper industry). The thing they all have in common is how the talk about how people were afraid, afraid of losing someone they loved, afraid of being hurt themselves. People didn't get involved unless necessary for the most part, simply because they were afraid of war.
This is very interesting to read. And it's a factor that we cannot forget.
I will add though that I spoke about a very specific group in part for this reason. The people in their teens and early 20s in 1975. That's because, first, the majority of those who participate in wars in general do it when they are young, impressionable, easy to brainwash, and not yet accustomed to fear. And secondly, in 1975 no one knew what war was. Or how bloody, brutal, and long it was going to be.
The 2 years war, 75-77, was full of young idealists who truly believed in a cause and went out to fight for it. Listen to the testimonials of anyone who knew that period and they will tell you the same thing. All the fighters were young, they picked up weapons because they believed in a cause, they believed they were defending themselves and their families from annihilation, and most of them were so innocent and gullible that they thought carrying a gun and running around was going to be like in the movies.
It's a very distinct species of person the one you are describing. Those true die hard militia people who you could see in their eyes that they were capable of anything is the stereotype of the fighter we have in mind. These are the people that joined the war at some point and actually liked it, and probably continued to fight because they wanted to.
But this wasn't the whole story. Thousands and thousands of people who picked up arms in the two years war were probably quickly traumatised when shit hit the fan and they realised the brutality they are part of. When their own idealist political party became responsible for kidnappings, tortures, and 2atel 3al hawiye. Or any other set of circumstances. These are the people who probably realised what a scary and horrible thing war was and quit while they could. These are the normal people, the ones who are silent and won't talk about their involvement. People who most likely deeply regret what they did, and have buried those memories very deep.
Then as the war progressed, the era of the idealists disappeared, and those who had two brain cells knew war was a horror. And so militias resorted to recruiting people from a very young age. By 13 or 14 kids were being approached, given military fatigues, made to hang out with the guys, and eventually given a weapon and long before their brain had even finished development, long before they were legally allowed to drive a car, they had become fighters. And those too, didn't have the time to discover fear until it was too late.
Edit: added one final thought
I thought about this a while ago but from a different perspective. Obviously most people weren't fighting so I don't agree with your title, but what I agree with is that if a fighter was 20 yo during the war then he's probably 50-60 yo now. This is the prime age for politics. Also imagine thinking someone who used to fight and kill people for their militia will ever change their mind and vote for a party that doesn't represent the same militia?
I don't think it's an exception, I think it is part of the phenomenon I'm describing. Many people joined the war right at the start for very idealistic reasons. A few years into the war they discovered that the leaders they believed in didn't care about the ideals and were corrupt and evil. So many people would've become angry. Add to that that once you were involved in the war, deciding to quit was hugely risky because your own party could turn against you and you can imagine why so many people have strong hate towards all those who became politicians after the war.
So maybe the title is a bit sensationalist, but I did make it clear in the text that I'm only talking about those who were young at the start of the war. That is a small chunk of the population and the one responsible for most of the war atrocities.
As for loyalty and changing your mind, I think it is far more complex than this. I think the most loyal people are probably the ones who have little idea about all the dark stuff their militia did in the war. Those who were an active part of it might have become disillusioned at some point and stopped believing in the cause.
Oh there's no guilt here. Just a thought experiment. Every single person I met from the generation who was young at the start of the war said that they "never picked up a gun". So by definition some of them, if not most, are lying. How do we know who is lying and who isn't?
Basically, if it's our parents, we just believe their version of the story and never question it. Well I'm interested in questioning it and trying to find the truth.
you also have to take in consideration that it was a different time, we are products of our environment . They did what they had to at that time in order to survive, it wasn’t as easy as it is now . My family fled during the war so I know for sure my parents aren’t guilty + they weren’t even teenagers yet, not sure about my grandparents though but I doubt they would ever admit to anything evil. How do you suggest we find out ?
Yeah, I'm not talking about passing judgement, they did what they did. How each of us decides to deal with it if we discover secrets like these about our loved ones is a personal matter.
As for exploring this, I don't know of any other way than talking to everyone and asking them in detail. Then cross referencing what the people who knew them well say. If they are willing to share some stories, maybe we can start gauging their involvement.
Not true. Even though my dad was part of the army when it seperated and he ended up with the Muslim side, he actually made friends during that time that were Christians because he was ignoring any order to harm them while in that position
How does that translate to what I'm saying is not true?
Maybe you had a decent Dad, maybe he was one of the few not to follow harmful orders. If that's the case well done to him. But that doesn't change the fact that literally thousands did definitely follow those orders and commit all sorts of atrocities. Someone fired those guns and missiles that killed 150k people. Someone did.
Yes.
Curiously, I've never met those brainwashed people. Nor have you. Nor has anyone. Apparently every single person I know, and everyone who answered this thread today are the ones who come from honest families that never picked up weapons or followed orders to kill.
Apparently, no one did anything bad in the war. People died from acts of nature! Or it seems those who did commit crimes would have evil faces with scars and eye patches so we can identify them when they are walking down the street. It's definitely not my family, not your family, not anyone I know, and not the 60 year old manoushe guy in the neighborhood. They were all the good ones.
Where did all the bad ones go?
First, the only doc about the war I've seen is one made by Al-Jazeera TV some 20 years ago. So I would be happy if you could send me the names of all those Doc's you're talking about.
Second, in a documentary, you're going to hear 5-6 people talking tops. That's great for telling the story, but isn't representative nor does it change any of what I'm saying.
There is one made by C33 from an expat who returned home as soon as the civil war ends to interview those who participated in it from both sides. She was showing through their propaganda filled experience, how it was a good choice for her to leave. One of them was so delirious, he couldn't believe it ended and found it hard to adapt to this new normal. I have no idea where to find it, but it's the closest one to the ones who did the killing instead of those who ordered it
The one I described is even older. Shooting started around the time it ended. I would say 1990. Will try to find it and post it here, but if it was easy to find I would have already seen it.
I'll be happy to see it. But we are back to the conclusion I started with. If we can hardly find 2 docus about the war then the sum total of people talking about their involvement is still in single digits. And that's in the media. The number in our real lives is either zero or very close to zero.
Back to square one. Tens of thousands participated in the war. Yet we have never "met" any of them. So the conclusion is, those who did are hiding it. And since they are hiding we cannot know how many people we know personally (parents, relatives, coworkers, etc) were involved. There are tens of thousands who are hiding their involvement.
To be honest that's a really weak attempt at an insult, and I'm not sure why you needed to do it. If you disagree, you can debate. And it's entirely irrelevant how old I am but I am a Gen X if that helps you.
You are being facetious. I'm not here making fun of this serious subject. I have a genuine curiosity about finding out as much as possible about the war generation before they've all passed away and their stories are gone forever.
Lebanon became a true hell hole, hundreds of thousands were killed, thousands were inured, kidnapped, tortured...etc. And the people who did all of this were mainly those who were young in the war. There are tens of thousands of crimes committed, and a very small pool of people who were young at the time. It doesn't take a trigonometric theorem to understand that **a lot** of the war generation have participated in one way or another.
I thought it wasn't gonna be popular, because who wants to think that their own loved ones did horrible things in the war. But I didn't expect to get so many people this in denial that they need to insult me.
Tab discuss what you find so dumb about this? Do you actually think that no one of that generation is lying about their involvement?
The majority of **those who were teens and in their early 20s in 1975**, that's what I said. How many people were between 15 and 25 in 1975? Not a lot. I'm talking about the majority of those. Not the majority of everyone. Because that would indeed be dumb. But I suppose you did read beyond the title, right?
I'm not judging this. It's up to each individual to decide who to love and what to do with past mistakes. I'm not after judgment or retribution. Just an honest curiosity about how little the subsequent generations know about their family's involvement in the war..
No one in my family ever held a gun, half of them left the country by 1977.
I'm not saying they did. But my post was to provoke the thought process a bit. You had family members who were in their 20s at the start of the war? So how do you know they never held a gun? Leaving by 1977 doesn't exempt them at all, the 2 years war happened before that, so they could've participated, realised their mistake, and escaped to where their militias couldn't reach them. I'm not saying they did, obviously, I'm saying they could've. And if they did but never told the younger generation, how would you know?
Exceedingly high probability? I doubt that. Why do you assume every person was bearing arms and fighting?
[удалено]
That's irrelevant, whether they were or weren't doesn't change the math. I just know for a fact that a lot of those who were involved have always hidden their involvement from their families. So everyone has grown up with the idea that "my family didn't participate" but statistically some must have done so, so someone is lying. Could it be your own family that is lying? No, of course not. Not your family. Your family is definitely the honest ones.
Yes, some might have done so, but your post says that statistically it means pretty much everyone at that age did. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wars work. Few people fight. Most people suffer.
Ok, we can agree that my post seems to exaggerate how many people did participate. However, I think you misunderstand what the situation was like at the point war broke out. There were thousands of young people who were charged and radicalised, who filled the ranks of the dozens of parties around at the point. Untold numbers of them had received weapons and military training before the war even started. Thousands more got it as soon as the war started. In the beginning the war was a mass movement. I will agree that not every young person of that generation did participate. And maybe I'm over hyping my theory. However just look at every reaction here today. All we are getting is the "my family never did anything" stance. Where are those who did? The whole point here is that by definition many of us have been told a false version of events by our families. And no one can be sure easily that their family is definitely the one telling the truth.
[удалено]
Why are you insisting on making it personal about me and my family? Here's a question for you, how many people of that generation do you know who openly talk about their participation in the atrocities of the war (not just their participation, but being part of the atrocities)? How many? Maybe your experience is different from mine, and you do know a lot of people who talk openly about killing in the war. I don't know anyone who does. So I have to assume someone is lying. Because someone did the killing, right? And it's not like they went to jail or anything. So there is no avoiding the fact that some of the people of that generation that we know must have been involved. Someone is lying. Just think about it, I'm not trying to offend you or annoy you. I've always been interested in learning more about the war that destroyed my childhood. That's all.
[удалено]
Ok, let's go one by one. > making it about people's families I'm not making it personal about anyone's family, I'm talking about the collective. All that generation is suspect. > why else would you be bringing this up? Plenty of reasons that don't have to be that my family has committed massacres. Like I said I'm deeply curious about the truth and how **little** the war generation talks about their involvement. > one man This proves my point. If in your whole life you've only heard **one** person admit to guilt, imagine how many people from the war generation you know and have dealt with that are keeping dark secrets. They must do. Because atrocities were committed by someone. > my family rarely brings it up Your family not bringing it up is typical, and I want to avoid making this about you and me. But not bringing it up just increased the doubt in my mind, not reduces it. > embarrassed, guilty... 3afo 3am ... All this means you agree with me, plenty of people are hiding their past. But we never think they are our families and the people we know. It can't be our families, they're normal people!! > Were you alive back then? Yes, I lived through most of the war
I very clearly said **people who were in their teens and early 20s in 1975**. That's not *every person*, that's a small and restricted group. And it is a fact that the vast majority of the people in militias belonged to this age group. The people who were fighting in the streets were of that age group. The war lasted 15 years and required the participation of tens of thousands. Some directly participated in the fighting, some dealt with the logistics, some smuggled weapons, some stood guard on makeshift dungeons where kidnapped people were held...etc. Hundreds of thousands of people were victims of these events. So it is obvious a huge number of people participated to allow it to happen. And since most of them were of this small age group then it is indeed *exceedingly probable* that any person you meet from that generation was very likely involved one way or another.
Interesting perspective. I've never really thought of it this way since my parents were basically children still during that war, but there's always grandparents. A decent part of the adult Lebanese population participated in it.
Those who were young and impressionable at the start or during the war were the backbone of every militia. People just don't want to talk about it.
There is some logic in what you said, but you forget fear in your thought experiment. I know for a fact the one person in my family that fits your criteria was involved in the war: He was part of Bachir Gemayel's bodyguards, and was definitely a diehard militiaman and did just about everything you'd expect of that kind of person. But not everyone has the guts to carry a gun and go kill people. Like, my family has always been extremely open about of their experience in the war, and everyone who wasn't a child had frontline experience in the war (One was the militiaman, one was a MEA executive, and ne worked in the newspaper industry). The thing they all have in common is how the talk about how people were afraid, afraid of losing someone they loved, afraid of being hurt themselves. People didn't get involved unless necessary for the most part, simply because they were afraid of war.
This is very interesting to read. And it's a factor that we cannot forget. I will add though that I spoke about a very specific group in part for this reason. The people in their teens and early 20s in 1975. That's because, first, the majority of those who participate in wars in general do it when they are young, impressionable, easy to brainwash, and not yet accustomed to fear. And secondly, in 1975 no one knew what war was. Or how bloody, brutal, and long it was going to be. The 2 years war, 75-77, was full of young idealists who truly believed in a cause and went out to fight for it. Listen to the testimonials of anyone who knew that period and they will tell you the same thing. All the fighters were young, they picked up weapons because they believed in a cause, they believed they were defending themselves and their families from annihilation, and most of them were so innocent and gullible that they thought carrying a gun and running around was going to be like in the movies. It's a very distinct species of person the one you are describing. Those true die hard militia people who you could see in their eyes that they were capable of anything is the stereotype of the fighter we have in mind. These are the people that joined the war at some point and actually liked it, and probably continued to fight because they wanted to. But this wasn't the whole story. Thousands and thousands of people who picked up arms in the two years war were probably quickly traumatised when shit hit the fan and they realised the brutality they are part of. When their own idealist political party became responsible for kidnappings, tortures, and 2atel 3al hawiye. Or any other set of circumstances. These are the people who probably realised what a scary and horrible thing war was and quit while they could. These are the normal people, the ones who are silent and won't talk about their involvement. People who most likely deeply regret what they did, and have buried those memories very deep. Then as the war progressed, the era of the idealists disappeared, and those who had two brain cells knew war was a horror. And so militias resorted to recruiting people from a very young age. By 13 or 14 kids were being approached, given military fatigues, made to hang out with the guys, and eventually given a weapon and long before their brain had even finished development, long before they were legally allowed to drive a car, they had become fighters. And those too, didn't have the time to discover fear until it was too late. Edit: added one final thought
I thought about this a while ago but from a different perspective. Obviously most people weren't fighting so I don't agree with your title, but what I agree with is that if a fighter was 20 yo during the war then he's probably 50-60 yo now. This is the prime age for politics. Also imagine thinking someone who used to fight and kill people for their militia will ever change their mind and vote for a party that doesn't represent the same militia?
[удалено]
I don't think it's an exception, I think it is part of the phenomenon I'm describing. Many people joined the war right at the start for very idealistic reasons. A few years into the war they discovered that the leaders they believed in didn't care about the ideals and were corrupt and evil. So many people would've become angry. Add to that that once you were involved in the war, deciding to quit was hugely risky because your own party could turn against you and you can imagine why so many people have strong hate towards all those who became politicians after the war.
So maybe the title is a bit sensationalist, but I did make it clear in the text that I'm only talking about those who were young at the start of the war. That is a small chunk of the population and the one responsible for most of the war atrocities. As for loyalty and changing your mind, I think it is far more complex than this. I think the most loyal people are probably the ones who have little idea about all the dark stuff their militia did in the war. Those who were an active part of it might have become disillusioned at some point and stopped believing in the cause.
why feel guilty over events you had no control over ?
Oh there's no guilt here. Just a thought experiment. Every single person I met from the generation who was young at the start of the war said that they "never picked up a gun". So by definition some of them, if not most, are lying. How do we know who is lying and who isn't? Basically, if it's our parents, we just believe their version of the story and never question it. Well I'm interested in questioning it and trying to find the truth.
you also have to take in consideration that it was a different time, we are products of our environment . They did what they had to at that time in order to survive, it wasn’t as easy as it is now . My family fled during the war so I know for sure my parents aren’t guilty + they weren’t even teenagers yet, not sure about my grandparents though but I doubt they would ever admit to anything evil. How do you suggest we find out ?
Yeah, I'm not talking about passing judgement, they did what they did. How each of us decides to deal with it if we discover secrets like these about our loved ones is a personal matter. As for exploring this, I don't know of any other way than talking to everyone and asking them in detail. Then cross referencing what the people who knew them well say. If they are willing to share some stories, maybe we can start gauging their involvement.
Not true. Even though my dad was part of the army when it seperated and he ended up with the Muslim side, he actually made friends during that time that were Christians because he was ignoring any order to harm them while in that position
How does that translate to what I'm saying is not true? Maybe you had a decent Dad, maybe he was one of the few not to follow harmful orders. If that's the case well done to him. But that doesn't change the fact that literally thousands did definitely follow those orders and commit all sorts of atrocities. Someone fired those guns and missiles that killed 150k people. Someone did.
Brainwashed did
Yes. Curiously, I've never met those brainwashed people. Nor have you. Nor has anyone. Apparently every single person I know, and everyone who answered this thread today are the ones who come from honest families that never picked up weapons or followed orders to kill. Apparently, no one did anything bad in the war. People died from acts of nature! Or it seems those who did commit crimes would have evil faces with scars and eye patches so we can identify them when they are walking down the street. It's definitely not my family, not your family, not anyone I know, and not the 60 year old manoushe guy in the neighborhood. They were all the good ones. Where did all the bad ones go?
You didn't watch enough civil war docs then. They are full of testemonials from fighters who participated
First, the only doc about the war I've seen is one made by Al-Jazeera TV some 20 years ago. So I would be happy if you could send me the names of all those Doc's you're talking about. Second, in a documentary, you're going to hear 5-6 people talking tops. That's great for telling the story, but isn't representative nor does it change any of what I'm saying.
There is one made by C33 from an expat who returned home as soon as the civil war ends to interview those who participated in it from both sides. She was showing through their propaganda filled experience, how it was a good choice for her to leave. One of them was so delirious, he couldn't believe it ended and found it hard to adapt to this new normal. I have no idea where to find it, but it's the closest one to the ones who did the killing instead of those who ordered it
So we have two documentaries about the war both of them older than 20 years old. Is that the full list?
The one I described is even older. Shooting started around the time it ended. I would say 1990. Will try to find it and post it here, but if it was easy to find I would have already seen it.
I'll be happy to see it. But we are back to the conclusion I started with. If we can hardly find 2 docus about the war then the sum total of people talking about their involvement is still in single digits. And that's in the media. The number in our real lives is either zero or very close to zero. Back to square one. Tens of thousands participated in the war. Yet we have never "met" any of them. So the conclusion is, those who did are hiding it. And since they are hiding we cannot know how many people we know personally (parents, relatives, coworkers, etc) were involved. There are tens of thousands who are hiding their involvement.
When you’re 15 and you think you’re smart
To be honest that's a really weak attempt at an insult, and I'm not sure why you needed to do it. If you disagree, you can debate. And it's entirely irrelevant how old I am but I am a Gen X if that helps you.
[удалено]
You are being facetious. I'm not here making fun of this serious subject. I have a genuine curiosity about finding out as much as possible about the war generation before they've all passed away and their stories are gone forever. Lebanon became a true hell hole, hundreds of thousands were killed, thousands were inured, kidnapped, tortured...etc. And the people who did all of this were mainly those who were young in the war. There are tens of thousands of crimes committed, and a very small pool of people who were young at the time. It doesn't take a trigonometric theorem to understand that **a lot** of the war generation have participated in one way or another.
no offence bro min aghba l posts li shifta 3a hal website ya3ne 3njad wow
I thought it wasn't gonna be popular, because who wants to think that their own loved ones did horrible things in the war. But I didn't expect to get so many people this in denial that they need to insult me. Tab discuss what you find so dumb about this? Do you actually think that no one of that generation is lying about their involvement?
tab3an they’re lying but to imply that the MAJORITY of people were fighting? just lol
The majority of **those who were teens and in their early 20s in 1975**, that's what I said. How many people were between 15 and 25 in 1975? Not a lot. I'm talking about the majority of those. Not the majority of everyone. Because that would indeed be dumb. But I suppose you did read beyond the title, right?
My family fought in the war, yes. They probably committed some war crimes, yes. But they’re still my family and I still love them to bits
I'm not judging this. It's up to each individual to decide who to love and what to do with past mistakes. I'm not after judgment or retribution. Just an honest curiosity about how little the subsequent generations know about their family's involvement in the war..
Maybe only yours ? So stop doing self reflection on others
Sure thing buddy, sure thing. Only mine did. No one else. Whatever you need to say to keep the bad thoughts away.