I don’t think so. This USA Today story says that the Olympic committees have repeatedly rejected requests for a tribute to the 1972 athletes. Sometimes these sorts of tributes become more meaningful over time because memories fade and the people involved die.
People noticed.
People cared.
I don’t agree with you on much, but I’m with you all the way this time.
They were killed the day after the announcement that London would host the games. Having a moment of silence for them is no different than having a moment of silence for 9/11 victims at, say, the Super Bowl.
What a load of baloney.
So if they were killed two days after the announcement, it would’ve been silly? The day before? A month later? Last year?
Yeah, it makes NO SENSE to have a moment of silence for murdered Olympians at the Olympics. Because doing so would be – lowers her voice – racist.
Glad you were able to follow the conversation.
For those NOT following along, I think I’ll just repost it.
You see they DID hold a minute of silence.
Which is the same occasion Warraq was upset about, because they commorated the Atlanta bombing but never the Israelis.
People have already linked to several news reports from reliable newspapers referring to how IOC officials have repeated refused requests by the victims families to have official recognition at any of the opening ceremonies(including incidentally the Salt Lake City Games run by Mitt Romney).
Do you have a better source than a wiki article you haven’t even posted a link to?
BTW, not being accusatory, just asking.
It’s taken from The Los Angeles Times.
You’d have to pitch it to them, because those who ARE following along realize that your link isn’t about the opening ceremonies, at all. There’s also a false equivalence inherent in rolling together the Atlanta bombing with the murder of the Israeli athletes, and it did a disservice to them by simply equating them both with nebulous “terrorism”. But the fact remains, there’s a reason why we honor certain things at or near the beginning of an event and not once the thing is over. We don’t have the national anthem play at ball games once the last out has been made we don’t have memorial day remembrances at 11:00 pm.
And the idea that there’s been a proper moment of silence because, at the end of an Olympic Games which was actually targeted by a bombing, they included Munich, is simply obfuscatory. I suspect that you realize just how flimsy your argument is, and I’d invite you to ponder why it is that the current games had a moment of silence for their war dead and for the victims of a terrorist attack on British soil at the opening ceremonies and not the closing.
I think you’ll find that they didn’t arrive at that decision by flipping a coin.
I don’t get that one. He would be talking Spanish if it werent for military marching bands at the Olympics?
Making any equivalence between the bits of the opening ceremony related to mortality and remembrance and a formal moment of silence in memory of the Israelis who died is wrong. Danny Boyle’s opening show was an expressly British history that wasn’t going to ignore the dead of two World Wars and conflicts since. The second reflective piece was the memorial wall where the stadium announcers said, “Ladies and gentlemen, please fall silent for our memorial wall for friends and family who can’t be here tonight." The pictures were of friends and family of the audience - not the victims of 7/7. The dance piece that followed was linked to 7/7 by the BBC commentators but not by Danny Boyle. The Artistic Director including reflective pieces in his show is completely different from the IOC actually making a decision to introduce a specific minute’s silence for the Munich massacre.
Not defending the IOC but I don’t think their refusal to meet this request is evidence of anti-semitism. My take is that they are completely focussed on delivering the Games without political bust-ups. They’re saying “no” because they know it has the potential to cause walk outs and boycotts and I think they would say no if it was similarly controversial but not Jewish victims - say the terrorist attack had had been by allegedly Pakistani terrorists on Indian athletes. An Indian request for a moments silence would have got the same answer if it risked a walk out by the more militant Islamic states. (Yes, I know the scenario’s not that realistic but you get my point.)
Whoever is involved, it’s not “nonpartisan” to refrain from marking a historical event because someone objects to that commemoration based on their dislike of the victims. In real life, the IOC is bowing to antisemitism and has done so for a pretty long time in this case. It’s hard not to think they are doing so because they don’t really give a shit about the people at issue. They were willing to put pressure on Islamic countries to get them to send female athletes to the games, and they were successful in that. They won’t do the same for the only group of people who were murdered during the Olympics because they don’t care or don’t think it’s worth the bother.
What the IOC won’t honor an innocent request by Israel ?!
There has NEVER been ANY recognition of the Munich victims?
The IOC must be a bunch of racist anti-semites!!! Let’s all pile on and spit at them.
What? They already did it in 1996? Oh..but.. but we’re on a roll here..
There must be a way to not make us look stupid.
Ah, wait a minute, I think I have something ! It was during the end speech. That doesn’t count as remembering.
It was the END speech everybody!
Simply for the record, I believe we should view this as an instance of anti-Israel bigotry (condoning or endorsing, depending on how you view it) and not as anti-antisemitism.
More likely IOC know that every single word or gesture which in any way can be used in the propaganda war between the Israelis and the Palestineans will be exploited mercilessly. Wisely they do not want to fuel the fire.
But it is probably easier to accuse them of hating Jews in order to gain a point in the propaganda war mentioned above. After all, the anti-semite card is a popular argument against those who do not follow the pro-Israel line 100%.
Hop down off the cross now, it’s going to be Autumn soon and we need to start stockpiling wood for winter.
Of course, it’s through-the-looking-glass for you to claim that it’s “wise” to not offer a moment of silence to athletes murdered at the Olympic games because someone will use it in a “propaganda war”. Views like yours are exactly why there might even be a “propaganda” issue rather than simply honoring athletes who were murdered.
So then one has to “follow the pro-Israel line 100%” to endorse the idea of a moment of silence for some athletes murdered because they were Jews?
Does that also that anyone who was upset by the atrocities committed at Kffir Qassim must “follow the pro-Palestinian line 100%”.
I assume of course since you seem to have strong opinions about the Israel-Palestinian conflict you’re familiar with a massacre that every 12-year-old in the West Bank knows about and aren’t hurriedly googling it or searching wikipedia.
BTW, please tell me what the “100% pro-Israel line” is and also what the “100% pro-Palestinian line” is as well.
I ask because I quite honestly have no fucking idea what “100% pro-Israel line” or the “100% pro-Palestinian line” is because anyone who’s spent five minutes amongst either Palestinians or Israelis knows that their are four political parties/factions for every three Israelis or Palestinians.
However, hopefully you can help me out and tell me what the “100% pro-Israel line” and the “100% pro-Palestinian line” is.
Thanks.
Nope. But if you read the last four pages you will see that the anti-semite point pops up over and over again. The anti-palestinean argument would have been made over and over again if a bunch of Israelis had been the aggressors back then. It is almost impossible to discuss anything that relates to the Middle East without lots of ‘anti’ posts being made. The same thing would never happen if for example the victms had been from Portugal, Canada or Indonesia.
Let us be fair here. If the IOC decided to adress this the Israelis would milk it to the max for propaganda purposes. Just like the Palestinean would do if some of their people had been killed by Israelis back then. That it the way things work. In particular in the Middle East. Personally I care for neither side.