Wow, what a thing to be inspired by.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6147344.ece
QuoteApril 22, 2009
World Agenda: ban on scrutiny harms Sri Lankan cause against Tigers
Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
At a recent meeting with foreign ambassadors, the man running Sri Lanka's war against the Tamil Tigers was asked how he planned to handle the tens of thousands of civilians trapped inside a no-fire zone with the rebels.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the Defence Secretary and brother of the President, Mahinda Rakapaksa, replied that he was inspired by Russia's handling of the Beslan school siege in 2004.
This was either a misguided attempt to flatter the Russian Ambassador, or a chilling foretaste of what could happen in the next few days. I covered Beslan for The Times and it was a bloodbath — out of 1,100 hostages, 344 were killed, half of them children — due in large measure to the incompetence of the Russian security services. Even Russian officials admit it was a disaster.
Whatever Mr Rajapaksa's intentions, any comparison is an extraordinary way to try to reassure the international community that Sri Lankan forces will limit civilian casualties in the final battle of this 26-year civil war.
Sri Lanka's troops are better prepared for this operation than the Russians were in Beslan, but the challenge is equally complicated and on a much larger scale. Troops have to kill or capture the last 200 core Tiger fighters, plus several hundred recent recruits, while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum and making sure that the rebels do not escape with the non-combatants.
All that in a 5sq mile (13sq km) sliver of beach and coconut grove, crammed full of makeshift shelters that until Monday were housing 100,000- 150,000 civilians, according to the UN and the Red Cross.
The army now says that it has freed more than 80,000 of them (even though it said previously that there were fewer than 50,000 there all together) and has yet to mount it final attack on the Tamil Tigers. It also says it is using only light weapons to minimise civilian casualties.
The problem is that, unlike in Beslan, there are virtually no independent witnesses to verify the army's claims — and the few Red Cross and UN staff on the ground often dispute them (as with the figures for civilians).
For most of the past two years, the Sri Lankan Government has banned almost all independent reporters and aid workers from the front line: The Times has not been granted a journalist's visa to Sri Lanka since August.
The Government says that it imposes these restrictions because many Western journalists, aid workers and even diplomats secretly support the Tigers, banned as a terrorist organisation in the European Union, America and India.
The vast majority actually support the goal of defeating the Tigers, who have forcibly recruited children, pioneered the use of suicide bombs, used civilians as human shields, and killed thousands of innocent people. But they also believe in scrutinising both sides of any conflict, and holding a democratically elected government — and member of the Commonwealth — to higher standards than those of a terrorist organisation.
That is why the Government needs to allow more reporters and aid workers to witness the civilians' exodus from the no-fire zone, to speak to them directly and to see how they are being treated in the camps where they are being sent. By blocking such scrutiny, the Government simply undermines its own moral legitimacy and makes it harder to convince the world of its successes — even as the Tigers and others highlight its failures.
It also risks damaging its relations with the international community of democracies (still its main aid donors and trading partners) and radicalising not only its own three million Tamils, but the 74 million-strong Tamil diaspora, from which a new armed movement could easily emerge.
The Government may be on the point of a conventional military victory, but it is losing the international propaganda war — and it has only itself to blame.
Why is that surprising? Beslan was forcefully resolved, and increased sympathy for the Russians.
Why wouldn't the Sri Lankans utilize extreme levels of force? In their minds, most of the civilians under seige are potential future suicide bombers or guerillas, I'm sure.
Quotemany Western journalists, aid workers and even diplomats secretly support the Tigers
Well, they do keep those people in a job.
I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term.
I am pretty disgusted with the idea of lengthening the civil war in Sri Lanka for humanitarian reasons. What sort of fucked up logic is that?
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 01:21:09 PMI am pretty disgusted with the idea of lengthening the civil war in Sri Lanka for humanitarian reasons. What sort of fucked up logic is that?
Hippy liberals and logic don't often mix. :(
I love the whining in the article that unless the government lets the jounos in, they will lose the war in the long run.
I think he meant what he said. An attempt to try to scare the rebels into surrendering.
QuoteIt also risks damaging its relations with the international community of democracies (still its main aid donors and trading partners) and radicalising not only its own three million Tamils, but the 74 million-strong Tamil diaspora, from which a new armed movement could easily emerge.
Maybe I need training in sympathizing with terrorists and criminals but does the international community of democracies really demand the government be as nice to Tigers as possible?
For some reason alot of people don't care that the Tamil Tigers frequently engage in terror tactics... or they simply don't know.
Hard to throw too many stones at Sri Lanka for how they deal with this terrorist org, but I found it interesting to compare the level of press coverage and international outrage on this story with say Israel's actions in Gaza, WB, etc.
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 01:50:54 PM
For some reason alot of people don't care that the Tamil Tigers frequently engage in terror tactics... or they simply don't know.
A lot of us
do understand that, though. The problem is that Sri Lanka's government is on the borderline of terror tactics itself, on an even larger scale, and for stupid reasons. It's much easier to martyrize a huge block of civilian casualties than a group of executed rebels as a symbol of the bloody, oppressive government. The Tigers are radical, but my read is that there's an even larger Tamil population that's bordering on revolution themselves and just need a proper spark to light the powder keg.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 22, 2009, 08:52:30 PMThe Tigers are radical, but my read is that there's an even larger Tamil population that's bordering on revolution themselves and just need a proper spark to light the powder keg.
Against both government and Tigers? :o :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 22, 2009, 08:52:30 PM
A lot of us do understand that, though. The problem is that Sri Lanka's government is on the borderline of terror tactics itself, on an even larger scale, and for stupid reasons. It's much easier to martyrize a huge block of civilian casualties than a group of executed rebels as a symbol of the bloody, oppressive government. The Tigers are radical, but my read is that there's an even larger Tamil population that's bordering on revolution themselves and just need a proper spark to light the powder keg.
This just sounds like the same old garbage of acting like illegal terrorist groups have just as much legitimacy, if not far more, than governments do to use force. Hell it is the legitimate governments fault if the terrorists use human shields not the terrorists. In fact the rest of the Tamils will react to being used this way by the Tigers by joining the fucking Tigers.
Fuck it is Hamas and Hezbollah all over again. The terrorists can do no wrong and opposing them only makes people mad. What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.
If being a Humanitarian means allowing every illegal band of thugs raise hell for decades on end I think every thinking person should aspire to be otherwise.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 11:04:03 PM
This just sounds like the same old garbage of acting like illegal terrorist groups have just as much legitimacy, if not far more, than governments do to use force. Hell it is the legitimate governments fault if the terrorists use human shields not the terrorists. In fact the rest of the Tamils will react to being used this way by the Tigers by joining the fucking Tigers.
Fuck it is Hamas and Hezbollah all over again. The terrorists can do no wrong and opposing them only makes people mad. What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.
If being a Humanitarian means allowing every illegal band of thugs raise hell for decades on end I think every thinking person should aspire to be otherwise.
I wasn't saying it made sense and I'm not supporting them. What I'm saying is the general public's going to play the blame game if that many civilians become casualties, and whether it's rational or not, if there's discontent in the region, there's at least an even chance that the government will actually become the scapegoat.
My argument is not intended to justify the Tamil Tigers' use of force; my point is that the government has been excessive in their use of force, and it comes across like they're lying to the public on collateral damage. In fact, the
government are the ones who are coming close to giving populist justification to the Tamil Tigers, and they only have their own mismanagement of the situation to blame.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 23, 2009, 09:38:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 11:04:03 PM
This just sounds like the same old garbage of acting like illegal terrorist groups have just as much legitimacy, if not far more, than governments do to use force. Hell it is the legitimate governments fault if the terrorists use human shields not the terrorists. In fact the rest of the Tamils will react to being used this way by the Tigers by joining the fucking Tigers.
Fuck it is Hamas and Hezbollah all over again. The terrorists can do no wrong and opposing them only makes people mad. What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.
If being a Humanitarian means allowing every illegal band of thugs raise hell for decades on end I think every thinking person should aspire to be otherwise.
I wasn't saying it made sense and I'm not supporting them. What I'm saying is the general public's going to play the blame game if that many civilians become casualties, and whether it's rational or not, if there's discontent in the region, there's at least an even chance that the government will actually become the scapegoat.
Sounds like you are making a strong argument for the government censorship of the media that is ongoing.
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 09:43:23 AM
Sounds like you are making a strong argument for the government censorship of the media that is ongoing.
*chagrine* I'm not arguing for the censorship, I'm arguing against the excessive use of force, and saying that the censorship is making the government position look disingenuous.
Have they already taken out the Königstigers? They'll need more than light arms, I'm afraid.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 23, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 09:43:23 AM
Sounds like you are making a strong argument for the government censorship of the media that is ongoing.
*chagrine* I'm not arguing for the censorship, I'm arguing against the excessive use of force, and saying that the censorship is making the government position look disingenuous.
Right, but you said
Quotethe general public's going to play the blame game if that many civilians become casualties, and whether it's rational or not, if there's discontent in the region, there's at least an even chance that the government will actually become the scapegoat.
Given that civlians casualties are liekly inevitable given the common terrorist tactic of using civilians as shield and killing them, it seems like the government will be blamed by the media irrationally. If that is the case, then their best move is to censor the press while they do what has to be done.
This takes away one the terrorists primary weapons - the certainty that the press will give them a free pass under the guise of "well, we don't expect anything more from them" while excoriating the government for killing all those people, whether they were responsible or not.
Of course, the flip side to that is that if the government IS using excessive force, then they will want to censor for that very reason as well, and how do you tell the difference?
The typical lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting government activity is really too bad.
Sacrificing civilians to defeat the Tamils in the field is certainly not to save lives in the long run.
The bloodshed will not end if the Tamil Tigers are without territory. They will simply resort to even more guerilla warfare and terrorism.
Quote from: Berkut on April 24, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
Given that civlians casualties are liekly inevitable given the common terrorist tactic of using civilians as shield and killing them, it seems like the government will be blamed by the media irrationally. If that is the case, then their best move is to censor the press while they do what has to be done.
This takes away one the terrorists primary weapons - the certainty that the press will give them a free pass under the guise of "well, we don't expect anything more from them" while excoriating the government for killing all those people, whether they were responsible or not.
Of course, the flip side to that is that if the government IS using excessive force, then they will want to censor for that very reason as well, and how do you tell the difference?
The typical lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting government activity is really too bad.
You're still missing the focus of my argument. The press is one venue of accountability, which the Sri Lankan government seems to be scoffing in
all venues. Whether the press has journalistic integrity or not, Sri Lanka has scoffed international oversight with the paranoid claim that even diplomats secretly serve the Tamil Tigers. With the existence of that kind of institutional paranoia, and without any kind of independent verification, there's an extremely high risk that the government forces are simply executing first and asking questions later, and without oversight, there's nothing to stop them claiming that a civilian executed by a soldier was a human shield for the Tigers.
And as feared the government goes overboard.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30664810/
Quote'Bloodbath' in Sri Lanka barrage, U.N. says
Doctor says 1,000 Tamil civilians likely slain in shelling over the weekend
updated 5:31 a.m. ET, Mon., May 11, 2009
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - Two days of shelling across Sri Lanka's northern war zone killed at least 430 ethnic Tamil civilians — and likely as many as 1,000 — a government doctor in the area said Monday. The United Nations branded the attacks a "bloodbath."
With the civilian death toll skyrocketing in the civil war, a coalition of international human rights groups called for the U.N. Security Council to urgently hold talks on the conflict.
A rebel-linked Web site blamed the attacks on the government, while the military accused the beleaguered Tamil Tigers of shelling their own territory to gain international sympathy and force a cease-fire.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
The first barrage struck the tiny sliver of northeast coast still held by the rebels Saturday evening and lasted through the night, health officials said.
'Safe zone' fired on
About 6 p.m. Sunday, a new round of shelling — less intense than the first — pounded a newly demarcated "safe zone" where the government had urged civilians to gather, according to Dr. V. Shanmugarajah, who works at a makeshift hospital in the war zone.
A total of 393 people were either brought to the hospital for burial or died at the facility Sunday, while another 37 bodies were brought in Monday morning, he said. More than 1,300 wounded civilians came to the hospital as well, he said.
However, the death toll was likely far higher, he said. Many of the dead were buried in the bunkers where they had taken refuge and then were killed, and many of the wounded never made it to the hospital for treatment, he said.
"There were many who died without medical attention," Shanmugarajah said. "Seeing the number of wounded and from what the people tell me, I estimate the death toll to be around 1,000."
Volunteers dug mass graves in the marshland near the hospital, putting 50 to 60 bodies in each pit, he said. One of the hospital's nurses was killed along with his family in a trench that was then filled with soil and turned into their grave, he said.
Reports difficult to verify
Reports of the fighting are difficult to verify because the government bars journalists and aid workers from the war zone. The attacks marked the bloodiest assault on ethnic Tamil civilians since the civil war flared again more than three years ago.
"The U.N. has consistently warned against the bloodbath scenario as we've watched the steady increase in civilian deaths over the last few months," U.N. spokesman Gordon Weiss said Monday. "The large-scale killing of civilians over the weekend, including the deaths of more than 100 children, shows that that bloodbath has become a reality."
U.N. figures compiled last month showed that nearly 6,500 civilians had been killed in three months of fighting this year as the government drove the rebels out of their strongholds in the north and vowed to end the war.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other rights groups called on Japan, the largest international donor to Sri Lanka, to press the U.N. to urgently address the civil war here.
"Formal meetings of the Security Council must be held urgently so that the council can take the necessary measures to address the humanitarian and human rights crisis," the groups said in a letter to Japan's prime minister.
About 50,000 civilians are crowded into a 2.4 mile-long strip of coast along with the separatists, who have been fighting for 25 years for a homeland for minority Tamils.
Calls for truce ignored
The government has brushed off international calls for a humanitarian truce, saying any pause in the fighting would give the rebels time to regroup.
Shanmugarajah said the hospital was so short-staffed that many of those wounded in the first barrage late Saturday had still not been treated Monday morning. "The hospital death rate is increasing, but we are helpless," he said.
People were begging the doctors to send them away on a Red Cross ship that comes every few days to evacuate the wounded, saying they could not bear the shelling anymore.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
The rebel-linked TamilNet Web site blamed the attack on Sri Lankan forces. Rights groups have accused them of bombing and shelling the war zone despite pledges to stop using heavy weapons.
The Sri Lankan military denied firing the artillery and said they witnessed rebels firing mortar shells from one corner of the coastal strip into another section heavily populated with civilians for one hour Sunday morning.
"I think the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) is now trying to use these people as their last weapon to show the world that the army is firing indiscriminately and stop this offensive," military spokesman Brig. Udaya Nanayakkara said.
Human rights groups have accused the rebels of holding the civilians as human shields and shooting some who tried to flee.
Journalists deported
On Sunday, Sri Lanka deported three journalists for London-based Channel 4 television news who had been arrested on charges of tarnishing the image of the security forces after running a report about alleged sexual abuse in displacement camps.
Lakshman Hulugalle, a government spokesman, said the journalists admitted they had "done something wrong" and would not be allowed to come back to Sri Lanka.
However, Nick Paton-Walsh, the channel's Asia correspondent, denied giving a statement to police or admitting wrongdoing.
"This is complete rubbish," he told The Associated Press from Singapore after his deportation.
© 2009 The Associated Press.
The Tigers will be back in some form or another. With the strong nationalists in the current Sri Lankan gov't, I don't expect them to do anything more than treat the Tamil minority like shit once again, and in 10-20 years they'll be right back where they started.
Could've ended the conflict permanently this year, I bet.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 11, 2009, 08:46:04 AM
The Tigers will be back in some form or another. With the strong nationalists in the current Sri Lankan gov't, I don't expect them to do anything more than treat the Tamil minority like shit once again, and in 10-20 years they'll be right back where they started.
Could've ended the conflict permanently this year, I bet.
Thugs fighting state-sanctioned thugs, that's all. This is just going to keep going round and round until a third party intervenes; it's pretty clear by now that the government is BS'ing as much as, if not more than, the Tigers.
Ceylon should have been given to India. :bowler:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2009, 10:14:00 AM
Ceylon should have been given to India. :bowler:
Yeah because if there is something India needs it is another terrorist group blowing shit up in their cities.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 01:21:09 PM
I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term.
I am pretty disgusted with the idea of lengthening the civil war in Sri Lanka for humanitarian reasons. What sort of fucked up logic is that?
:lol:
Spectacular.
You support the murder of innocent civilians in order to further what you perceive to be a just cause?
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 10:22:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2009, 10:14:00 AM
Ceylon should have been given to India. :bowler:
Yeah because if there is something India needs it is another terrorist group blowing shit up in their cities.
There are already 60 million Tamils in India that aren't blowing stuff up, maybe it would have worked out better.
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
Spectacular.
You support the murder of innocent civilians in order to further what you perceive to be a just cause?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. All civilians should die bloody deaths.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
Spectacular.
You support the murder of innocent civilians in order to further what you perceive to be a just cause?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. All civilians should die bloody deaths.
You monster! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 11:24:52 AM
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. All civilians should die bloody deaths.
Finally, the truth comes out!
A death toll around 1,000? Who cares?
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2009, 12:36:53 PM
A death toll around 1,000? Who cares?
Considering a 3,000-casualty incident rerouted US foreign policy over the last decade, I think it's safe to say a lot of people would. ;)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2009, 12:36:53 PM
A death toll around 1,000? Who cares?
Considering a 3,000-casualty incident rerouted US foreign policy over the last decade, I think it's safe to say a lot of people would. ;)
3,000 dead white folks killed in a surprise attack is a bigger deal than a million Indians killed in a civil war.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 11:24:52 AM
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. All civilians should die bloody deaths.
You first please.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
Spectacular.
You support the murder of innocent civilians in order to further what you perceive to be a just cause?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. All civilians should die bloody deaths.
Nice one.
So a few deaths aka collateral damage is ok as long as it furthers "peace".
How many murders are you ready to perform in order to prevent other murders being done?
One for every 100 prevented? For every 10? For every 2?
Will you also condone the murder of the impoverished since it will in the long term reduce suffering by preventing them from having impoverished children?
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 01:21:09 PM
I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term.
I am pretty disgusted with the idea of lengthening the civil war in Sri Lanka for humanitarian reasons. What sort of fucked up logic is that?
:lol:
Spectacular.
You support the murder of innocent civilians in order to further what you perceive to be a just cause?
I think he is saying that the way to end the killing is to end the war.
And innocent civilians get killed in the furtherance of causes both just and unjust in war all the time. In fact, pretty much every time.
Yes, I agree with Valmy in this case.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:30:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 11:24:52 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
Spectacular.
You support the murder of innocent civilians in order to further what you perceive to be a just cause?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. All civilians should die bloody deaths.
Nice one.
So a few deaths aka collateral damage is ok as long as it furthers "peace".
Of course. are you arguing otherwise?
Quote
How many murders are you ready to perform in order to prevent other murders being done?
Who said anything about murder? It isn't murder if the state does it, by definition.
It is collateral damage, and in this case, if we go by teh Geneva conventions, it is the rebels who bear the responsibility for those deaths, by hiding themselves among the civilian population.
Quote
One for every 100 prevented? For every 10? For every 2?
What do you think?
How many people would you allow rebels to murder in order to make sure you never take an innocent life fighting them?
Quote
Will you also condone the murder of the impoverished since it will in the long term reduce suffering by preventing them from having impoverished children?
Wow, talk about jumping the shark!
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:30:01 PM
So a few deaths aka collateral damage is ok as long as it furthers "peace".
Yep. That is why we firebombed Germany. That is why Sherman marched to the sea. Treating your enemy with kid gloves to be nice will only keep the war going.
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
Who said anything about murder? It isn't murder if the state does it, by definition.
What if it's state sponsored genocide?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2009, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
Who said anything about murder? It isn't murder if the state does it, by definition.
What if it's state sponsored genocide?
Then you can make an argument that it is a war crime, or human rights abuse, or whatever AI is calling it these days.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
My god, you've finally been infected with Euroweenie.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 12, 2009, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
My god, you've finally been infected with Euroweenie.
Hardly. I just find the double-standard irritating.
For all I care, they can wipe out the entire population of the island.
All the recycling of plastic bottles in the world wouldn't dent the reduction in CO2 emissions we could achieve by simply exterminating all those little smelly brown people.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
What are you talking about?
We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".
Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! :punk:
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".
Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! :punk:
Earth to Slargos: we were just as pissed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and hardly any of those people were civilians. We tend to fight back when attacked. I don't really see how that is relevent at all in any possible concievable sense to what I am saying.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
What are you talking about?
We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".
Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! :punk:
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".
Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! :punk:
Earth to Slargos: we were just as pissed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and hardly any of those people were civilians. We tend to fight back when attacked. I don't really see how that is relevent at all in any possible concievable sense to what I am saying.
You're saying that it's ok to "sacrifice civilians" in order to further your goals.
By that token, the 2001 attacks were perfectly justified.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".
Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! :punk:
Earth to Slargos: we were just as pissed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and hardly any of those people were civilians. We tend to fight back when attacked. I don't really see how that is relevent at all in any possible concievable sense to what I am saying.
You're saying that it's ok to "sacrifice civilians" in order to further your goals.
By that token, the 2001 attacks were perfectly justified.
No, I don't think that is what he, or anyone else is saying.
Those poor Al-Qaeda peacekeepers, pushed to extreme measures in their quest for peace. :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 01:21:09 PM
I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term.
I am pretty disgusted with the idea of lengthening the civil war in Sri Lanka for humanitarian reasons. What sort of fucked up logic is that?
I'm going to quote his post again, since at least Berkut seems to have missed it.
Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.
I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:23:12 PM
I'm going to quote his post again, since at least Berkut seems to have missed it.
So it is far better to keep the Tigers around to lengthen this long and brutal civil war?
I don't really see how that means 'kill civilians to further your goals'
Rather if you have to kill civilians to end a war you might have to go ahead and do it.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:27:14 PM
Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.
I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.
That might be a good point if in fact the valuation was actually arbitrary.
But then, it is not, Mr. Moral Equivalence.
IE Where exactly lies the difference in these two sentences?
"I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term."
"I think destroying the Jews is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then [sic] may have to be sacrificed in the short term."
[/s]
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:27:14 PM
Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.
I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.
I think fewer people dying is better than lots of people dying. That means I can never take the moral high ground?
If you cannot see the difference between those two statements, I am quite certain there is nothing I can say that might help you.
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 02:29:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:27:14 PM
Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.
I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.
I think fewer people dying is better than lots of people dying. That means I can never take the moral high ground?
What about those particular people who get killed to achieve your goal? They have no say in the matter? You don't suppose they want to live?
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:30:41 PM
What about those particular people who get killed to achieve your goal? They have no say in the matter? You don't suppose they want to live?
Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 02:29:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:27:14 PM
Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.
I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.
I think fewer people dying is better than lots of people dying. That means I can never take the moral high ground?
What about those particular people who get killed to achieve your goal? They have no say in the matter? You don't suppose they want to live?
What about the particular people who get killed to achieve your goal of not killing anyone - the vastly greater number of people in fact? They ahve no say....etc., etc., etc.
This is lame. Why are you hashing out this 6th grade level moral philosophy?
The callousness with which you describe actual human (well, in a fashion) lives and fates is funny. I will grant you that.
Still, I guess as long as you're on the correct side of the moral equation it's ok to be a cruel bastard.
But hey, at least you don't hate them, you simply don't care whether they live or die.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
The callousness with which you describe actual human (well, in a fashion) lives and fates is funny. I will grant you that.
Hey you are the dude condemning far more people to death by being in favor of needlessly lengthening wars.
Does context mean nothing to you?
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
But hey, at least you don't hate them, you simply don't care whether they live or die.
They are made out of atoms, which I can use for something else.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 02:29:04 PM
IE Where exactly lies the difference in these two sentences?
"I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term."
"I think destroying the Jews is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then [sic] may have to be sacrificed in the short term."
A thread has officially Jumped the Shark(TM) when someone pulls out the Hitler comparisons. :yeah:
Valmy misses the point: there is NO moral high ground to be obtained on this issue. Repeating, thugs versus state-sanctioned thugs.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 03:11:13 PM
Valmy misses the point: there is NO moral high ground to be obtained on this issue. Repeating, thugs versus state-sanctioned thugs.
That analysis is dependent on some factual matters that are not really very apparent.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
That analysis is dependent on some factual matters that are not really very apparent.
Not really. The Tamil Tigers have been successful thus far in exploiting the Tamil minority's grievances. The state's response? "We'll come to the table and address those grievances... once the Tigers are gone."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/04/tigers-end-game-sri-lanka (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/04/tigers-end-game-sri-lanka)
Tigers End Game in Sri Lanka
by
James Ross
May 4, 2009
Published in the Huffington Post
The last stand of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger insurgents appears to be nearing its horrific end. Reduced to a sandy strip no bigger than New York's Central Park, the Tigers seem intent on fighting to the last man, woman and child. Disastrously, the Sri Lanka army has obliged the Tiger's death wish by indiscriminately firing heavy artillery into the strip, littering the area with bodies and body parts. The United Nations says that more than 6,400 civilians have been killed in the fighting since late January.
One might think that no one would shed a tear for the insurgents, officially known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It was the first group to make suicide bombings their trademark. It assassinated numerous civilian officials and pro-peace politicians, and perhaps thousands of ethnic Tamils who didn't support their cause. In areas under their control, the Tamil Tigers ruled with an iron fist, torturing opponents, preventing a free press, and inducting thousands of children into their forces, often for front-line duty.
But support for the Tamil Tiger cause remains strong for many Tamils in Sri Lanka and among the large Tamil diaspora, most of whose families fled the country because of government abuses. Many get their information from Tiger propaganda sources.
But the Tamil minority has genuine grievances against the Sinhalese-dominated government that have long gone unaddressed. While the LTTE was never the "sole representative" of Sri Lanka's Tamils, as the group has long claimed, it was often the only voice Tamils heard. And the grievances won't disappear just because the Tamil Tigers do.
Instead of addressing Tamil concerns about governance, property rights, and civil liberties, the administration of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has only heightened them, pandering to the most nationalistic Sinhalese elements in society. Several Tamil politicians and journalists have been murdered and others have been prosecuted on dubious political grounds. And while the threat of Tamil Tiger attack justifies security precautions, all too often they have meant that ordinary Tamils are subjected to indefinite detention without trial, "disappearances," and summary execution.Even if the Tamil Tigers are defeated on the battlefield, few believe that their bombings and assassinations will end. It should be obvious to the Rajapaksa government that the way the war is fought - and concluded - will have a huge impact on the aftermath. Unfortunately, the government thus far has demonstrated little interest in promoting a genuine multi-ethnic Sri Lanka in which the rights of all its citizens are respected.
The United States, which has been outspoken on human rights in Sri Lanka since the Bush administration, should work with other influential governments, notably India, the European Union and Japan, to press for a long-term agenda that truly brings an end to the country's ethnic conflict.
First, Colombo needs to put its military commanders under tight control. The terrible civilian casualties of recent weeks are a huge cause for concern, but so is the danger that suspected LTTE fighters, many of whom were forcibly recruited, will be subject to serious abuses. After government forces took the rebel stronghold of Jaffna in 1995, some 500 people "disappeared." Were it to prosecute both government and LTTE commanders responsible for war crimes, the government would be making a crucial statement about justice in a future Sri Lanka.
Second, the government should stop treating all Tamils fleeing the war zone, including entire families, as captured combatants. They have been placed in so-called "welfare centers" - in reality, detention camps. Humanitarian agencies are obviously reluctant to provide assistance that will further the indefinite lock-up of these displaced civilians. While meeting legitimate security concerns, the government needs to allow freedom of movement of the displaced population, some 200,000 people, and plan for their prompt return to their homes.
Finally, the government should plan ahead for real democracy in former LTTE-controlled areas. After it "liberated" the eastern region a year ago, control of the area was effectively put in the hands of an abusive former Tamil Tiger force. Sri Lanka's Tamil population includes many well-educated people who have long criticized the LTTE for its murderous ways, and often paid the price in lost lives. They should be part of a new, democratic resurgence in former LTTE areas.
The current government is unlikely to take up these initiatives on its own. The United States and other concerned states have an important role to play in Sri Lanka's future. Otherwise the bloody fighting on the sandy strip will not be marking the end of the current war, but sowing the seeds of the next one.
Yeah, but that is from HRW. So how do you even know if it is credible?
What we know for certain is that the Tigers are an illegitimate terrorist organization. While that hardly gives teh government a free pass on supressing them, it does mean that the primary resposibility for civilian deaths is on them. If the government abuses that to inflict even greater casualties, or to intentionally kill civilians for their own purposes under the guise of the war, then they should be called to task on that, but not in the context of simply waving your hands and calling for a pox on both their houses.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2009, 01:42:15 PM
Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?
What are you talking about?
Apparently some terrorist organization is targeting securitized loans for attack with explosives. Talk about hitting something when it is down . . .
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 03:27:00 PM
But the Tamil minority has genuine grievances against the Sinhalese-dominated government that have long gone unaddressed. While the LTTE was never the "sole representative" of Sri Lanka's Tamils, as the group has long claimed, it was often the only voice Tamils heard. And the grievances won't disappear just because the Tamil Tigers do.
Instead of addressing Tamil concerns about governance, property rights, and civil liberties, the administration of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has only heightened them, pandering to the most nationalistic Sinhalese elements in society. Several Tamil politicians and journalists have been murdered and others have been prosecuted on dubious political grounds. And while the threat of Tamil Tiger attack justifies security precautions, all too often they have meant that ordinary Tamils are subjected to indefinite detention without trial, "disappearances," and summary execution.
QuoteBut the German minority has genuine grievances against the Czech-dominated government that have long gone unaddressed. While the Nazis have never been the "sole representative" of Sudetenland's ethnic Germans, as the Party has long claimed, it is often the only voice Sudenten Germans hear. And the grievances won't disappear even if thethe Nazis do.
Instead of addressing Sudenten German concerns about governance, property rights, and civil liberties, the administration of President Benes has only heightened them, pandering to the most nationalistic Czech elements in society. Several Sudenten German politicians and students have been murdered and others have been prosecuted on dubious political grounds. And while the threat of Nazi attack justifies security precautions, all too often they have meant that ordinary Sudenten Germans are subjected to indefinite detention without trial, "disappearances," and police killings.
So your solution is what Joan, ethnically cleanse the island like the Czechs did the Sudetenland?
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:33:43 PM
Yeah, but that is from HRW. So how do you even know if it is credible?
What we know for certain is that the Tigers are an illegitimate terrorist organization. While that hardly gives teh government a free pass on supressing them, it does mean that the primary resposibility for civilian deaths is on them. If the government abuses that to inflict even greater casualties, or to intentionally kill civilians for their own purposes under the guise of the war, then they should be called to task on that, but not in the context of simply waving your hands and calling for a pox on both their houses.
Actually, you've done a wonderful job of leading into my point. With the press blacked out, there's no credible way to get an idea of whether the LTTE or the Sri Lankan government is bullshitting more (although the government's scale and reasoning of the media blackout is automatically suspect).
It's a wash. The Tigers are saying Sri Lanka isn't differentiating between civilians and combatants, while the government says the Tigers are using them as human shields, but refuses to provide any proof to back up their claims and won't allow anyone to review their methods. They're both being shady and underhanded; both have legitimate grievances with each other... there's just no way to take a side without sacrificing one's objectivity.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
So your solution is what Joan, ethnically cleanse the island like the Czechs did the Sudetenland?
I think the solution is probably not launching a decades long terrorist campaign though. Call me crazy.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 04:46:56 PM
It's a wash. The Tigers are saying Sri Lanka isn't differentiating between civilians and combatants, while the government says the Tigers are using them as human shields, but refuses to provide any proof to back up their claims and won't allow anyone to review their methods. They're both being shady and underhanded; both have legitimate grievances with each other... there's just no way to take a side without sacrificing one's objectivity.
The Sri Lankan government is recognized universally by every world government as the lawful government of Sri Lanka. I fail to see how the Tigers have just as much legitimacy. Somehow I fail to see how it is a wash.
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 05:07:06 PM
The Sri Lankan government is recognized universally by every world government as the lawful government of Sri Lanka. I fail to see how the Tigers have just as much legitimacy. Somehow I fail to see how it is a wash.
It's not Sri Lanka's sovereignty that's in question; it's their methods. The international community HAS called those into question, and have so far received no coherent response.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 05:10:37 PM
It's not Sri Lanka's sovereignty that's in question; it's their methods. The international community HAS called those into question, and have so far received no coherent response.
Interesting this is brought up right when the Tigers are in danger of being defeated. It just strikes me as people falling over backwards to support a terrorist militia right at the moment of their defeat. If it was a real sympathy for the plight of the civilians why are the screws being tighened just now? Smells fishy to me.
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 05:13:52 PM
Interesting this is brought up right when the Tigers are in danger of being defeated. It just strikes me as people falling over backwards to support a terrorist militia right at the moment of their defeat. If it was a real sympathy for the plight of the civilians why are the screws being tighened just now? Smells fishy to me.
The one thing we DO know for sure is that Sri Lanka's government upped the force at the end of 2008, and it was around that point that Sri Lanka started kicking journalists out. THAT smells fishy to me. I would think that we wouldn't want another Kosovo on our hands, and yet that seems a real possibility.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
So your solution is what Joan, ethnically cleanse the island like the Czechs did the Sudetenland?
Well there were disadvantages to that. For instance, Han's family came to America. He would have made a wonderful commissar.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:33:43 PM
Yeah, but that is from HRW. So how do you even know if it is credible?
What we know for certain is that the Tigers are an illegitimate terrorist organization. While that hardly gives teh government a free pass on supressing them, it does mean that the primary resposibility for civilian deaths is on them. If the government abuses that to inflict even greater casualties, or to intentionally kill civilians for their own purposes under the guise of the war, then they should be called to task on that, but not in the context of simply waving your hands and calling for a pox on both their houses.
What is a legitimate terrorist goranization.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 05:27:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 05:13:52 PM
Interesting this is brought up right when the Tigers are in danger of being defeated. It just strikes me as people falling over backwards to support a terrorist militia right at the moment of their defeat. If it was a real sympathy for the plight of the civilians why are the screws being tighened just now? Smells fishy to me.
The one thing we DO know for sure is that Sri Lanka's government upped the force at the end of 2008, and it was around that point that Sri Lanka started kicking journalists out. THAT smells fishy to me. I would think that we wouldn't want another Kosovo on our hands, and yet that seems a real possibility.
Well at least they are on an island. They chances of mass migration is much lower.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 05:31:25 PM
Well at least they are on an island. They chances of mass migration is much lower.
Yeah. So they could pull off what Milosevic couldn't. <_<
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 05:36:13 PM
Yeah. So they could pull off what Milosevic couldn't. <_<
It would be more akin to Rwanda.
Quote from: citizen k on May 12, 2009, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 05:36:13 PM
Yeah. So they could pull off what Milosevic couldn't. <_<
It would be more akin to Rwanda.
Fair enough. In the ideological split, it would be closer to Kosovo, but in methodology, it'd be closer to Rwanda, yeah.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
Fair enough. In the ideological split, it would be closer to Kosovo, but in methodology, it'd be closer to Rwanda, yeah.
And who cried over that?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 05:56:54 PM
And who cried over that?
:blink: Rwanda is pretty widely showcased as a failure of the international community and NATO in general and UNAMIR in particular.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 06:24:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2009, 05:56:54 PM
And who cried over that?
:blink: Rwanda is pretty widely showcased as a failure of the international community and NATO in general and UNAMIR in particular.
NATO? What Rwanda showcased was the complete disinterest in subject.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 04:46:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:33:43 PM
Yeah, but that is from HRW. So how do you even know if it is credible?
What we know for certain is that the Tigers are an illegitimate terrorist organization. While that hardly gives teh government a free pass on supressing them, it does mean that the primary resposibility for civilian deaths is on them. If the government abuses that to inflict even greater casualties, or to intentionally kill civilians for their own purposes under the guise of the war, then they should be called to task on that, but not in the context of simply waving your hands and calling for a pox on both their houses.
Actually, you've done a wonderful job of leading into my point. With the press blacked out, there's no credible way to get an idea of whether the LTTE or the Sri Lankan government is bullshitting more (although the government's scale and reasoning of the media blackout is automatically suspect).
It's a wash. The Tigers are saying Sri Lanka isn't differentiating between civilians and combatants, while the government says the Tigers are using them as human shields, but refuses to provide any proof to back up their claims and won't allow anyone to review their methods. They're both being shady and underhanded; both have legitimate grievances with each other... there's just no way to take a side without sacrificing one's objectivity.
Proof?
The proof that the Tigers are using civilians as human shields is indisputable - if they were not, there would not even be any more fighting - in fact, it isn't even disputed.
The Tigers have no "legitimate grievance" - they cannot, because they are not a legititamate actor. If anyone has a legit grievance with the government, it is the people who the government is not taking reasonable and prudent care to not kill, if in fact that is happening (which seems likely). The Tamil Tigers have no standing whatsoever.
You do not have to lose any objectivity to see this - indeed, it would take a impressive LACK of objectivity to conclude that they both have "legitimate grievances" against the other.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 09:09:03 PM
Proof?
The proof that the Tigers are using civilians as human shields is indisputable - if they were not, there would not even be any more fighting - in fact, it isn't even disputed.
The Tigers have no "legitimate grievance" - they cannot, because they are not a legititamate actor. If anyone has a legit grievance with the government, it is the people who the government is not taking reasonable and prudent care to not kill, if in fact that is happening (which seems likely). The Tamil Tigers have no standing whatsoever.
You do not have to lose any objectivity to see this - indeed, it would take a impressive LACK of objectivity to conclude that they both have "legitimate grievances" against the other.
You've got me on one point: I should have said the Tamils have grievances which the Sri Lankans are
refusing to address, since they seem to think they can hold the Tigers over the Tamils' heads as collateral against fixing issues that they should have corrected long ago. The Tigers have been exploiting that; simply addressing the Tamils' grievances would remove a lot of the populist support that have kept the LTTE effective for so long.
You also haven't come up with any support for your "seems likely;" in fact, as Sri Lanka has ejected all diplomats, press, AND humanitarian workers from third party nations because of a "hidden pro-Tiger agenda," it "seems likely" that they're batshit insane and will see the LTTE where it's not present, and so it's reasonable to suspect that they are treating Tamil civilians as Tigers until proven otherwise.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
So your solution is what Joan, ethnically cleanse the island like the Czechs did the Sudetenland?
As it turns out the Czech idea of "ethnic cleansing" was rather different from the German idea. Just as the Sri Lankan idea is rather different from the LTTE idea.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2009, 09:25:08 PM
You also haven't come up with any support for your "seems likely;" in fact, as Sri Lanka has ejected all diplomats, press, AND humanitarian workers from third party nations because of a "hidden pro-Tiger agenda," it "seems likely" that they're batshit insane and will see the LTTE where it's not present, and so it's reasonable to suspect that they are treating Tamil civilians as Tigers until proven otherwise.
I don't think I need to come up with any support - you are the one claiming we can draw some pretty heavy conclusions from their ejection of the press. Do you have any support for that claim? Does their ejection of the press mean you can then make any accusation, and we should assume it to be true?