Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in col

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

If you don't know something stay calm try to avoid propagating false propaganda. Have you ever heard tamil history or Kumari kandam or cholas or Pandyas? first read these and then comment.
which part of it is false? he was refering to the cholas actually.
hey i cant see ur profile pic. I loved it. You have this remarkable ability of making Hitler look comical. :D
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

And then in the last line you will say I am not giving them the clean chit.



You were saying LTTE went against Indian Army, even mukti Bahni would have done the same if India might have supported their crackdown. Simple logic not a rocket science to understand. When your army invaded the things were supposed to fire back at us.



Sheltering the Tamils was as our duty as sheltering muslims of east Pakistan during 1970s who just 23 years ago butchered Hindus to get an independent nation out of us.

Also this is not how refugee crisis and their management occurs. Go read some book on different refugee crisis. UNO always comes late into the picture first their is uncontrolled movement of refugees and then they are absorbed by generous neighbouring state who are bound by international laws they undersign to give them shelter and refuge. With SL Tamils's case the sea was the physical boundary and then Tamils were not allowed to enter India because Indian navy subservient of GoI was blocking the sea. What happened has been described by many as Sri Lankan killing field.




I don't need to clear my stand I am clear enough to make people understand what I have been saying, it is me asking you a question if you are preaching Realpolitic or morality ? In both the cases you are not backed by deeds of GoI since history of start of Civil war of SL regardless for how much spin you can give to your words.



You a haven't understood my point, It is central govt. who make decision on national security and foreign policy. People accepted Tashkent agreement of 1965, will accept any agreement of J&K, people need excuses endorsed by central government and then they all will side with GoI.

if any good day GoI decides to help SL Tamils in distress they will do it without thinking twice what other sane minds ('jara hat ke, zara bach ke' types) have to say.

East Pakistan crisis is as equivalent as Civil War in SL was. Indira Gandhi was right on the money to help Tamils get the justice and was aware how Sinhalese would bite India's back well noted during 1971 war. But then fools like Rajiv Gandhi screwed that tempo big time then what happened next was history for all naysayers to giving it a spin of some rag tag wisdom prevailed. ''jo hota ahai achey ke liye hota hai'' isn't it ?



Yes, excuse is all I am talking about. Excuse is good thing you used it once you could have used it again.

You could have secured the borders by checking the obvious entry points of East Pakistan, heck you had trains for east Pakistanis to enter India , don't you ?

Sri Lanka poses no threat to the Union of India.

Same can be said about West Pakistanis, after 1965 battering they were numb for eternity all time busy with their own internal power plays, whatever they were doing to east Pakistanis was their internal problem.



Yes I know, don't forget to mention Indira Gandhi's support to SL Tamils.

She was failed by his stupid son who even made political crisis worst and then escalated in Kashmir which lead to its tagging with civil war in Sri Lanka. Like @Yusuf; has stated few post above.



India can run investigation to find out the real reason behind death of Indian soldiers in Sri Lanka. No investigation has been done all we know is govt. lackeys throwing allegations on LTTE but not SL government who wanted us to be kicked out fast and bleed.



I gotta go I will answer rest soon. BTW I am a punjabi, what happens in TN and SL hardy effects me.
Majority of SL tamil refugees went to Canada, UK, Aus ignoring TN (surprise! surprise!). Actually india have only 100,000 tamil refugees and they are living under very bad situations. TN goons care about SL tamil refugees in SL but not about SL refugees in TN. They are treated more shabbily in TN. :sad:

After all it is amazing ur soft point for LTTE after what LTTE did to sikh regiment in Jaffna Heli drop. They executed them, showed the bodies in a temple in the most tribal manner and left one alive (barely) to tell the story to IPKF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

Puhleez. The ones who worsened the plight of the Tamils were the Sinhalese who forced the Tamils to pick up arms, India which supported & prodded on the Tamils for its own strategic goals and LTTE which got power hungry. Tamils getting stuck up between these three competing forces like lambs for sacrifice.
When LTTE was not around Tamils were better off economically and socialy. It was the poltical problem. Tamils didnt have to die. they thrived specialy as a result of socialist economic policies of S.Banadaranayaka while sinhalese bled in the south. When IPKF came to SL, one indian captian was said to ask from a jaffna prinicipal, "why do u wage war when u have all the comforts?"

If the tamils were lambs under three competing forces why didnt u help to bring down LTTE (one force) and help them? Instead u waited until the sinhalese do the job.
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

There are no parallels.

India never denied the Muslims citizenship.

India did not stifle the Muslim cultural identity at any point

India did not ban Urdu language or literature at any point.

India did not pass any acts like this - Sinhala Only Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, missionary orgs did support LTTE, but then so did India. If I was there, I would have taken help from the devil to defeat my enemies.

And you said Lankan Tamils "initially" wanted seats to be reserved in the Parliament. That was in response to systemic discrimination & persecution of the Sinhala majority and they did in a non-violent democratic way and were ready to function within the confines of the Lankan constitution. But the Sinhalas started indullging in anti-Tamil riots which culminated in the horrific Black July riots which caused the insurgency to break out in a big way.
SL never denied the SL tamils citizenship.

SL did not stifle the Tamil cultural identity at any point

SL did not ban Tamil language or literature at any point.

India did not pass any acts like this, but made sure Urdu in India die a natural death.

Tamils asked for reserved seats, at the dawn of independance because they feared. They asked for 50/50. That means 50% of parliament seats for 10% tamils
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

One of the cornerstones of right-wing ideology is the promotion of the interests of the majority and defining the nation as a whole around a group perceived as the "native majority". You see this among right-wing groups throughout the world, whether it be among the Religious Right in the United States who define America as a Judeo-Christian country, or the Nazis who defined their Third Reich around the principle of German superiority, or the Hindu right-wing who define India as a "Dharmic" country. These definitions usually take place in the context of large minority populations, who are deemed threatening, undesirable, or otherwise simply "alien". I can actually understand and even respect the right-wing ideology in some circumstances, but not in cases of blatant hypocrisy when double standards are applied.

To use the right-wing rhetoric, Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala people and Tamils are foreigners. Thus, Sri Lankan Tamils should learn to live under the rule of Sinhalas, who form the native majority, or otherwise go back to their homeland in TN. The Sinhala people were under attack by Tamil terrorists in the form of LTTE, and the unfortunate bloodshed that followed was a result of the Sinhalas fighting a war of self-defence. The Sinhalas were not invading some foreign country but fighting insurgents on their own soil. Now that LTTE has been destroyed, a process of reconciliation can begin between the Sinhalas and Tamils.
i agree with ur bolded part. right wing sinhalese are largely responsible for the mayhem. They feared for their language and race. So fearlessly protect it much like the tamils. You would see that even in N&E in SL where Tamil right wing nationalists did the same in a minor scale. They brought the Thesawalamei law which impedes any Non Tamil of Jaffna origin from buying land in SL. One reason, race relations sour at a greater level than india was land became an issue. Unlike in Ind, land is scarce in SL.
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

After independence from british ,it got partitioned into india and pakistan ,while pakistan is based on religion but still india remains secular ,we have given a separate nation and hence want minority to mingle with society but in srilanka case there is no partition happened.Just imagine if srilanka splitted into two countries like india and pakistan,then it is not possible for tamils to stay in sinhala country unlike india which inspite giving separate nation but accomodates minority.The percentage of minority in india proves comparing our case with srilanka isn non sense
but the majority of tamils resided among sinhalese when the war was at a brutal height. They lived among sinhalese when bombs targetted civilians in south once a month at times.

Do u know that colombo has 35% tamil population?
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

Singalese are inbred of tamils and bengalis ok..... tamils are natives to tat land they are not migrated. Reconciliation never possible till they implement 13th amendment.
of course they sprang out from SL soil. Sinhalese are largely bengali and tamil but they consider themselves as one element who developed a unique lang and culture in SL. They have a written history record which talks about sinhala people from 5 BC. I know tamils bash sinhalese history books, but they lack any source to prove their existence before 12th century AD. k?
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

How does being anti-ltte equates to saying its okay to kill a 12 year old boy who's captured alive.

Why is the answer to every question about SL and their army the same phrase.

SLA killed civilians during the last phase of the war - Answer: LTTE is evil
SL changes names of places in the east to sinhalese - LTTE is evil
SL refuses to devolve power like it promised - LTTE is evil
There is evidence of cold blooded murder of a 12 year old - LTTE is evil.

It seems LTTE is evil is the universal answer to all of Srilanka's problem.
theres no evidence to who killed civilians, but they are collateral damage mostly resulted by LTTE's use of human shield.
NO evidence at all, but must be stopped if true (anyway there are native sinhalese living in east)
Only right wing idiots carry on this slogan
it was the problem and it seems it continue to do so.
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

it is not just pakistan but without local sleeper cells support it cant be done by IM,remember LTTE was created by us and weapons provided during indira period.You cant justify inhumane against tamil citing the reason LTTE is also inhumane.Any thing against common people should be condemned ,Even i feel pity for common pakistan people getting killed by their own grown terrorists .
so how can u have a moral high ground since u are responsible for the blood bath, people dying in suicide bombs in SL?
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

The Seeds of every conflict are sown in the one that precedes it and i fear that in killing women and children however justified or unjustified that may be the Sri Lankan Army has only paved the way for a bloodier and longer drawn out conflict with Sri Lankan Tamils in the future. I fear that as in the Balkans where successive assaults & massacres against civilians during campaigns against rebel forces by the ruling powers supporting one demographic against theirs ,be it the Bosnian Muslims with Ottomans support against the Serbs & Croats (time period 17-19th centuries)or the Croats supported by the Wehrmacht against the Serbs & Bosnian Muslims(1939-1944) or the Serbs with soviet backing against the Croats and Bosnian Muslims(1950-1990). each of these pogroms has caused the next even today after nearly three centuries of successive pogroms the Balkans is still not at rest and the fires of hatred merely simmer.
The Sri Lankan response of utilizing excessive force has been an unqualified success yes, but only and i'd like to underline that only in the near term . In the long term this only means that the hatred and fear continue in the minds of Sri Lankan Tamils to remain to be exploited by another Prabhakaran or any other equally charismatic leader( most terrorist masterminds are), and the next conflict will be bloodier and more ruthless as the Sri Lankan forces emboldened by their success is sweeping things under the carpet this time around will not cringe next time and the Tamils knowing well that they will all be massacred on losing will fight ruthlessly as well.
Most tamils in SL consider LTTE militancy was the biggest mistake by them. Only TN goons romanticise with LTTE killings. LTTE did rise as a militant org but then destroyed the tamils as a community. the biggest damage was by the LTTE. How ever i dont see any tamil militant movement again.
1. Militancy have proved to be a costly and a destructive method.
2. In a state of restructuring.
3. Not the biggest minority.
4.Most importantly SL army is not the same as it was in 80s. In 80s, it was merely a ceremonial army. This war did last 30 years but another one wont take 30 days
 

saradiel1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
86
Likes
3
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

for all the (pseuo) child lovers here, Prabhakaran had killed sinhala and muslim kids in the most horrific manner. His orders were not to waste bullets on kids and infants but kill them by slamming them on trees, walls. Sinhala infants were killed by slamming their heads in tree trunks. Pregnant mothers were butcherd by cutting their wombs and chopping the unborn child. Villagers had been executed in the most brutal manner. Your TN leaders helped them doing it.
so the death of prabha's son was an easy death whoever did it. so get over it.
 

noob101

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
394
Likes
104
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

Sorry, I can't answer that because I'm not Tamizh.
I don't expect you to answer that, at the least make an argument as why the ethnic Tamils in SL don't want to separate or concede the point and argue that a separate nation for Tamils is a good idea....
 

noob101

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
394
Likes
104
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

Why the hell is this an issue.... his son was a known terrorist and they killed him.... im sure it was not legal but they killed OBL when he was not armed....
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

The point is LTTE were the lesser of the two evils for the Tamils there. While LTTE was the frying pan, the Sinhalese were the fire.
That is a delusion.

Do you think Al Qaeda or LET are "for" the people? They "use" people, by stoking a non-existent fire.

I will repeat again, the Sri Lankan apartheid was a very, very, very tiny issue compared to what it's blown into.

Anyway that is moot as LTTE is done and dusted and it is intellectually dishonest to cling on to an extinct organization to justify or turn blind eye to the brutalities of the SInhalese who have not only gone back on their promises to India regarding devolution of powers but also actively colluding with the Chinese to undercut any of the existing Indian influence.
Are you kidding me? Do you think it is over? LTTE left behind a legacy which needs a generation to forget. It won't happen overnight. Don't be so naive.

As for your analogy on China, it is just an assumption. Lankans will do what they want now. We have to remember that as a fact. Victors determine the next course of events in any world. China is a small player. India is a far bigger player in Lanka.

Wrong analogy. The Tamils anywhere in the world went from Tamil Nadu. Muslim in Morocco did not go from India.
The Tamil brotherhood or whatever you want to call it is the same as what the Muslims think of each other. It is a form of tribalism. You will protect your clan. Tamil Brahmins will protect their own, Dalits will protect their own, likewise for Sunnis and Shiites. Under certain circumstances, some clans will target another clan for being different. LTTE practiced ethnic cleansing, where they regularly targeted Muslim Tamils in Lanka. I am pretty sure even the Muslim Tamils came from Tamil Nadu and not Morocco. So, don't tell me tribalism doesn't exist.

Tribalism - Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.

Tribalism has no place in a modern society. Unfortunately, it does exist.

Contradictory statements. If you had nothing to do with Lanka then why the hell send IPKF when neither the Lankans nor LTTE requested it ?

It is unfortunate that you do not know of this history. So, I will inform in a rather simple way, what went down. India sent troops precisely for the reason that the Lankas wanted a mediator to hold peace talks. LTTE agreed to the Indian intervention.

The troops were sent for one reason and one reason alone. To disarm militant groups and bring them to the table. The presence of Indian troops would prevent the Lankan army from taking advantage of this situation, after the rebels were disarmed. Hence a peacekeeping force.

India drew a plan of action to disarm and even created a draft resolution for creating an autonomous region for Tamils. Everybody accepted, many militant groups as well as the Lankan govt. According to the resolution a EPRLF candidate was picked for being the first Tamil PM of this autonomous body. LTTE didn't give two hoots about peace or protecting Tamil interests. They only wanted to protect their own position of power, which at the time, were the strongest militant group in the region. They wanted their own people in power which both India and Lanka rejected. LTTE decided to answer by killing paratroopers brutally.

A second round of negotiation was called by India, LTTE did not respond. Rajiv Gandhi ordered a forced disarmament of LTTE. Obviously the conflict was quite one sided even though the LTTE had a few successes.

However due to the time it took for the parties to decide, the Sinhalese grew restless and decided to vote for an idiot as their new President. This guy started funding and arming the LTTE. So, the Indian side was basically double crossed and decided to leave.

At the same time, there was a rebellion among the Sinhalese in the South which forced their hand. This, combined with supposed Indian atrocities on Sinhalese and Tamils changed public opinion against India in the eyes of both the Tamils and the Sinhalese.

In whatever words you try to couch it in, India was a part of the problem right from its inception and chickening out of the solution only shows the impotency on the part of GoI and nothing else.
You don't understand. India's mandate was to take out the LTTE in Sri Lanka.

India was never part of the problem. India was there to clamp down on Tamil insurrection and create an autonomous zone in the region. It was the Tamils who didn't respond positively to that. LTTE was determined not to lose power and their own aim of creating a new country.

As Decklander said. Rajiv Gandhi was supposed to have sent troops back to Lanka after re-election. LTTE knew India would be a bigger threat and took him out.

In 2002, LTTE realized that the Indian plan of action was what they should have chosen back then. But it was too late for them. They asked for autonomy. Yeah, right, like the Sinhalese will accept now.

As for what will happen in the future, forget about India's participation. Let UN handle it. It is not our problem. India's true purpose was the disarmament of Tamil groups while being protected by Indian troops. It was the Tamils themselves who rejected this offer. What do you want India to do now? Send troops and randomly stand at the Lankan shore like idiots.

Sinhalese are not our enemies. Neither are the Tamils. The militant groups were and now they are, more or less, gone. So, there is nothing for India to do now.

Try to wake up to the fact that neither side wants India there. Neither the Tamils nor the Sinhalese. Even we can't have our own army marching in our own backyards, let alone allow our army to march in someone else's.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

And then in the last line you will say I am not giving them the clean chit.
They are not one and the same.

You were saying LTTE went against Indian Army, even mukti Bahni would have done the same if India might have supported their crackdown. Simple logic not a rocket science to understand. When your army invaded the things were supposed to fire back at us.
I still don't understand the point you are making. Mukti Bahini agreed to any and all of India's decisions. LTTE did not. It was one of the parties in the conflict.

India managed to gain support of other major militant groups except the LTTE.

LTTE simply did not want peace. That's all.

Sheltering the Tamils was as our duty as sheltering muslims of east Pakistan during 1970s who just 23 years ago butchered Hindus to get an independent nation out of us.
We didn't create Bangladesh for them. We created Bangladesh for us.

Also this is not how refugee crisis and their management occurs. Go read some book on different refugee crisis. UNO always comes late into the picture first their is uncontrolled movement of refugees and then they are absorbed by generous neighbouring state who are bound by international laws they undersign to give them shelter and refuge. With SL Tamils's case the sea was the physical boundary and then Tamils were not allowed to enter India because Indian navy subservient of GoI was blocking the sea. What happened has been described by many as Sri Lankan killing field.
Refugees did come across and they were protected. Having a sea in between did not particularly help matters either.

You a haven't understood my point, It is central govt. who make decision on national security and foreign policy. People accepted Tashkent agreement of 1965, will accept any agreement of J&K, people need excuses endorsed by central government and then they all will side with GoI.
This was a bilateral agreement. Tibet, Lanka etc cannot be held int he same regard.

if any good day GoI decides to help SL Tamils in distress they will do it without thinking twice what other sane minds ('jara hat ke, zara bach ke' types) have to say.
There is nothing India can do there.

East Pakistan crisis is as equivalent as Civil War in SL was. Indira Gandhi was right on the money to help Tamils get the justice and was aware how Sinhalese would bite India's back well noted during 1971 war. But then fools like Rajiv Gandhi screwed that tempo big time then what happened next was history for all naysayers to giving it a spin of some rag tag wisdom prevailed. ''jo hota ahai achey ke liye hota hai'' isn't it ?
No East Pakistan crisis was a genocide. It wasn't a civil war.

Sri Lanka's issue was a Civil war, it is merely regarded as a genocide on an emotional level. Other than that both sides were more or less equal in power.

What Rajiv Gandhi did was correct. Had the LTTE agreed to the terms, the Tamils would have gotten their autonomy and finished the war for good.

Yes, excuse is all I am talking about. Excuse is good thing you used it once you could have used it again.

Same can be said about West Pakistanis, after 1965 battering they were numb for eternity all time busy with their own internal power plays, whatever they were doing to east Pakistanis was their internal problem.
Once they fixed their internal problems, who do you think they would have aimed at next.

OTOH, no matter how powerful Sri Lanka becomes it can never be any kind of economic or military threat to India. They don't intend to either.

India can run investigation to find out the real reason behind death of Indian soldiers in Sri Lanka. No investigation has been done all we know is govt. lackeys throwing allegations on LTTE but not SL government who wanted us to be kicked out fast and bleed.
You can't run these investigations. It is impossible.

Both sides wanted us out.

I gotta go I will answer rest soon. BTW I am a punjabi, what happens in TN and SL hardy effects me.
I know you are a northie, just didn't know from where. :)

Cheers.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

Actually they are the ones behind UN resolutions.
Tamils are not that powerful.

Even the West have good people.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

his son was a known terrorist and they killed him
I find it hard to believe that a 12 year old kid was a notorious terrorist.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

I find it hard to believe that a 12 year old kid was a notorious terrorist.
LTTE used children for terror attacks which is well known.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

LTTE used children for terror attacks which is well known.
That boy was in SLA custody, can't see how he was a direct threat.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Re: Lankan forces photographed killing 12-yr-old son of LTTE leader in

That boy was in SLA custody, can't see how he was a direct threat.
It's not confirmed that the boy was in SLA custody. That one pic of him having biscuits proves nothing.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top