Jump to navigation
What is is you want to discuss? You started the thread with an article discussing the abhorrent treatment of women combatants' bodies by Sinhalese forces. Everyone agrees with you it's sickening and abhorrent. What else do you want to talk about?
Stockholm, shut up. The thread title is changed now, and at this point you're just derailing with inflammatory crap. Stay out if you have nothing of substance to add.
Jas I think the intent is to maintain one active thread on the subject of the conflict in Sri Lanka and the circumstances of the Sri Lankan Tamils. Given the rapidity with which conditions on the ground in Sri Lanka have changed over this past year there is plenty to discuss. I for one have been concerned to discuss what the military defeat of the LTTE as a conventional force means for the cause of Eelam self-determination for the Tamils. Particularly scary in this vein are the Government's repeated references to this conflict being a military solution to the Tamil problem and their stated assumptions that when the open warfare ends peace and cooperation between Sinhala and Tamil Sri Lankans will result (added to their complete denials of civilian deaths the picture is of a Government that is very willing to say one thing and do another). All indications are that the Sri Lankan regime intends to continue with, if not accelerate, the violation of Tamil citizens rights following the LTTE's battlefield defeat. Soon the eye of the media will have moved elsewhere (not that its much good anyway); at the least this thread and others like it (when its closed for length) should have no shortage of things to discuss on this subject...
Hey, it reached 100 posts. So there'll be a new thread, all about the Sri Lanka conflict, soon, and no controversial title. Seems to me there's talk going on about the issues, I've learned form reading a partisan viewpoint. Hell, plenty of partisans on babble of various causes.... That's a good thing, I think.
Many people outside of the conflict seem to think that this conflict is battle between LTTE and the Sri Lankan government (making it part of the "war on terror"); totally ignores that this is a battle between the Tamil people who wants their sovereignty restored and the Sri Lankan government that is hell bent on not allowing that to happen at any cost....to make it worst, the government has followed a genocidal agenda which still continues.
Then there is lack of understanding of why the Tamil people want their sovereignty restored, what steps they have taken to finally end up supporting/financing/legitimizing the LTTE to fight on their behalf with the Sri Lankan government.
Then there is the Sinhalese aspect of why they oppose such move, how they contribute to a system where they are victims as well.
Then there is the double standard and geo-political interest of other nations that blocks the right to self-determination as where people who have expressed it later then the Tamils have achieved it and have developed. Why is it being denied to the Tamil people?
The development of the LTTE (including the use of terrorist tactics) to be the only non-state actor to have an army, naval wing, air wing and many other aspects that is required in a national army. How they also developed into an administrative organization.
The Ceylon state which was a prosperous/multi-ethnic to a human rights violator and the most militarized country in Asia now known as Sri Lanka.
The complication of the response from 80 million Tamils worldwide if Sri Lanka is allowed to follow its military and genocidal agenda.
The historical myths and facts that define this conflict.
The propaganda tools used by both players as well as other players.
I am sure you and others can add more aspects in discussing this conflict.
Thanks for the info. Since the thread is about to be closed, I'll say one last thing in response to Ze's post: the thread title was not "controversial". It was sensationalistic, meaning that it exploited a horrific incident or reality to bring attention to itself. I think Babblers can handle controversial. It's when you're using false or misleading information (Eg; "necrophilia") to bring sensationalistic attention to your topic - in a manner that actually does not honour the dignity of the victims in question - that you will find objection.
Since I am new to rabble, how many posts does it take to close a thread......are we allowed to countiue with the same title but a new thread that might add, "part 2".
I want to countiue as I am finding more people who are intrested and could offer a healthy discussion.
[QUOTE] Since I am new to rabble, how many posts does it take to close a thread......are we allowed to countiue with the same title but a new thread that might add, "part 2". [/QUOTE]
Right about now, and yes you can just do 'part 2'. You might want to come up with something a bit shorter and more elegant than what I changed yours to though. Snappy thread titles are not my strength.