Ohh boy, the LTTE have set off another car bomb 2 mins away from my house :(

[neonplanet40]

Yea but Hitler was'nt a terrorist was he? And its not up to you to judge other people on their beliefs. e-lan-go knows about every aspect of Tamil and not just what you call the "terrorist" side. if he feels that he agree's with their main aim then im all for that. There is always more than one side to every story.

I was all for the IRA's goal and ill happily admit that as it is MY belief.

Neon

[bertie]

I don't want to turn this into a pointing 'finger' debate but from what you say I wouldn't be surprised if you condonded the London bombings (and even if you did, it's not like you are going to say it here...).

I will state again, we must not give in to terrorism, and it's quite sad to see that some people actually 'follow' their ideas. I guess Hitler had his muppets as well O_o.

Sorry if I missed something, but what exactly does the London bombings have to do with the conflict in Sri lanka?
You say you don't want to turn it into a finger pointing "debate", but all you seem to be doing is finger pointing, and with very poor accuracy I might add!

This thread is not really a debate, as you seem to be rather intolerant of any views on the matter besides "Terrorism is bad" and people who wholeheartedly agree with you, which is a shame when it is so rare that we see anything vaguely resembling an informed debate over a subject like this on these forums.

I appreciate that the events are happening very close to home for you, and your reaction is understandably the same as everyone in London in the period immediately after the bombs went off, something of a "Terrorism is terrible and must be stopped" approach.

As far as I'm aware, no one is condoning the killing of innocent people (correct me if i'm wrong), but it's nice (for me anyway) to be able to abandon your "Terrorism is bad and that's the end of that" banner temporarily to step back and look at the bigger picture.


This thread is not really going anywhere really, as there are always two sides to a story, but at least we've been given some food for thought.

[e-LAN-go]

This is probably going to be my last post to clarify my thoughts on the LTTE given this an endless volatile arguement.

bsodmike I didn't realise until now that you are probably Sinhalese (which I'm not trying to use to discredit you) when you said you were Sri Lankan at the very beginning of the thread (how stupid of me).

I like you abhor racism and I've never felt hatred towards the Sinhalese people (especially when I've befriended many of them whom are very genuine and caring) and my issues are with the Sri Lankan government.

For those who don't know, Sinhalese are the majority population of Sri Lanka whom make up most of the Sri Lankan government with the Tamils being the largest minority and the civil war is the culmination of the friction between the 2 peoples.

Although I don't know you, this might explain your heated response to my bro's post which is understandable given you might more likely support the government's stance on the conflict.

But I still feel you were harsh with your response especially when you compared Bin Laden and Saddam with the LTTE especially when they're unrelated.

Secondly I think you use the label TERRORIST far too easily as do most countries in the EU and North America who have banned LTTE as a terrorist organisation because I think it's convenient for them as the LTTE try to raise money from Tamil diaspora in those countries (which is probably done by both legal and illegal practices) and due to the ongoing "War On Terror".

I am against the forced extortion of money from anyone but at the same time I can understand why the LTTE has been forced to resort going to these lengths.

You also said that the accusation by the LTTE that the government bombed a school full of children wasn't true as the government claimed it was a forced child conscription training camp but this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4794827.stm, yes I know it's only one source :S) contradicts that by quoting the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission who disputed this by saying there was no evidence of rebel activity at the site.

Not even I believe everything that's written in the news but did you even consider that the Sri Lankan government might be using propaganda to cover up their own tracks and I'll admit maybe the LTTE were the ones who covered theirs instead.

I'm also keen to point out the BBC and some other news agencies I know of don't refer to them as terrorists but as rebels or neither of the two for the sake of impartiality. You say they watered down their news but I don't see what they would gain by doing so.

Those newspapers and media you talk about which you claim paint a more accurate view of the of the situation there's a good chance they're not so impartial themselves given they probably support the government. Likewise you could say the same about media outlets that favour the LTTE.

Also with the Muttur situation as far as I know the reason behind the LTTE's actions of closing the water gate was to protest against the government's behaviour in their treatment of the Tamils in the area. But I won't comment any further on this because I'm not fully aware of the facts provided by either side.

What I feel separates the LTTE from other organisations which are considered to be terrorists as they now effectively run as a de facto government in areas controlled in the north and east of Sri Lanka controlled by them as they have an army, administrations, police forces and etc.

So they govern and protect the people there accordingly but at the same time this is a dictatorship/military led government but many may say this can't be quite true given the fact they're not democratically elected and use child soldiers, guerilla warfare which has resulted in suicide bomb attacks.

The LTTE usually only attacks military personnel/positions and politicians in the government but unfortunately they have been known for attacking civilians in either retaliation for something or simply because they opposed them.

I'm sorry that those people died but I've come to find this to be the unfortunate reality of war especially when there's been so much death caused by either side.

But one could argue are they much different from some official governments of countries like China, Israel or North Korea who have been known for harming innocent civilians, so would we label them as terrorists as well? Where do we draw the line?

Also I was hurt by comments that insinuated I was an immoral person,that I was terrorist and that I would naturally condone the London bombings (which I don't) simply because of my opinion on the LTTE. Even when I'm born in this country and lived a priveleged life doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the costs and consequences of war and terrorism

I'm probably partly at fault for not clarifying my position on the matter, but I will say that I have some conflicting feelings towards the LTTE although I generally support them however strange that may seem.

I'm sure there are plenty people who may find it difficult that I can support the LTTE especially when I abhor violence but I've come to realise not everything in this world can be resolved by diplomatic dialogue which is evident through out human history and there's a time where violence is to be deemed necessary to resolve the conflict despite the terrible cost.

I agree with their goal of achieving autonomy for the Tamil people but I'm also a person who has a strong sense of right and wrong and I disapprove with many of their methods such as child conscription, targetting innocent Sinhalese, fellow Tamils and other minorities among other things.

Even my own family has been persecuted by them when l say (I'd rather not say this but just to elaborate my feelings) that the LTTE kidnapped two of my dad's brothers on separate occasions for ransom just because my grandfather was a successful businessman and they almost forcibly conscripted another brother who was just 17 or younger at the time.

Even after all that they STILL support the LTTE (I know it's hard to believe) because they know at the end of the day it was a desperate situation, that war and the rules of war is there are no rules and they felt the LTTE did what they did in order to help the Tamil people even when they caused them harm.

If there was a real achievable alternative to the LTTE then I would happily accept it but that hasn't happened yet IMO, so I think the only realistic solution is full autonomy for the Tamil people with the LTTE as their representatives is the best chance for the Tamil people have to live in peace.

We are well aware that the LTTE are no saints and do many questionable things but we feel they are the lesser of the two evils when compared to the Sri Lankan government because after all these years of war the hatred and mistrust between many Tamil and the Sinhala people might not ever change despite how terrible this may seem.

To the people who read this (I know it's long ) I admit that I'm hardly the most informed person on the history of Sri Lanka's civil war and I'm probably biased or mistaken on many points.

But all I ever wanted to do was to try to highlight the LTTE perspective of a very complicated conflict that has no black and white answers and that hopefully people will go out of their way to find out more information (I suggest the BBC and wikipedia sites for starters) and make up their own minds about it.

Thanks, Elango.

[bsodmike]

Elango, thanks for your reply. Not sure if you've seen this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/sri...cnn_topstories

...more food for thought