Thursday, May 14, 2009

anyone trying to force a ceasefire with ltte terrorists in sri lanka at this point of time should not be tolerated

any one trying to force a ceasefire with ltte terrorists in sri lanka at this point of time is no friend of sri lanka and is supporting our murderers.

such coercion amount to an act of aggression.
and their agents here should feel proportionate retaliation.

i don't care who it is. they never lifted a finger to help us when we, sri lankans, who want a peace free of terrorists, were being murdered in mass by the ltte tamil tiger terrorists, including during past ceasefires. so they have no right whatsoever to say we cannot protect ourselves when we are defeating terrorists with our own efforts with no help to speak of.

our best and most moral course of action at this point is to defeat ltte pussies who are nothing but a bunch of criminals (and do not represent tamils in any way) using military violence as needed (while of course trying to minimize the number of inevitable casualties among the human shields held by the terrorists). that is the only way to get a sustainable peace. human rights, justice, freedom and democracy all demand that. ltte and all those things are completely incompatible. anyone who says otherwise is willfully blind.

if anyone outside try to coerce us from that course (motivated primarily as in case of british labor government in order to pander to racists in uk tamil diaspora ), i think we should not hesitate to retaliate against their agents here proportionately. we should not stand idly by while force is used against us.

if they use force, including such as any kind of sanctions, those aggressors' agents here who advocated and lobbied for such a course of action from their foreign masters, and refuse to unconditionally renounce their received blood money and unconditionally denounce their masters' use of force against sri lanka should suffer for it.

words to note here are force and coercion. mere advocacy of ceasefire can be tolerated ( not of course seriously listened to). that is simply totally worthless bad advice. but if that satisfies some local constituency in those countries, let them have their hot air, while we articulate our case. but if they go beyond that and use force ( including any kind of sanctions) that is a different thing.

sri lanka should not be passive but assertive. we should not obey commands (no matter who gives the commands ) if they are against our interests and our rights. esp when to obey means giving up our most basic rights including our right to live freely.

i repeat if any kind of force is used against sri lanka, we should not allow the aggressors' paid agents here to operate freely. they and theirs should suffer proportionate retaliation.


SL1st said...

Good advice on principle but what exactly can we do?

sittingnut said...

depend on the force used . as i said it should be proportionate to what they use against us . they have not done that yet

mere realization that we think this way may have a good effect and result in their not doing anything . being passive on the other hand may well result in coercion against us.

Anonymous said...

What force or coercion are being used to advocate for a ceasefire in Sri Lanka? Is this some sort of preemptive warning?

I thought the government had a virtual monopoly on things like force and coercion, what group is trying to bring about a ceasefire with similar methods?

sittingnut said...

can't you read ? obviously not
i am referring to foreigners (and ppl who are urging their foreign masters to force sri lanka to a ceasefire) .

Dinidu said...

Just a question, and this goes back to a little exchange we were having on my blog. What of the intentions behind it? What if the ceasefire, or a step down of firing from both parties can be advocated strongly, for the remaining civilians to be taken out?

If the intention of calling for the ceasefire is to give breathing space, or worse, space to re-arm, to the LTTE, then yes, that kind of ceasefire is not in actuality a ceasefire, and would not serve a purpose in the larger picture of things. But what if a ceasefire can be orchestrated to rescue the remaining civilians?

Is lack of violent conflict at any cost, peace?

sittingnut said...

your question is silly and willfully blind to facts .

of course if ltte is willing to let ppl go a very temporary ceasefire is ok ( it would take two days at most ). in fact gov has offered that to them repeatedly already . ltte can do that any moment .gov would be more than eager to facilitate that (same for a temporary ceasefire that allows ltte cadres to surrender unconditionally )
that kind of thing can be archived easily if only lttte wants within hours .

but ltte is not doing that or even interested in that . they need those civilians as a shield and bargaining chips. without them ltte is dead . period .
you forget this unwillingness in ltte .

why do you do that ? why do you look the other way when confronted with the real facts of ltte nature? why do ask silly questions that presuppose such silly blindness in you and others?

btw are you willing to fully support ltte's military destruction if ( as certainly will be the case since it has already rejected similar ceaefires ) ltte does not agree to above mentioned temporary ceasefires.
or will you evade that question too? ( like your shameless intellectually dishonest evasion in your blog when asked - what you think should have been done with ltte ?)
when ppl mention a ceasefire now they do not mean that kind easily achievable temporary ceasefire . rather about something like the one in effect from 2001. a unmitigated murderous disaster. with international monitors basically supervising ltte terrorist killing of sri lankans .

"Is lack of violent conflict at any cost, peace?"
??? what do you mean exactly ?
you should better get rid of cobwebs in your clearly confused small brain before even attempting to make an argument

Dinidu said...

The question is not silly, as I said "What if the ceasefire, or a step down of firing from both parties can be advocated strongly, for the remaining civilians to be taken out?" Note, both parties, and the point of which is to get the civilians out. So then you agr

Will the LTTE be completely and utterly destroyed? Yes. Do I support it? Yes, and No. Am I happy? Yes, and No.

The LTTE was the only remaining voice, albeit a pretty fucked up one, for the Tamil's right for self-determination. And that will die along with the LTTE.

The LTTE was responsible for a lot of atrocities, including the deaths of the likes of Kadir, and thousands of civilians. So, yes, they should be held responsible.

The last point is crystal clear. Do you consider the lack of violent conflict, achieved at any cost, peace?

Anonymous said...

on what basis do you say that the LTTE is the only remaining voice for tamil self determination? it is your arrogance that leads you to presume that other more moderate voices will not come out once the LTTE has been destroyed.

if tamil self-determination is a priority then other voices will emerge from within sri lanka. if they do not, then perhaps the cause is not as important as you and those like you think it is. most people i know tamil or singhalese, put prosperity ahead of the name of the person who runs their government.

all lack of violent conflict achieved everywhere has been paid with a heavy price. we have already paid a heavy price. heavier than it should be because of ppl like you.

sittingnut said...

dinidu :
your question was silly if you cannot understand the its silliness well you cannot. but if anyone with a brain want to here is the sitauation again .

if the aim is rescue of civilians only, then gov has already offered temporary ceasefire for that . it is in our interests . there is no need to urge both sides.there is nothing for government to do but let civilians through in such a situation. gov has been already doing that , even without a ceasefire when civilians escape.

what ltte demands and what peaceaniks here want and some foreigners want is something different .
immediate halt to fighting, without release of civilians as the only aim. it will lead to effective acknowledgment of ltte's right to hold them and bargain, with those civilians as bargaining chips. gov will be in a terrible situation; either make concessions to ltte to release them or break ceasefire. that is unacceptable bc gov cannot and should not agree to any condition by ltte.

as has been described .this is a hostage situation. hostage takers are free at any time to release the hostages. but gov should not agree to stop attempts to rescue hostages in order to bargain for their release with concessions to ltte
you say you want ltte held accountable but don't support its defeat, the only way to hold it accountable? more plain idiocy on your part!.
many ppl do not have your cocooned luxury of simply ignoring ltte and/or wishing it away/held accountable . they unlike you have to deal with ltte as it exists and thus fight it
i think anon has dealt with your bizarre ( in fact down right racist ) claim that ltte are the only tamils representative left, and that there will never be others.
(you really should take an iq test. really .)

if tamils do not have adequate leaders at this moment that is bc those leaders were killed or intimidated by ltte . fact .
and not bc those tamils support ltte and its atrocities .

as i have told you before in your blog when you made similar racist arguments . if anyone supports ltte they do so bc they are well ...evil and do not have the moral compass to recognize that killing innocents deliberately is wrong . i will not say that ltte supporters' primary attribute is their tamilness as you racists do, bc being tamil has nothing to do with it . that is mere propaganda that such ppl use as cover and justification.

once ltte is gone leaders with many views on future of tamils ( and on value of putting all or nothing self determination as primary objective of tamils in north and east provinces ) will emerge and may or may not find favor with tamils . human nature being what it is, that will happen.
"The last point is crystal clear. Do you consider the lack of violent conflict, achieved at any cost, peace?"
no it is not clear. to be meaningful you have to spell out the cost specifically. otherwise cost can mean anything . and i prefer to deal with facts .

what exactly is the cost you refer here. spell it out .

to help you i will give an example , defeat of axis in ww2 was achieved with tremendous cost but, worth the peace imo .
also another example, when i say that peaceniks are ppl who prefer peace with ltte at any cost, i point to annoyance of some ppl that appeasement ltte necessarily involve cost of freedom, justice , human rights and democracy ( as many many examples in history of ltte shows). and that peaceniks (mentioned by name) have supported such appeasement (as you do ).

so if you want to be meaningful be specific about the cost with examples, and spell why you expect such a cost.
anon @5/14/2009 4:29 pm
good comment. thanks.

Sam said...

"What if the ceasefire, or a step down of firing from both parties can be advocated strongly, for the remaining civilians to be taken out?".

When LTTE let civilians, the only card they have, the only card they have been using, the only card that working for them, go vulnerary, I will give you my unicorn.

Anonymous said...

For shame, Sitting Nut you removed my comment. Why the censorship?

sittingnut said...

what comment?
there was a comment posted few hours ago by an anon from canada containing a link to a old terrorist ltte propaganda video of dead ltte cadres, some naked, with some soldiers uttering obscenities.

but not in this thread , but in an old thread (it is still there) .

if it is you, and posted in the wrong place, you should check before posting. don't blame me for your mistake, bc i don't censor anything even what amounts to terrorist spam.

and if you want post it again here.

while doing it why not post post the pics and videos of ppl killed by ltte esp little children.

Anonymous said...

The LTTE has killed many women and children, it is a given that they are 'bad guys'. It shouldn't be a given that the SL Army act like this. Much of the rhetoric on the Government's side appeals to a moral high ground, this video lays waste to that. It's true that it may be an isolated act, but soldiers are to be disciplined, I would hope you would condemn this sort of behaviour and recognize that, far from being propoganda, in a time of little/no coverage from the war zone, images like this end up defining the governments offensive.

Since you've given me permission (thanks) I will post the link again, to provide context for my comment:

sittingnut said...

as you see i don't censor. so don't make false accusations..
now if you will why don't you go to that site and ask them to not to censor my comment pointing out that this video was an old much used one. ( i and a friend of mine now with me posted two different comments under name sittingnut and another name. both basically saying the same thing )

then we will see how much courage you have to challenge a racist terrorist propaganda website you are promoting. let us know the progress. :-)

btw it is propaganda to use old video in this context.

this old video is irrelevant. it does not take away the moral high ground from government .
dead terrorists in vedeo as far i can see were killed from some sort of blast inside bunker (not gun shots). clearly during action . you can still hear blasts elsewhere.

as far as i can see there is nothing wrong there beyond filmimng a dead naked body of a ltte cadre and obscenites . those are certainly wrong and distasteful things to do, but not capital offenses. (and displaying and promoting such a video is an arguably comparable offense ).

as you yourself acknowledge even what is wrong there are individual act of solders . after all gov does not order ppl to utter obscenities.

all the while ltte must be defeated as moral duty bc of its very real atrocities against innocents .

so explain how does gov lose moral high ground bc of this?