Wednesday, March 24, 2010

stance about military defeat of ltte terrorists should and would define politics for a generation

indi padashow samarajiva before he got a job as part of a backfired akon publicity stunt and devoted his blog for that, wrote "i really hope that the war isn’t, like, our vietnam. as in, something that defines and defines politics forever. ..."

so typical of the clueless one to take another false analogy from history of usa. before the tamil tiger murderers got defeated he was repeatedly saying that sri lanka will not defeat the terrorists through military means and sri lanka government was only conquering territory, comparing fight against terrorists here to american efforts in iraq(which he thought was failing) and vietnam.

he stuck to it when it was pointed out by me (before he started censoring me) that many countries, ranging from indonesia to peru to turkey to algeria, have in fact successfully defeated terrorists and guerrillas (only difference from groups defeated in those countries; ltte was larger and more vile).

this happened several times in and other blogs. search there.

likes of indi padashow (lot of them in kottu cocoon) seem to be stuck in a box with only american frame of references. (or more correctly liberal american frame of references); resulting in a narrow minded and uneducated worldview.

if anyone want to compare the military defeat of ltte to anything in american history, it should be to american civil war (1861-1865). even there the analogy fails. south aka confederate states of america, in that war was more than a mere armed criminal gang as ltte was.

[btw did you know what indi padashow and ilk know but fail to mention in their american analogies while criticizing present sri lankan government? that during civil war abraham lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands of ppl for suspicion without trial, violated constitution when he spent money as he wanted against the wishes of congress, etc. etc. i think i will keep that unmentioned comparison to another post]

anyway back to the topic.

should various stands about militarily defeating ltte terrorists define sri lankan politics for another generation?


quite simply, bc politicians' stances reveal their character.

anyone who opposed military defeat of ltte bc they thought it cannot be done, displayed a lack of judgment and proved themselves unpragmatic dreamers. should voters consider that? yes.

anyone who preferred appeasement of terrorists to defeating them were worse. they chose an immoral course of action, they preferred to sacrifice rights, justice, freedom, democracy, and even lives, of sri lankans for a unsustainable 'peace'. should voters consider that? you bet!

unrepentant ppl in above to two categories should not be (and imo would not be) allowed to hold real power in sri lanka.

however opposite is not true. ppl who believed and even contributed to defeating terrorists shouldn't and wouldn't necessarily get real power automatically. that depends on other matters. a misconception about this point is what led some clueless idiots (and some foreign reporters too lazy to think and find out truth) to propagate the myth that those who appreciate victory over terrorist (racists termed these 'sinhalese') will split their votes more or less equally between mahinda rajapaksa and sarath foneska. election results vindicated my refutation of this myth.

iow a politician's stand on military defeat of terrorists is a basic qualification of entry. if you did not support it and is still unrepentant you have no chance, but supporting it does not mean you will get the job. imo this will be true for a generation.

of course even politicians without that qualification will get elected (esp due to probational representation) but they will not get real power. ppl who openly repent their opposition to military defeat of ltte may get through to real power, though their earlier stand will always be a rightful part of their opponents' arsenal.

to give a concrete example. present ranil wickremasinghe led unp leadership will not get real power. second or third tier of unp (say sajith premadasa) do have a chance once they can get rid of present leadership and publicly and officially renounce unp's peacenik stance.

to conclude, if you want a successful career in sri lankan politics in the next 20-30 years make sure to check you were in the right side about defeating terrorists.

too bad (or i should say too good) that former political appointee rohan samarajiva's patrons are in the wrong side and are unrepentant. no wonder his son, who is still living off his parents, don't want this issue to define politics.

will i get attacked through second hand blogs (which i have never advocated banning btw) for this post too. lol.

changes made and republished @ 4.15 pm.

my twitter -
this blog's twitter -


Anonymous said...

//likes of indi padashow (lot of them in kottu cocoon) seem to be stuck in a box with only american frame of references.

True dat.

Anonymous said...

"If polls are free and fair, UNF will win handsomely – Rosy"

Bloody hilarious.

Well that is one way of excusing defeat and their failures, inability to see the needs and desires of the people out of the Colombian elites sense of arrogance and sheer contempt for the masses as well as denying and camouflaging the peoples democratic will.