Tuesday, May 03, 2011

questions that must be addressed by those who want an 'international war crimes inquiry' in sri lanka

i will highlight some basic questions that must be addressed by anyone who genuinely wants an 'independent international inquiry' into alleged war crimes committed in sri lanka.

all those who fail to address these issues betray their bad faith when they say they want justice and truth to prevail in order to reconcile the nation. many have already revealed bad faith (esp. when they commented on so called un panel/darusman report).

why only sri lanka is subjected to such an inquiry? are we the only ones that supposedly committed war crimes while fighting against terrorists? to take an example among many, what about the west in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan? how does one advocate such a double standard inquiry when justice demands one standard for all? bc west is powerful and we, who are not, must obey? bc we, as 'inferiors' (racially or otherwise), must not demand equal treatment?

why is there an attempt (as with so called un/darusman panel) to focus only on suffering and wrongs of a section of sri lankans at one point of time, instead of all? why this separation of victims? is that justice? was sufferings of rest of us (few nauseating proofs here and here) inferior? how? can such arbitrary differentiations lead to reconciliation?

why now, after we defeated terrorists? why the focus only on last days of tamil tiger terrorists? why was our suffering from terrorists not inquired into for 30+ years? why many many crimes against humanity committed by terrorists not worthy of inquiry then? why did self styled humanitarians and human right advocates do nothing then? why same ppl who push for an international inquiry now, pushed us to appease the murderers then? why didn't same ppl and countries help us defeat the terrorists with least human loss, instead of opposing any attempt to defeat terrorists and end their crimes and our suffering? why no inquiry into terrorists collecting funds in west with help of some western politicians?

are some of the things we are accused of really 'war crimes'? are they not accidents, 'collateral damage', use of human shields by terrorists, etc., etc., common in any attempt to defeat terrorists? why these distinctions made for west's defense elsewhere, but in our case all these are 'crimes'? are we not right to suspect that, in western eyes, our main 'war crime' was our disregard for their pressure not to defeat terrorists (hence arbitrary focus of requested 'international' inquiry and illegitimate un/darusman panel, only on events after we disregarded west's call not to defeat ltte)? how is that justice?

shouldn't there be substantiated evidence before accusations are made? shouldn't those accused have a right to examine at first hand, and question (and cross question) the allegations and those who who make them, before such allegations are judged 'credible'? isn't prejudging this, as so called un/darusman panel did, an injustice?

didn't western funded ngos (like human rights watch, amnesty international, and international crisis group,) making the allegations, fail to appear, produce evidence, and face questions, before a legally constituted sri lankan inquiry when requested? wasn't their subsequent demand for an inquiry with 'international standards' that do not exist anywhere else (see above), rather than normal legal standards accepted by all (including sri lankan inquiry) a call for injustice and special treatment (betraying their colonial mindset)?

must be addressed
these are the questions that must be addressed by those who call for an 'independent inquiry with international standards' if they have any pretensions to intellectual honesty and integrity. it is impossible to claim such an inquiry, is independent, maintains legal standards, serves justice and truth, and leads to reconciliation, without answering these questions.

so far almost all those who have called for an 'international' inquiry have failed to address these issues. this is especially noticeable in articles, internet postings, and media interviews, etc., these ppl gave after the publication of so called un panel/darusman report. by not addressing them they betray their bad faith and disregard for justice and equality.

we, sri lankans, should not be afraid to assert ourselves and demand (aggressively if need be) that ppl who call for an 'international' inquiry must address these issues, bc it is we who are being slandered and denied justice and equality. in some cases we would be (and have been) accused for rudeness and subjected to censorship when we demand our basic rights by raising these issues. that is the usual mode of all such oppressors.

by demanding justice and equality, and exposing hypocrisy of those who fail to address these questions, we will overcome.

sri lankans who fail
we should not hesitate to confront with these questions those sri lankans dependent on western funds (esp in ngos) who join with their paymasters in calling for an 'international' inquiry. failure to address or even recognize these issues, by this sort of willing slaves, deserve open contempt. let them go crying to their masters with our spit on their faces.

those who try to sidestep these questions by saying 'we should not be afraid of an inquiry if we have nothing to hide', or 'we should inquire into our actions regardless of whether west will inquire in to theirs in iraq etc.' are missing the point. we, sri lankans, should in fact inquire into our actions in sri lanka under sri lankan law. we should criticize any undue delay or shortcoming in such a sri lankan inquiry.

however shortcomings or not, nothing can justify our submitting to an unjust and unequal inquiry approved and forced upon us by west. anyone honestly addressing the questions above will realize that any 'international' inquiry constituted at present will be unjust, will treat us unfairly, and serve only western interests.

my twitter - http://twitter.com/sittingnut
this blog's twitter - http://twitter.com/llibertarian


Anonymous said...

Spitting on faces is libertarian! Oh Nutty!

sittingnut said...

spit is face is too good for those who act like of sanjana hathotuwa, etc., .

but seriously, its is libertarian to resist anyone who tries to remove freedoms and rights by force. as such those who try to force an unjust and unequal inquiry on behalf of their western masters should be defeated. showing open contempt for such slaves is both proportionate and reasonable.

Paspanguva said...

Groundviews is the new tamil net!

Anonymous said...

"but seriously, its is libertarian to resist anyone who tries to remove freedoms and rights by force. "

As such all proper libertarians should resist MR, GR, BR and all the rest as much as we can!

The continuing of the emergency law when the war ended 2 years ago is anti-libertarian - why don't you write about that??

OR would that go against your paymasters orders??

sittingnut said...


@anon at 5/03/2011 10:35 am

if you read the past in this blog you will notice that i have written opposing various authorities in sri lanka including buffalo (btw a nickname picked up by others bc it get both his good and bad qualities).

so your reference to my paymasters don't make any sense , unlike my reference to factual paymasters of ngo types.

as for so called "emergency laws"- they are passed and extended each month by a large majority of democratically elected representatives. the process is much more open and democratic than similar laws in usa and uk. they and the process is in line with constitution.

nor do anybody who has read and seen tiger flag waving ltte supporters abroad, think that ltte terrorism is over for good. large armed caches hidden by ltte are being discovered every other week. there are lots of former ltte cadres free after they defeat. it will take some time to get them fully reintegrated to society; a process that is happening with weddings and training etc.
(btw the very existence of these thousands of ltte cadres is a counter to those who claim military killed all)

also some of so called 'emergency laws' are there to get over red tape to build infrastructure etc. these are good for a libertarian who loves less gov regulation.
as such i am willing to give benefit of the doubt to those who ended armed terrorism here when they say they are lessening (as they have already started to do ) of what are called emergency laws gradually.

if i see concrete cases of abuse of those laws i will write.

otherwise i expect them to fade away as they have already started to do.

there is nothing non libertarian in that.:-)

Anonymous said...

"if i see concrete cases of abuse of those laws i will write."

None so blind as they who will not see..?

"also some of so called 'emergency laws' are there to get over red tape to build infrastructure etc. these are good for a libertarian who loves less gov regulation"

Have you ever thought of becoming a minister under MR? I'm sure you would do quite well as you seem quite fluent in the doublespeak language that's all the rage in govt circles these days! :)

sittingnut said...

@anon at 5/03/2011 11:43 am
instead of merely accusing me of 'blindness" and 'doublespeak' (bc you lost the argument) why don't you point to concrete examples with evidence, of my 'blindness' etc. .

you can't bc i always stay with facts.

why not at least try . unlike groundviews (where sanjana censors all not following his western paymasters views) i don't censor anyone here.

Anonymous said...

"why don't you point to concrete examples with evidence, of my 'blindness' "

Just a simple example of this abuse which you seem not to see... Numerous instances of pedestrians and other motorists being killed and harassed on public roads by the security escorts assigned to so called VIPs under the emergency laws of this country.

Have yet to see you write a single post about this abuse being dealt to the public by an authoritarian govt.

Is this not an abuse or is it just that you are blind to these instances?

sittingnut said...

@ anon at 5/03/2011 12:14 pm

lol at your ridiculous 'example'.

at least you tried so will reply seriously ( as far as i can )

"Numerous instances of pedestrians and other motorists being killed and harassed on public roads "

in a concrete example you have to point to err... concrete evidence of this. if they are so 'numerous' you should be able to easily find evidence.

after doing that, you have to say why you think it is an abuse of emergency laws and not a result of any other circumstances and motivations.

"security escorts assigned to so called VIPs under the emergency laws of this country."

are you sure they are assigned under emergency laws? proof ? security divisions to which these personnel belong were not created under emergency laws. without this connection your argument fails completely.

btw mere assigning of security is not an abuse but a precaution.

such precautions will have to be continue whether or not emergency laws are in effect . we have seen too many assassinations ( of even ppl totally unconnected with defeating terrorists ) not to do that.

how is providing against very real assassinations , "authoritarian".

in the end your example turns out to be unsupported by evidence, contradictory and even irrational. lol

i stay with facts and reason, so may be it is not surprising i did not not write about your pet issue.


Anonymous said...

"in a concrete example you have to point to err... concrete evidence of this."

For you to even ask for evidence of this, shows what sort of dream state you live in. These incidents have been well documented in the country's newspapers. Maybe being in touch with real life will help put you in the right mind frame?

but since you insist, here's a first person account of what happened to him when his vehicle was crashed into by a security escort vehicle of a cabinet minister


How is running over and killing innocent motorists and pedestrians by these escort vehicles not a form of abusive authoritarianism?

Like I said in an earlier comment Snut, you seem very fluent in the doublespeak language and also seem to inhabit the same delusional world of the govt, where these abuses simply do not happen.

sittingnut said...

@anon at 5/03/2011 1:38 pm

your comments becoming positively hilarious as you get desperate.
(unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me (who likes to good laugh), there is no cure for born idiocy like yours)

instead of so "'well documented"( according to you ) examples of this alleged abuse from "the country's newspapers" (almost all of which with their archives are available free and easily searchable online if you care to use) you post a blog post as evidence.
lol. let me repeat, lol. lol.

but lets examine the blog post-
what does it say? it describes an accident with ministerial convoy and how the blogger was rushed to a hospital etc. .
does it say anything more? no.
does it support you in anyway ? no
does it say security intentionally "[run] over and [kill] innocent motorists and pedestrians"? no

since you obviously have great difficulty following even simple arguments, i will help you by posing some questions and answers so you can follow the argument step by step with your very low iq.
do use all the power of your obviously tiny brain, and somehow show you understand at least this much to all those who read this. lol.

1/ does security of ministers come under emergency laws? no. if you disagree, pl explain how.
2/ would such security have to be provided with or with out emergency law, given the fact there were lots of assassinations? yes . if you disagree, pl explain why no security is needed in spite of assassinations.

3/ do these security details meet with accidents once in a while due to various reasons like the rest of us ? of course. do you disagree with that simple fact too? then explain why.
4/ are accidents proof of authoritarianism ? no . explain how they are if you disagree
5/ given these facts, is an account of accident that happens while security ppl were on regular duty, an example of abuse of emergency law ? no . if you disagree, pl explain how.

do you get it now ?
if not, answer why you disagree with explanations.


you seem to have the curious notion that use of reason and sticking to facts, as i do, is equivalent to 'fluent' use of 'doublespeak'.
do all fools share this notion?or just you?


you say i live in "the same delusional world of the govt" and not "in touch with real life ".
problem with that is if you read this blog you will find that i have not only supported my arguments with facts and reason, but has been correct in my predictions again and again ( on defeat of terrorists, elections, inflation , effect of withdrawal of gsp+ etc. etc). contrast that record with contrary predictions on same events made at groundviews or indi.ca at same times.

may be your teeny tiny brain was confused about definition of word 'delusional' and you thought it meant being realistic and rational, and ability to make predictions that come to pass? lol

i love to kick idiots like this. its great fun!

so do come back for more kicking.

sittingnut said...

in case anon don't reappear i will summarize my part of this rather tangential (in relation to post) argument thread by saying that,

while security convoys of vips may be annoying and inconvenient (and possibly tragic if there is an accident) that does not mean they are an abuse of so called emergency laws even if they were instituted by those laws ( they weren't ).
given the history of assassinations, such security will have to last longer than already gradually lessening 'emergency laws' which are extended each month in parliament ( in a much more democratic and open procedure than in usa ,uk, etc. with similar laws ).

as such there is no point in my writing about that non 'abuse', nor is there any conflict with my libertarianism by such 'neglect'.