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.

෴

israel should (probably will) "bomb" iran soon

if they have the capacity (most ppl think they have) israel should attack and "take out" iran's suspected nuclear facilities soon (as in before end of year). imo they probably will.

there are several reasons.

• obviously attacking after iran has developed a nuclear bomb is silly.
• waiting for "diplomacy" to succeed has failed, again obviously. while usa and rest can take the risk of waiting, israel cannot. iran's n-bomb = bye bye israel (sooner or later).
• high probability (65% chance according to futures market prices) of obambi winning and thus putting even more pressure on israel to fruitlessly wait than bush administration.
• iran's present capacity to respond will only cause limited damage to israel itself. iran's missiles (it has them, silly photoshoping was just to show it has more) are inaccurate and targets in square kms not meters. as such with conventional warheads they are less lethal than terrorist suicide bombers; a threat israel is well used to.

as such, israel if it follows its own best interests (as any state should), should and probably will attack soon.

but what will be the consequences of that attack, on the rest of the world?

that will depend on rationality of iran's leaders. if they are sensible to their own interests, rest of the world has not much to fear.

in that case, iran will not attack americans directly, or close the straits of hormuz given the likely terrible repercussions on themselves (such actions and american response will be costly to americans too, but iran will get the worst of it in the end). in this scenario iran will fire off several missiles at israel and will stop at that. (it is already helping terrorists to attack israel and americans so there wont be any increase in that front anyway).

worst that rest of the world will have to suffer, will probably be a week of very high oil prices. in fact imo attack will be beneficial in the sense it will take away one cause of instability (i.e. constant speculation about the israeli attack - iran's missile tests increased oil price by $6 on last thursday) in the region for some time.

of course if iran's leaders act like crazies all bets are off. but that is unlikely. for one thing, iran is not quite a dictatorship, it is a theocratic oligarchy. more people there are in leadership, less crazy and thankfully more selfish decision making will be.

will israel's leaders have the balls to do what is in their best interests? we will soon see.

෴

ps
iran and nuclear weapons
i was deliberate in avoiding the question of moral right (so to speak) of iran to have nuclear weapons in main post.

in the opinion of most, nobody (including usa) has a moral right to n-weapons. but that is irrelevant and naive. in reality it is in best interests of usa to have nuclear weapons given world history and politics. similarly, it is in best interests of iran to try to have them, and of usa and israel to try to prevent iran having them.

most of rest of the world's (i.e. those who value democracy and capitalism, aka individual political and economic rights - including sri lanka and me as an individual) interests coincide with usa's for the most part, and to a lesser extent with israel's.( however there is no harm in playing iran against others to milk both sides, as sl already do).