30 September, 2020

Blog

Fascism, Terrorism & The LTTE/Sri Lankan Civil War: An Endnote

By Mark Salter

Mark Salter

First, an apology: just when my marathon exchange with Dayan Jayatilleka (DJ) finally appeared to be over…. well goodness, here it comes again! Out of respect for your long-suffering readership, then, I will attempt to be as brief – and final – as possible.

DJ’s ‘final’ riposte raises four important issues. The first concerns fascism and terrorism. Here DJ alleges that my approach to the LTTE is based on the alleged category error of ‘confusing terrorism with fascism’. Ironically, however, his argument in support of this contention rests on precisely the flaw of which he accuses me. First a basic distinction between the two concepts in focus. Fascism is fundamentally an ideology, defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.’

Terrorism, by contrast, should be defined instrumentally: specifically as a means of, or strategy for, using violence and intimidation to further wider e.g. political and/or religiously-defined goals. Viewed from this perspective it becomes clear why describing the LTTE as ‘classically fascist’ or otherwise, as DJ insists on doing, is at the very least highly problematic. Prabhakaran’s penchant for the ruthless suppression of dissent – real or imagined – within (and without) the LTTE is unquestionable. Additionally, there is indeed an argument to made for the view that the argument for Tamil Eelam was at least subliminally rooted in a long-standing Dravidian view of Tamils as superior to the Sinhalese. Beyond that, however, pace the definition noted above it’s hard to see any sense in which the LTTE can realy be defined as fascist – classically or otherwise.

Indeed in terms of the LTTE’s professed ideology as expressed in, for example, the writings of its chief ideologist Anton Balasingham, there are solid grounds for suggesting that ‘Eelamism’ in its specific, LTTE variant was located at precisely the opposite end of the political spectrum to fascism. Balasingham’s understanding of ‘self-determination’, for example – a key term in the Tiger’s political lexicon from the 1985 Thimpu Declaration onwards – is explicitly based on the political programs of kindred ‘national liberation struggles’ of the 1970s and 80s, many of these in fact welded to some variant of the Marxist/Maoist/Castroist Weltanschauung embraced by DJ himself.

DJ’s own category confusion, moreover, is aptly illustrated by the fact that in a number of instances, the evidence he supplies In support of the ‘LTTE as fascist’ contention in fact illustrates what is usually considered terrorist activity. Even the examples he provides that do not fall into this category – in particular the murder of internal opponents or competitors – signally fail to support his overall ‘LTTE as fascist’ thesis.

Why? Starting from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution – and on, most spectacularly, through the terrors of the Stalin era – the Soviet Union proved a seasoned practitioner of the ruthless persecution, purging, execution and – in the case of the 1932-33 Ukrainian Holodomor – systematic starvation of millions of its own citizens: a macabre political quality unrivalled at the time by any bar Nazi Germany. And similar observations apply to any number of post-World War II communist regimes: Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mengistu’s Ethiopia and the post-World War II Stalin era dictatorships of Central-Eastern Europe, to mention a few salient examples. Yet although they adopted similar practices, for example with respect to their – again, real or imagined – opponents, these regimes were surely the precise political antithesis of fascism.

What’s really in focus here, I would suggest, is two things that DJ conflates, namely (gruesome) methods and ideology. The point is further amplified if you take into account the fact that, starting from Franco’s Spain, moving on through 1960s Greece, Salazar-era Portugal, Pinochet’s Chile and the whole gamut of Central and Latin American right-wing military dictatorships over the last 70 years, remarkably similar methods of intimidation, persecution and elimination have been used by regimes from the polar opposite end of the political spectrum to Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China et al.

Accordingly, pointing to the LTTE’s use of similar methods of suppression, intimidation etc. does nothing to prove that they were a fascist organization, everything to underline their ruthless intolerance of dissent and readiness to deploy any and every practice – suicide bombers included – in the lexicon of terrorist methodology to further their goals.

Authoritarian? Most certainly. Ruthless? Undoubtedly. Terror – as practised by Prabhakaran against the movement’s perceived enemies – was a gruesome, murderous modus operandi. But it was assuredly not an ideology – fascist or otherwise. In a manner akin to the political confusions stemming from the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’, to treat the former (terrorism) as the latter (fascism) conflates two distinct operational categories – strategy and ideology –in a manner that only serves to confuse, not clarify matters. In sum, if anyone’s guilty of category confusion regarding the terrorism-fascism relationship it’s DJ, not myself.

How, then, to explain the enduring appeal of the ‘fascist LTTE’ trope deployed by DJ and other apologists for the underlying official rationale for the war’s final phase aka Eelam War IV? A pointer is provided by Godwin’s law, a popular internet adage to the effect that the longer an online discussion continues, the greater the probability of a comparison involving Hitler and the Nazis emerging.

At which point enter DJ centre stage. What are the terms in which he dismisses ‘certain Lankan politicians’ and a ‘particular political perspective for Sri Lankans’ I am alleged to have defended earlier in our debate? Answer: as ‘absurd as would have been a commendation of Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in Munich’. Result pace DJ: an opponent tarred with the brush of Nazi appeasement. Intellectual victory secured. Story. End of.

In reality, however, DJ’s argument is one more example of an intellectual slight of hand with a long, wearily familiar history: and one chiefly deployed by hawkish types everywhere attempting to undermine opponents of any given war via smear tactics involving the resort toGodwin’s law or some variant of it. From my own experience I well recall how the UK’s Thatcher-era government tried to dismiss peace activists like myself, along with hundreds of thousands of others opposed to the early 1980s deployment of a new generation of US nuclear weapons in Britain and other European NATO countries, via the mechanical application of the ‘Munich-like appeasers’ canard.

Then we were depicted as a new generation of Chamberlains bent on appeasing the existential threat to the ‘free world’ posed by the Soviet Union. Nearly 40 years on, and in a very different context, DJ suggests that in defending the efforts of ‘certain Lankan politicians’, in particular ‘our local Chamberlain and his co-thinkers’ to negotiate with the LTTE (we all know who he means here), I can once again be summarily dismissed for having joined the ranks of another, more recent bunch of supposed ‘appeasers’. (In passing, note that while the vocabulary changes from context to context, the ‘appeal to Godwin’ type argument’s essential grammar and syntax remains essentially unchanged, irrespective of the contextual particularities.)

In the Lankan case, as used by DJ et al this argument’s supposed strength is twofold. First it is (wrongly) believed to see off arguments in support of any attempt(s) to reach a negotiated settlement with the LTTE. Second, by the same token it supposedly provides retrospective vindication for a strategy premised on the wholesale military defeat of the Tigers: a strategy pursued with vigour by the Sri Lankan armed forces under then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa: initially with a modicum of caution (2006-2007), subsequently with all guns blazing, an approach culminating in victory i.e. the spectacularly bloody military endgame of May 2009.

Ultimately, and for reasons outlined above, the ‘’fascist appeaser’ argument against efforts to negotiate with the LTTE amounts in other words to little more than an ineffectual, misplaced attempt to close down discussion of the alternatives to war via a narrow, highly partisan interpretation of the dynamics of the Sri Lankan conflict.

Second, DJ moves onto another error of interpretation, to wit his contention that my use of the examples of Afghanistan and N. Ireland provides another example of my alleged descent into category confusion. In support of this view, in both cases DJ notes some (obvious) contextual differences from Sri Lanka. But in doing so he appears to have missed my main point, which was to note that in both the examples cited as in Sri Lanka, making peace of necessity involves talking to one’s enemies, not one’s friends – irrespective of their ideologio-political hue or geographic provenance, I should perhaps have added for the sake of clarity. Regardless of DJ’s misdirected response, moreover, I firmly believe this perspective constitutes an central point of departure for any serious analysis of the dynamics, ethics, outcomes – and yes, pitfalls – of ‘Talking To Terrorists’.

Third, DJ claims that, allegedly in support of the ‘old trope’ that the Norwegian facilitators ‘kept the Indians in the loop’, my account of the early 2000s stage in the Lankan peace process omits or otherwise glosses over some important historical details. Why, he wonders, did the Indian government pull the ‘dove’-like Gopalkrishna Gandhi out of the Colombo High Commissioner position in 2002? And why did the Norwegians not talk to ‘Indians who had talked to Prabhakaran’ in the 1980s?

On the first query my response, as detailed in my book, differs significantly from DJ’s. From Colombo Gandhi was relocated to Oslo in 2002 as his country’s Ambassador– a move interpreted by the Norwegian facilitators as intended to strengthen India’s Lanka-related lines of communication with them. On the second, while I cannot vouch for the details of every individual with whom the Norwegians met in Delhi, I can definitely testify to the fact that from the beginning of their Lankan peace facilitation role, Solheim and colleagues were regular visitors to the Indian capital, typically meeting with their principal Indian Foreign Service interlocutors and others immediately before and/or after every visit to Colombo. This they did in order either to brief the Indians on the outcomes of their visits, or to elicit their views on current issues of importance in advance of their upcoming meetings with Lankan officialdom.

If there were significant omissions in the list of officials they met in Delhi, moreover, I would suggest this was as much down to their host’s own thinking and priorities as the Norwegians themselves. Certainly, from first-hand experience I can testify to the fact that Gandhi’s successor as High Commissioner in Colombo proved to be just about the only significant Indian official involved in the peace process with whom, even despite Oslo’s best efforts, it proved impossible for to secure an interview for the purposes of my book (for whatever reason, no response to those sustained communication efforts was forthcoming).

DJ goes onto provide an at best inaccurate, at worst distorted version of the circumstances leading up to President Kumaratunga’s and Foreign Minister Kadirgamar’s mid-2001 criticism of Erik Solheim’s conduct as chief facilitator, ostensibly on the grounds of ‘biased’ remarks he was reported to have made when visiting Washington in May 2001. Again the facts, and again as laid out in my book on the subject that DJ assures us he has read carefully, tell a rather different story.

First, contra DJ Solheim was not and indeed could not have been replaced by Vidar Helgesen, who at this point in time was yet to assume office as Deputy Foreign Minister, something he only did following his Høyre Party’s agreement to participate in the three-party Centre-Right coalition government formed in the aftermath of October 2001 general elections. In reality, then Foreign Minister Thorbjorn Jagland’s response to the criticisms levelled at Solheim in a bilateral meeting held with Kumaratunga and Kadirgmar in Colombo in early June 2001 was to announce both that Norwegian engagement would be officially ‘upgraded’, and that consequently he himself would be assuming a more hands-on role in the peace facilitation process – without, however, suggesting that Solheim was to be removed, as DJ contends.

For his part, Solheim ascribes Kumaratunga’s and Kadirgamar’s vocal displeasure with him to a combination of two factors: first, the Lankan Army’s decision to launch what proved to be a disastrous new military offensive – dubbed ‘Agni Kheila 1’ – in late April 2001, thereby breaking an earlier commitment from Kumaratunga to refrain from hostilities while a ceasefire was in place and wider negotiation modalities were being explored with the LTTE.

Second, and in Solheim’s own estimation, most significantly, were his behind closed door comments in the US Congress during a May visit to Washington: these – according to him – being to the effect that while the Agni Kheila offensive was both an unhelpful and militarily disastrous development, the LTTE remained committed to a ceasefire. These essentially correct observations had later been relayed back to Colombo, eliciting an incendiary response from Kumaratunga. An exemplary case, in other words, of a leader responding to a messenger bearing unpleasant but truthful tidings by aiming to shoot him: not, as DJ insinuates, as a consequence of any bias – perceived or otherwise – on Solheim’s part.

With regard to history, DJ also reasserts an earlier claim that the result of every round of negotiations with the Tigers was the same viz. what he dubs a ‘unilateral return to war by the LTTE’. Since I both examined the relevant evidence and debunked this claim in a previous contribution, I do not propose to repeat the same here. I would, however, suggest that DJ perhaps revisit Einstein’s definition of lunacy when considering his own repeated, factually inaccurate assertion regarding the causes and consequences of breakdowns in Lankan peace negotiations.

Fourth and finally, DJ wheels out – or more accurately, name-checks – ‘Just War’ theory in support of what he calls ‘the war of the Sri Lankan state and its military’. In response it’s worth recalling the ethical and practical conditions specified by just war theorists, conventionally divided into two categories: those governing the ‘right to go to war’ (jus ad bellum) and those covering the ‘right conduct of war’ (jus in bello).

Key elements of the former include the presence of a just cause; right intention i.e. only in a genuinely just cause, and solely for that purpose; and war as last resort i.e. only after all available peaceful and/or viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. On this count, the ‘last resort’ principle is precisely one of the key points at issue in this debate: DJ clearly appears to believe this criterion was met in full, notably in the war’s final years. I, like others, however, seriously beg to disagree with him in that respect.

With respect to jus in bello, key criteria include the principle of distinction, meaning that acts of war must be directed specifically and uniquely against enemy combatants: proportionality, i.e. combatants must ensure that harm caused to civilians is not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage from an assault; fair treatment of prisoners of war, meaning that torture or other forms of mistreatment of PoWs are expressly prohibited: and finally malum in se, meaning that combatants are forbidden from using weapons that necessarily involve contravening international humanitarian law. Examples often cited in this respect include mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons – for example biological or chemical agents – whose disproportionate effects cannot be controlled.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the presence – or absence – of all these criteria remains a deeply contested feature of continuing debate on the rights and wrongs of the Sri Lankan civil war, notably (but by no means exclusively) in connection with its final stages. DJ may feel it’s sufficient simply to invoke Just War theory to establish its successful application and observation in this context. I by contrast would suggest that invoking the theory is only the beginning, not the end of the relevant discussion.

To proceed further along that path would, however, to be drawn into a further, wider debate. And if for no other reason than that I suspect I have already tried the reader’s patience too far, I think I’ll rather elect to end. Right here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 16
    16

    No needs to talk about LTTE now. LTTE buried and completely wipedout, LTTE and their leadership also. Thanks to Gotabaya and Mahinda and to our 3 forces also. Don’t waste your time talking about LTTE. Another 50-100 years Sri Lanka 100% Sinhalese Aryans country, history will repeat also

    • 2
      0

      machchan ela ela

  • 11
    7

    There were facists on the 70year struggle of our Tamil brethren. It was not definitely LTTE.
    The supremacy feeling was due to our Leaders inferiority complex.
    As LeeQuan Yew said had we not brought sinhala only facist activity,
    Sri Lanka would have been paradise.
    Our generation lost our lives due to stupidity of SWRD.
    Future generation will loose theirs due to war criminals and robbers

    • 3
      4

      Dilshan,
      When British colonial rulers had ‘English Only’ was that also a facist activity? ‘Para’ Demalu had no problem with that.
      If racist Malabar Vellala Demala (Ceylon Tamils after 1911) elites who are descendants of Dravida slaves in Yapanaya accepted Sinhala only and allowed Demala people to learn Sinhala and live in harmony with Sinhalayo Sri Lanka would have been paradise.

      “As LeeQuan Yew said had we not brought sinhala only facist activity,
      Sri Lanka would have been paradise.”

  • 8
    1

    So, according to Dr. DJ, the LTTE would have been OK if it wasn’t Fascist. Ergo, it’s OK to kill innocents if you are a Communist, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian but NOT Fascist. I think I am beginning to understand Dr. DJ.

    • 1
      0

      Old Codger,
      .
      This is not the first time DJ has added the kind of public statements. However, I am somewhat happy, to see, he stood against Rajaakshes in the last GE.
      :
      Old, were you born srilanken tamil/muslim how would you have been reacting against anyone that permenently try to discriminate you ? I have got lots of tamil srilankens as friends. I also came to know few muslim srilankens in UK. That is why I dont care much about the race, religion or any thing else when getting on with srilankens. Unlike you guys, I have not lived in the for such a long time. But I travel to Sl very often if COVID crisis would not block the flights.

  • 2
    1

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.

    For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2

  • 3
    5

    It’s all very interesting but Fascism has a long history in Jaffna and the North.  Velupillai Prabhakaran and his LTTE were merely continuing this tradition. Nalliah Thayabharan has written in great detail about this. https://thuppahi.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/handy-perinpanayagam-and-the-jaffna-youth-congress/#comment-5015

  • 3
    4

    The war had a winner (Sinhalese) and a loser (Tamils). Hard truths. No analysis is complete without acknowledging this fact.

    • 1
      0

      Gatam

      Read your mahavansa your fairy tale history of Sinhalayas, It tells you after the victory of the Sinhalese over Tamils ( Ellalan V Gemunu ) a few years later Tamils reconquerd Srilanka and made you sinhalayas to eat our ( Tamil m) shit.History will repeat itself once again. Wait for another few to see what is going to happen to the so- called victorious sinhala moda race.

      • 1
        0

        PIRABAKARAN ,

        Tamils before being brought by portugese as slaves were the slaves of Sinhalese, do I need to remind you how Parakramabahu brought you people to your knees and captured pandya nadu, a little island with a small population was able to bring down your people who are one of the weakest in the world, even when the Sinhalese captured Madurai they did it in half a day in comparison to the 2 years another indian army took to capture it. The only thing you tamils are destructive invaders whose goal is to destroy what others have built, you guys are similar in ideology to radicalist muslims, there would be no need for tamils to invade Sri Lanka if they were actually Sri Lankan but, tamils themselves know they aren’t Sri Lankan which is why they are hellbent on another war, and when that happens, the Sinhalese who have fought for the right to call it there homeland will push you tamils back to india where you belong.

    • 0
      0

      Dear GATAM

      There is bigoted racist minority within all the Sri Lankan citizens of Mother Lanka is the same for the rest of the world too the magic flowed destructive gutter makers believe called Nationalism yet they all make a living our of our secular one world order.

      The Innocent Majority of Sri Lankans were dragged into this mud by these minority.

      We need to allocate one of the Islands in our land where we send all these morons and blockade the island with the Navy and ask them to settle their differences any means they choose. Supply them with all they want from stones to bombs. We will then see what to do with the left over.

      So we can exercise our right to live our life as we choose and shape a future accordingly. Lessons learned need to be applied.

      • 0
        0

        There is no winners and losers until we do the above as we all loosing all we have by the day?

      • 0
        0

        Venugopal!

        ” The Innocent Majority of Srilankans were dragged into this mud by these minority.”
        What do you mean by ‘these minority’? is it the minority within the majority community or the minority Communities- Tamils and the Muslims?

        • 0
          0

          [Edited out] Persistent trolling will not be tolerated. The key to maintaining the website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.
          For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2

  • 3
    3

    “Terrorism, by contrast, should be defined instrumentally: specifically as a means of, or strategy for, using violence and intimidation to further wider e.g. political and/or religiously-defined goals.”
    Most people, it seems to me, avoid a clear simple definition of TERRORISM perhaps unconsciously to suit their political agenda.
    .
    Terrorism is killing, maiming or using any other form of violence and intimidation against INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS in order to further a political agenda.
    .
    The objective is to cause ‘moral’ pain to the enemy using ‘physical’ violence against INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS.
    .
    The emphasis on INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS is avoided to attach some level of justification for their political objective.
    .
    You negotiate with a TERRORIST movement ( an organised group engaged in terrorism as defined above) or a single terrorist ONLY IF YOU ARE TRAPPED AND A TOTALLY HELPLESS situation with the objective of saving INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS.
    .
    Dear Mr Salters. the party you represented with greatest military power was any time trapped in such a helpless situation?

    Soma

    • 3
      1

      Soma, let me go by your definition of Terrorism.
      ‘Terrorism is killing, maiming or using any other form of violence and intimidation against INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS in order to further a political agenda’.
      .
      Employing your own yardstick, tell me: Who were the first terrorists of Sri Lanka?

      • 0
        0

        Nathan
        Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam.
        .
        LTTE attacks on government armed forces during the war DO NOT fall within this definition.

        Neither the LTTE killing of 13 soldiers in 1983 (because they were not INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS ) and the resulting mayhem that killed many innocent Tamils (because that lacked a political objective) fall within the purview of that definition. Also anti Muslim riots in Aluthgama is not TERRORISM.
        .
        No other group in terms deliberately targeting INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS in order to achieve a political objective surpasses the record of LTTE.
        .
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE

        Soma

  • 2
    5

    Mr Salter
    If my bother killed his enemy I may go to see him in prison.
    BUT if he killed the child of the enemy in order to avenge him I will spit on his face and support the police.

    Soma

    • 3
      3

      somass

      “If my bother killed his enemy I may go to see him in prison.”

      There are hundreds of thousands of people like you who keep your hands clean, but persuade mentally weak who are vulnerable and receptive to suggestions to do the crime.

      In those circumstances instead of your brother you should be in prison for motivating or creating a climate for him to commit murder and heinous crimes in the first place.

      • 1
        1

        BUT if he killed the child of the enemy in order to avenge him I will spit on his face and support the police

        Soma

      • 1
        2

        NV
        Terrorism is killing, maiming or using any other form of violence and intimidation against INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS in order to further a political agenda
        .
        You are totally brainwashed by LTTE

        Soma

        • 0
          0

          somass

          “Terrorism is killing, maiming or using any other form of violence and intimidation against INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS in order to further a political agenda”

          What about state sponsored terrorism, a license to kill, rape, destroy, loot, committing pogrom, war crimes, genocide, lied, ….. which enjoys impunity for unlimited period?

          Don’t be stupid and get on with forming an Independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission and let it take care of the past and stop talking “non-stop nonsense”. While you are stupidly focussed on attempting to score points the Rajapaksas, Sarath Weerasekeras, Ganapathipillais, Weerawansas, … are ….. … busy converting this island into their own nasty little Despotic Fiefdom.

          Do you think every woman of this island should bear Gota’s children, including your wife, mother, aunts, sisters, daughters, granddaughters, cousins, nieces, gransmas, …… ?

          You know Despots suffer from Grandiose Delusions.

          • 0
            0

            NV
            Many feel uncomfortable over the emphasis on INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS coupled with a political objective. you as well as the author of the main article Mr.Salter. For obvious reasons – for those who have a baggage to protect.. For example if UN officially adopts this definition what Mr Salter will have to say about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?. Your LTTE record is legendary as a non state actor. Tamil political class went even further. They justified even Cyanide around their own children’s neck! Does the history know of a greater example of violence against INNOCENT UNARMED CIVILIANS in order to achieve a political objective?

            Soma

    • 4
      1

      There are two ‘unlikes’ at this moment.
      One can see the brainwashing power of LTTE!

      Soma

      • 0
        0

        somass

        “One can see the brainwashing power of LTTE!”

        Only those who have feeble mind got brainwashed, you bought it lock, stock and barrel.
        I feel sorry for you.

        • 0
          0

          NV
          90% of Tamils have feeble minds?

          Soma

  • 2
    3

    Dear Mark and Dayan

    I am a bit surprised that both of you have discussed LTTE to this detail comparing and applying political science definitions and narratives/worldly references of various conflicts etc.

    As a Tamil Man born and bread in Jaffna I am fully versed with the Facist Nature in which we were all taken for a ride for 70 years by FP/ITAK/TULF under the cover/disguise of the democracy (with the conniving neighbours) resulting in the phenomenon LTTE whom you have applied all kind of scenarios to rationalise?? not sure the benefits of the analysis/who this is serving right after a parliamentary election??

    Is it possible you both can focus on what created all this in the first place….FP/ITAK/TULF sought solutions for the problems they have identified as the issues in a post colonial developing Nation and led the children and the mother Nation into this trap, death and misery etc.

    Given they still won 10 seats to the parliament would not it be appropriate you discuss their journey and their activities to date bench marking against every law of the land/international norms/democracy??? for all the destruction Mother Lanka has been through to date?? applying geo political nature/regional politics comparing other Nations how they have overcome this type of party handicap in a democracy??

  • 1
    2

    The war had a winner ( Government armed forces) and a loser (LTTE – the most ruthless terrorist organisation the world has ever known.) No analysis is complete without acknowledging this fact.

    Soma

    • 1
      0

      somass

      “The war had a winner ( Government armed forces) and a loser (LTTE – the most ruthless terrorist organisation the world has ever known.)”

      The war had quite a few winners, arms suppliers, merchants of death, brokers, Basil, Gota, their hangers on, lackeys (you, Weerawansa, …), …. war mongers, analysts, suppliers of war related goods and services, …. .

      Since LTTE never fought to win a war hence people know LTTE is neither a winner nor a loser. VP together with Gota sent every LTTE member to Martyrdom (Veera Maranam) that is what VP told its cadres. So all of them are in safe place.

      You naively claim “LTTE – the most ruthless terrorist organisation the world has ever known” without citing any reliable comparative studies. You name/brand LTTE as the the most ruthless terrorist organisation of the world and then make noises that the forces that wiped off LTTE must be the greatest, bravest, disciplined ………………. armed forces in the world. Don’t be stupid.

      First LTTE has never been ruthless terrorist organisation of the world. Second it was VP who destroyed LTTE with some help from Hindia, USA, Norway, ….. Don’t hype LTTE and then hype the stupid army which supposed to have destroyed it.

      • 1
        0

        somass

        Your claim LTTE being the most ruthless helped to justify war crimes on the part of the state, cover up civilian killings in mass scale, destruction of everything in the North East and allowed a substantial section of the police and armed forces to claim ransom from poor innocent people who had escaped from shelling and bombing in the North East.

        Actually those who committed war crimes made huge fortunes out of misery. Aren’t you one of them?

      • 0
        0

        NV
        Have you woken out of a coma?
        Refresh yourself:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE

        Soma

  • 1
    1

    Gatam

    Read your mahavansa your fairy tale history of Sinhalayas, It tells you after the victory of the Sinhalese over Tamils ( Ellalan V Gemunu ) a few years later Tamils reconquerd Srilanka and made you sinhalayas to eat our ( Tamil ) shit.History will repeat itself once again. Wait for another few years to see what is going to happen to the so- called victorious sinhala moda race.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.