Comments on: Bomb Attack on President’s Brother

By: indi.ca » Where The LTTE Went Wrong

indi.ca » Where The LTTE Went Wrong — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:54:26 +0000

[...] plan, in hindsight, but it failed. The Foreign Minister (incidentally, a Tamil) was killed but the Defence Secretary and the Army Commander survived. Hence they’re [...]

By: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Sri Lanka: Blast in Colombo

Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Sri Lanka: Blast in Colombo — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:03:53 +0000

[...] A blast in Colombo with the likely target being a Government Minister. More at Indi.ca who says “Thereâ€™s also a bank and a shopping mall, and a lot of working people pass through there on their way to or from Galle Road. So, that would be a civilian area. Bad form.”. Neha Viswanathan [...]

By: Tariq

Tariq — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:06:29 +0000

Apologies Blacker my mistake…

By: Ravana

Ravana — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:26:03 +0000

Agree with D.B. His meaning was pretty clear from the start, and was a reaction to reports that there was shooting still going on. In fact, I put up a comment about that myself, based on the CNN report that a gun battle was going on. I think this comment preceded DB’s comment, but strangely the comment has disappeared, along with a few other comments of mine on the Prabhakaran’s post.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:03:36 +0000

I’m generally never rude unless I intend to be, Liz. And if a comment is made out of ignorance, fine. But when certain comments are made with the calculation of pushing a particular agenda, I tend to lean towards scarcasm in my replies. I could, on the other hand, choose to be personally offensive by insulting the other posters family, ancestory, spouse, etc (as many do). Instead, I revert to sarcasm — snottiness if you will.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:56:05 +0000

Tariq, what’s the matter with you, do you need a lesson in present and past tense? I had posted that there was “no shooting” at 11.45am after having watched the 10.45am news coverage. There WAS NO SHOOTING AT THE TIME. What is unlear about this? Have I disputed anywhere that shots were fired? I have already said that shots were probably fired. Can I make it any clearer?

By: Liz

Liz — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:23:36 +0000

Right all, my bad if it sounds like I intended to excuse any of the shit the Tigers pull daily and decade-ly, or the danger that military personnel are in while doing their job and often doing it well (as in this case).

I do however stand by wishing for a de-sneering of online conversation, much good may it do me or any of us. We’ve got what’s basically telepathy on the page, go humanity!, but are letting the pissy, territorial reptile-brain speak. Wasteful.

By: ghostwriter

ghostwriter — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:28:21 +0000

If commentors like Jill hadn’t been around, I for one would have forgotten that the army actually spends its entire training budget on telling soldiers to panic and shoot indiscriminately whilst on a protection detail.

So, your problem was that shots were fired in the air in the aftermath of a suicide bombing? Perhaps you can type out a polite comment castigating the LTTE leadership for sending exploding Tigers into the streets of Colombo while you’re at it.

It seems that you really don’t know jack after all, Jill.

By: Tariq

Tariq — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:15:39 +0000

Are you for real Jill? if someone is willing to blow themselves up even the most layered security detail will be unable to stop an assassination attempt… in this case the fact that their ‘mark’ (i.e. The Def Sec) survived actually means that they did their job and did it damn well… these guys put their lives on the line every second of the day to protect someone elses and they should be respected for that…

By: Tariq

Tariq — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:08:23 +0000

2006-12-01 11:35:47
NO shooting going on. Repeat, NO shooting.

2006-12-02 10:05:41
I didnâ€™t dispute the fact that shots were fired. Please read BEFORE typing.

Shouldn’t you follow blog etiquette before ranting…?

At the end of the day shots were fired.. but I completely agree that there is no way in hell these were from ‘panicky’ soldiers… those selected for this type of duty are selected from the elite.

My uncle is currently a very senior officer in the armoured co. but has trained both special forces and members from the presidential security division and the way he speaks of their professionalism and abilities leaves no room for doubt that ‘panic’ is something that they just don’t do… IF they were firing there would have been a damn good reason for it.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:42:10 +0000

Oh, and btw, the LTTE failed to get the Army leadership. Again. As they failed yesterday to get the Defence Sec. You seem vaguely frustrated by these failures, Jill, and your posts sound like you’re scrabbling to find some piece of dirt that might save the day and not make the LTTE look like they buggered up entirely. Yes, a few innocent bystanders shot by the Army would’ve been something the haters could’ve held up as a consolation prize. Sorry, didn’t happen. Better luck next time.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:35:41 +0000

I didn’t dispute the fact that shots were fired. Please read BEFORE typing. It’s the most basic of blog ettiquette to actually read the post you are attempting to respond to. I don’t think basic literacy is too much to ask for, is it? But to save you the trouble, Jill, let me repeat what I said. I said that there was no continuing ‘gun battle’, as some had claimed; there was no panicky shooting at by standers as others had assumed. It’s uite likely that shots were fired into the air to clear a path.

It’s quite telling, Jill, that you didn’t, in your first post, hope that too many innocent bystanders hadn’t been killed or injured by the bomb, but that instead you hoped that none were killed by the Army. Are there somehow two categories of ‘innocent bystander’?

By: Outsider

Outsider — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:35:05 +0000

Regarding comments from some of you ( Jill, Etc..))simply shows how naive some of you can be. It’s a simple fact that it is hard to stop suicide bombers. When they don’t have respect for their own lives, is it very simple to understand their morals and values.
So why criticize the people who at least are trying to do their job to protect our leaders.

As for Liz, I don’t think Blaker sounds snotty at all. He seems to understand the facts behind “these”, more than some of you guys out there.

By: Jill who?

Jill who? — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:24:56 +0000

“When the elite well trained troops canâ€™t protect their own Army leadership it doesnâ€™t say much of their procedures or training. ”

Jill….If terrorist’s we’re able to bring down the WTC, NYC….anything is possible. Considering that SL is a third world country, the “Elite soldiers” I would say, should be commended for protecting the defence sec.
And I don’t understand why everyone is talking about soldier’s firing their guns when you really should be blasting
the suicide bombers who are responsible. If not for them, there wouldn’t be any dead innocent bystanders.
Terrorist’s are cowards and should be eliminated.

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:32:58 +0000

Gihan’s explanation sounds plausible. Shots were fired for a fact, Blacker seems to dispute that. One doesnt have to state the obvious that LTTE are ruthless murderers without a conscience. When the elite well trained troops can’t protect their own Army leadership it doesn’t say much of their procedures or training.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:43:04 +0000

Well, Liz, I find it annoying when people continue to persist with fantasies like the ‘panicky soldier’ theory even so late in the day, when it’s obvious to everyone looking at the pix or driving past the bombsite that there are no bullet holes anywhere around. There have been NO gunshot injuries reported. Why persist with this line of bias? These are elite well trained troops, not line infantry even. If you don’t like the military, just say so and move on. Don’t attempt to make up stories that have no basis of fact. I find it a bit repulsive that the only people to blame here seem to be the soldiers who didn’t kill anyone, and not the terrorists who just killed innocent bystanders because they bungled a suicide bombing.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:32:39 +0000

DB, you are knowledgeable and it’s another scary event, but what use is there in using such a snotty tone?

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:21:18 +0000

Yes, when there’s a ‘massacre’ or a dozen or so are ‘genocided’, it’s not because of panic. Try and be consistent in your ignorance. Funny how everyone starts talking about panicky soldiers instead of the terrorists who actually did kill innocent bystanders today. No one was shot today; many were blown to bits. Who’s panicking here?

By: ghostwriter

ghostwriter — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:03:15 +0000

As opposed to all the other people running around with guns and explosives who went to the best finishing schools.

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:09:50 +0000

Sri Lankan soldiers aren’t the best trained, so wouldn’t be surprised if they did shoot bystanders in panic. The past record of the army here doesn’t inspire much confidence (the same well-trained army that gunned down French aid workers, massacred innocent students who happened to be bystanders when a convoy hit a claymore).

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:21:19 +0000

No, sadly all the innocents managed to avoids the “panic”-stricken soldiers spraying indiscriminately into the huge crowds standing by and cheering (you see close protection details are hand picked for their panic value, and when not sufficiently panicky, special training is given to induce the right amount of panic). Another unfortunate thing was that the first thing a soldier thinks when he sees a dismembered terrorist on the ground is that he might as well use up all those spare 30-round mags that were gathering dust in the back of the Defender. And what better target than the teeming multitudes of innocents that always gather around in anticipation of a likely suicide bombing. There must have been literally hundreds of innocents massacred by those horrible naughty men in uniform.

By: Sripala

Sripala — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:06:10 +0000

Sorry to hear about the bomb blast that shook the capital, luckily our defence secretary has escaped, but we shouldn’t forget this is all due to hard line stand against the conflict. I feel more sorry for the peoplw in the North east who are not only being starved, but being bombed and children are being taken away by our troops too. This is just one bomb, but that is their daily life. I have heard worse things about people suffering in Jaffna from my cousin who was in the Sri lankan army. I feel ashamed to be a Srilankan Buddhist.

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:14:01 +0000

I heard shots being fired right after the explosion. Soldiers in panic must’ve opened fire cause if its a suicide bombing there would not be any targets worth shooting at, hope no innocents were killed.

By: gihan

gihan — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:00:25 +0000

Apparently the gunshots were a result of the guards firing into the air to make way for Gotabhaya to be taken directly to Nawaloka – where he was cleared of any injury. no shootout or gunbattle.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:29:31 +0000

I said there is NO gunfire, not that there never had been. Read BEFORE typing, not the other way around, Idiotee.