why only sihalese fucker call youself tamil fucker too. All u tamil fuckers live in the south the slaves of the whit men thats why they are trying to help you fuckers

Haha. But seriously take my comments in jest. I don’t discriminate you will notice that I said “I don’t want to see those poor fuckers (Tamils), it ruins my appetite”

You sound like a tight assed Sinhala Buddhist to me. Lighten up asshole.

And you sound like a Sinhala Christian cocksucker PravNJ.

Haha thats rich. I’m neither. I’m also done trying to be politically correct. I’m calling it like it is. Are you denying the fact that the Sinhala Buddhists of this country have been acting like idiots? I’m sorry but theres no other way of “identifying” the pious lot that justifies throwing a grenade at a two bit bollywood star and wanted to kill that Senegalese “hip-hop” singer who makes my ears bleed with his auto-tune. Ok lets drop the Sinhalese since we are going for accuracy and all. Buddhists have made a mess and theres no denying it. I pity you and them.

“Haha thats rich. I’m neither.”

then you must be a Muslim fundamentalist

*I’m not content with just seeing powers that be scared….

“Party politics is a goddamn sham. This country does not deserve any better.”, lines like this just piss me off, and I’m not even nationalist. Somebody ought to knock some sense into your overly-critical, pessimistic ass.

@rangouk
That somebody definitely isn’t going to be you. You don’t look like you can knock anything into anything apart from into your own metaphorical vagina.

can some of these enlightened critics tell me how they would have handled the Vanni situation.

and one other thing, if such a large number of people were killed in such a small area in such a small period of time. where are the bodies, and why didn’t all these spy satellites pick them up. There should have been bodies lying about in concentrated patches. Why didn’t any of these satellites pick up these piles of dead civilians. We saw acres of civilian camps destroyed by RT, but where were the bodies. these high res satellite pictures should have picked up the bodies amongst the rubble.

@Dodo
Where’s the photographs of the aliens who kidnapped Elvis? There aren’t any. That doesn’t mean Elvis wasn’t kidnapped by aliens. Where’s the scientific evidence for Michael Jackson is from Mars? There’s none. Still everybody knows he’s from Mars.

Wouldn’t want to hurt you, panchek nae, apae hutha pancha. :)

Oh don’t worry rangouk. I’m not going to put my penis into a goblin’s vagina and hurt myself.

How can any vagina hurt that little thing? It’s physically impossible.

Wow thats news! So Sir Roth FunnyShaker has a vagina? So what does “Wannabe King RogerProxy have? Like Hitler probably half a ball? And maybe his idiot eldest son Ipang was cloned from a hippopotamus? Wonder who created his other 2 sons Opang and Japang? Maybe they were abducted (in a white van) from their chimpanzee mother who lived in the De He Wal La Zoo Ro Casualties animal orphanage? Or was it virgin births from from virgin Wannabe Queen Cheee Ran Thee?

By the way did you know that Sai Baba kicked the bucket? I thought the bugger was immortal? Wannabe Kings and their extended families and running dogs who contribute to forums like this should take note that nothing is permanent! Yesterday it was Roly Poly PreeBio Carrom…tomorrow it will be Wannabe King RogerProxy…

glad to oblige. pass the word ;)

aadhavan, have you actually read the full report. Or just the executive summary.

The “persecution” allegation is pretty scary. It sure is broad and makes the government look pretty bad as if they went after their own people. What bothers me is that these so called civilian “objects” were in fact commandeered by the LTTE at the time. I think its naive to assume that the civilians had control over their property and such when the LTTE was shooting at them at point blank range. This is probably true of the hospital incident.

There also seems to be little or no mention of the forced recruiting by the LTTE during the latter stages. Granted they do mention that the LTTE used the civilians as human shields but this is only in passing. Right now I feel like giving the benefit to the armed forces. Frankly I don’t think they had any more options left after forcing the LTTE to the beaches. From a tactical standpoint the only other option would have been top starve the LTTE into submission by literally blocking supplies but then the army would have been starving the civilians as well.

Having read the report I think that the LTTE should bear the larger portion of the blame. Using the civilians as human shields and forcing them to move with the LTTE is a sick and disgusting tactic that forced the army to resort to the only option available.

The point!

Oh, ok. That’s a pretty strange distinction there – areas v objects, but you’re right if your claim is that civilian objects can become military objects if they’re used for a military advantage. However, it’s worth noting that there is a presumption in favour of civilian status in IHL. The Panel Report is pretty clear that the hospitals, RDHS supply points, the UN “hub” at PTK and the area near the ICRC ship were clearly civilian areas. Your claim that a town can in its entirety become a military object because it’s fortified and used to “block access” to the other party is a pretty astonishing claim. There is an obligation at all times to distinguish between civilian and military objects which is why indiscriminate shelling is also a war crime. The claim that the govt absolutely needed to shell the safe zones is falsified by the govt’s own statements around the end of April that they had no need to use heavy weapons and would terminate their use. Clearly, they continued to use them which is one of the reasons they are in trouble.

Look, I’ve no intention to try to convince you of the validity of the legal claims in the report. It’s a 196 page document and is for the most part self contained. I find the report to be interesting as a legal document, but I wish some of the gory factual details it claims weren’t true – they are just too painful to stomach and tell of untold suffering. However, you had a whole bunch UN IHL expers staffing the office of panel and the Panelists themselves were no strangers to international law. Obviously, a lot of supporters of the govt’s campaign will feel that the military’s conduct of the war wasn’t criminal. There just isn’t the appetite in Sri Lanka to own up to these crimes, which is why their investigation and prosecution will necessarily be spearheaded internationally.

NB – technically the GC’s don’t apply to this war because it was a non-international armed conflict and Sri Lanka hasn’t ratified protocol 2. Common article 3 applies along with a body of customary IHL which can be accessed through the ICRC study on customary IHL.

Re the persecution claim, find and search “This campaign constituted persecution of the population of the Vanni” in the exec summary.

Cheers

The distinction between civilian areas and civilian objects isn’t strange at all. 90% of a nation is a civilian area. A town or city is a civilian area. There can, however, be military objects within civilian areas. Example, the SL Army HQ is a military object in the middle of Colombo, which is a civilian area. The military object is a legitimate target, and its proximity to civilians doesn’t make it an illegitimate or illegal target. An attacker is only obliged to take reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties. So if an artillery piece is positioned alongside a hospital, or an AA gun is positioned on the roof of a school, they maybe engaged regardless of the fact that the hospital maybe in use or the school full of children.

There is almost never “indiscriminate shelling” in my experience. Artillery –especially in SL — is just too valuable to waste. The phrase is often itself indiscriminately used, mostly as a result of ignorance. Aid workers and civilians usually have little more than a very vague knowledge of the weapons in use and the positions of the combatants. So when a shell hits them it seems indiscriminate because it came from where they think one side or the other is and seemed to target no one but them. Usually the witnesses have no clue what’s going on beyond their immediate surroundings and everything seems very random. Not their fault, but the fault of those who quote them as credible witnesses.

I guess my explanation about the fortified town must seem astonishing; but just as the attackers must endeavour to minimise civilian casualties, the defenders are also obliged to ensure that they don’t endanger civilians when defending their lines. However, if the defenders don’t evaccuate a town prior to fortifying it for defence, the blame is primarily on them. Stalin intentionally allowed Stalingrad’s citizens to remain in place to create difficulties for the Germans. VP intentionally surrounded his troops with Tamil civilians. Etc. A defended position is a military target.

THe SL Army definitely needed to shell the NFZs, regardless of what the GoSL said. As I explained before, the declaration of NFZs was simply an area denial tactic. If the Tigers decided to defend the area even after it had been declared an NFZ, it still had to be captured. The NFZs had no legitimacy because the Tigers hadn’t agreed to them. So neither side is in trouble for either attacking or defending the NFZs. Unless of course you believe the GoSL propaganda.

I don’t believe the SL Army conduct was criminal. There were surely crimes and atrocities committed, as there inevitably is in war. But the campaign itself was conducted by the book. If and when there is a real investigation, and if any guilty parties on the SL military side are uncovered, you will find that they are individuals using their own initiative or following specific orders. There was no criminal conduct as policy or strategy or tactic.

I don’t think ratification is necessary for guilt in war. The Tigers hadn’t ratified any part of the GCs, yet (if they were alive) they would be held accountable as violators of them. Similarly, the GoSL.

This is what the summary say: “large-scale and widespread shelling causing large numbers of civilian deaths. This campaign constituted persecution of the population of the Vanni. Around 330,000 civilians were trapped into an ever-decreasing area, fleeing the shelling but kept hostage by the LTTE.” Bit contradictory, no? As usual. One hand it doesn’t say that the military campaign itself was persecution, but the shelling, so the word “campaign” is misleading. On the other hand it points out that civilians fleeing the shelling were held hostage by the Tigers. So like most UN documents it’ll leave plaenty of wiggle room.

para 1 – ya ok. that makes sense. the juxtaposition of a technical term with a common term was confusing but this makes sense.
para 2 – witnesses don’t make claims about indiscriminate shelling. they tell you where and when they got shelled. lawyers like the ones who drafted the report make claims about what is indiscriminate because it’s a legal term with a precise legal definition.
para 3 – there is no question of primary and secondary blame known to IHL. we’re in criminal territory here, not delictual. in common parlance, if it’s a war crime it’s a war crime. a defended position like a town does not make the entire town a military target. that’s a clear violation of the rule of distinction. i can’t really say any more except to ask you to trust me on this one. i’ve drafted these sorts of indictments.
para 4 – i wasn’t talking about the setting up of NFZs, I was talking about the govt’s statement in late April that they would stop shelling because all their military objectives could be achieved through the use of light weapons. that statement right there was an admission that any use of heavy artillery was disproportionate. they used heavy artillery after making the statement. ting ting ting…war crime!
para 5 – nice to know what your views are.
para 6 – the only applicable IHL here is common article 3 and customary law. this helps the govt. really. don’t contest it.
para 7- no, not contradictory because in criminal law, one crime doesn’t justify another. all the best with the wiggle room. except international lawyers of the type who will conduct the investigative mechanism the UNSG will set up are mostly hardened bastards who don’t like wiggle room.

” I was talking about the govt’s statement in late April that they would stop shelling because all their military objectives could be achieved through the use of light weapons. that statement right there was an admission that any use of heavy artillery was disproportionate. they used heavy artillery after making the statement. ting ting ting…war crime!”

How is that a war crime?

Para 2: It maybe a legal term, but the report is being read by laymen who will see “indiscriminate” as literal. If your claim is that “indiscriminate” covers literal indiscrimination as well as discrimination, it’ll be pretty simple to field a legal defence.

Para 3: As I said, the report doesn’t state whether entire areas were targeted or whether certain military objects within civilian areas were targeted. If the latter, then it is not a war crime, regardless if civilians suffered casualties, as long as the military took reasonable precautions to avoid said casualties. On the other hand, the intentional holding of civilians as hostages (which the report claims the Tigers did), with the knowledge that this would cause casualties to said civilians, is unambiguously a war crime.

Para 4: You’re assuming that the GoSL statement that heavy weapons was unnecessary was in fact true, and not merely propaganda. The GoSL’s word on this is insufficient, and not objective. Rules of engagement set by the combatants have no standing, because they may not be based on actual laws such as the GCs. For example, if the GoSL had declared that the use of heavy artillery or cluster munitions was necessary, would they be absolved of criminal conduct simply on that statement? I doubt it.

Para 6: You’re assuming I’m attempting to defend the GoSL :D The fact is the NFZs have no legitimacy any more than the GoSL statement on the use of heavy weapons.

Para 7: Oh, I’m sure the international lawyers who will defend the GoSL in the unlikely event of prosecution will be just as hardened and paid to find just that wiggle room and exploit it ;)

para 2 – that’s confusing again, but i don’t blame you. these legal issues sure are knotty. indiscriminate put simply means the failure to distinguish. the duty to distinguish is also a legal term and has a precise legal meaning. so unless you read through the literature and the case law etc etc it’s pretty hard for someone to determine what “indiscriminate” means in IHL. lawyers decide these questions. not common observers.
para 3 – the report said the attacks did not distinguish and thus were indiscriminate. i don’t know what else to say. the tigers’ crime of using human shields has nothing to do with culpability for indiscriminate shelling.
para 4 – the govt statement may have been propaganda, but it will be used against them to demonstrate that the GoSL’s stated view wad that heavy arty attacks were disproportionate. anything you say can and will be held against you. it’s a bitch, i know.
para 6- the only applicable law is common art 3 and CIL. the term no-fire-zone has no meaning in intl law. the govt proclamation that the area was a NFZ has no bearing on the legal regime governing this situation. fire zone or no fire zone – the applicable law doesn’t really change.
para 7 – yes, but unless you want GoSL defence lawyers to destroy their reputations by mounting the defence that one crime justifies another, there’s no real wiggle room. :) trust me blacker, if top-notch international lawyers are retained by individuals on the govt side they will mount some pretty clever defences. that’s what they’re paid good money to do. i doubt any one of them will even remotely resemble the ones we’ve seen trotted out here.

Para 2: I don’t disagree with you on what the legal terminology means in a court of law. My point was that at the moment the Ban report is being discussed and commented on by laymen. The other thing is that the report doesn’t say how it determined that the artillery gunners didn’t distinguish between civilians and Tigers. So wouldn’t you agree that showing the accused did in fact distinguish between the two when conducting strikes would be an effective defence?

Para 3: If the Tigers were shown to have moved civilians into areas (as slave labour on fortifications etc) that were previously distinguished beyond reasonable doubt to be legitimate military targets, wouldn’t you agree that the Tiger use of such hostages or human shields would certainly affect the SL Army’s culpability in the crime of shelling civilians?

Para 4: Confessions are frequently overturned when they are subsequently shown to be untrue. In addition, the defence could argue that circumstances had changed subsequent to the GoSL declaration, and that while the use of heavy weapons may have initially been determined to be unnecessary, they were later determined to be necessary. The problem is that the GoSL declaration is a very weak factor in the equation, and will easily be disregarded under scrutiny.

Para 6: Exactly my point. The Tigers cannot be accused of criminal conduct for having defended the NFZs or moved weapons and troops into the NFZ subsequent to its declaration by the SL military; and neither can the SL military be accused of war crimes simply on the grounds of having conducted attacks against the NFZs. The latter have no relevance.

Para 7: As I’ve pointed out above, the issue isn’t whether one crime justifies another, but whether the initial crime caused the civilian casualties attributed to the second alleged crime.

Also, as I’ve already said, if MR, GR, etc are prosecuted as individuals after sufficient evidence is found of criminal conduct, I’ve no objections. What I think is unlikely is that they will be prosecuted individually or as a whole as representatives of the GoSL. Nevertheless, I don’t see either happening. The evidence just isn’t there the way it was in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc. It’s just tilting at windmills.

lol. so suddenly government lying on record is also a war crime. Whether the arty is disproportionate or not should be established based on whether the force is disproportionate. not whether the government used more force than they thought they needed.

Blacker, excerpts of the report serialised in today’s island answer all your questions. it’s a good, clear read.

dodo – “While the Panel does not have information on all incidents, credible allegations suggest numerous violations of this provision insofar as the attacks on the NFZs were broadly disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated from such attacks. The Government’s repeated declaration that it had ceased using heavy weapons in these NFZs points to awareness that such usage could be considered disproportionate.”

aadhavan, even in the way you have written your response down makes my point pretty clear. The best can tell is that the government of SL may have thought the force was disproportionate. It may have been many other things as well. I’m no lawyer, so i don’t know what exactly needs to be done from a prosecution perspective to establish the use of disproportionate force

Don’t have access to the papers at the moment, Aadhavan. Got a link?

Unless the report quotes expert witnesses, I doubt that a panel that never visited the NE could rule on what was proportionate or not. Your suggestion that the GoSL statement might have been made to counter a view that its tactics were disproportionate, confirms that the statement had nothing to do with reality but was merely propaganda. The more you argue, the less incriminating this GoSL statement looks.

OK, I just read the Island piece. I’m afraid it’s just more of the same broad assumptions, much quoting of unknown but “credible” allegations, imposition of intent without any substantiation, etc etc. None of it comes close to answering the points I’ve raised, Aadhavan. Perhaps you could quote any portion that brings some clarity to this discussion?

Observers are suggesting that the only reason this report is getting any legitimacy in SL is because the GoSL wants it to distract attention from actual problems. It’s looking more like the usual heavy farting and no shitting on the part of the UN.

Looks like others have realized they’re flogging dead horses too. :)

Yes, but the word ‘area’ is not found in any of the literature, so I was curious as to how you came up with it.

You draw another fascinating distinction. True, the law of war could be regarded as conceptually distinct from IHL. But if you did some reading on the two subjects, you would have noticed that there has been a well documented historical convergence between IHL and the law of war. Soldiers and officials cannot treat the two as separate. You don’t have to be in a war to know that. Since you appear to have some contempt for scholarly writing, I suggest you at least google this.

Also, if we began to claim some superior knowledge merely based on cursory battlefield experience, or a tryst in the army mess, then I’m afraid the debate ends there.

So I must limit my vocabulary to what is found in the literature? :D My definition of “area” is the dictionary definition. There is probably a parallel definition in IHL, and I suggest you look for it. If no such definition exists in IHL then how can it possibly be used in the context of battlefield realities? I assure you civilian areas exist on the battlefield. So rather than tie yourself up in knots over terminology, I suggest you make your point. If you have one.

I didn’t say that the law of war was necessarily distinct from IHL. There is certainly an overlap between the two, and my interest in IHL is limited to its application in war. I have no contempt for scholarly writing, but for self-procalimed scholars who seem to think that if something doesn’t exist in a textbook it doesn’t exist.

Also, if we claim to have some superior scholarly knowledge merely based on the ability to post a booklist or a couple of links, the debate would end there too. So as I said before, if you think that there is anything in your links that is relevant to this discussion, I suggest you quote them and make your point. I am quite uninterested in reading through some link of yours in the hope that there’s something in there that you’re alluding to. Life is too short for sanctimony.

I’m quite comfortable with using dictionary terms to describe something. I was only confused as to how the terminology fits into the framework of IHL. After all, the discussion was on the UN Panel Report. The last time I checked, allegations of war crimes pretty neatly falls into the sphere of IHL.

This is what you should have read in the Sassòli piece. (If you did, perhaps we may have had a serious debate on theory and practical application, given your ‘heat of the battle’ experiences. I would have enjoyed that.)

‘When a certain object is used for both military and civilian purposes, it may be held that even a secondary military use turns it into a military objective. However, if the effects on the civilian use of the object imply excessive damages to civilians, an attack on such a dual-use object may nevertheless be unlawful under the proportionality rule. In practice, it may admittedly be extremely difficult to determine the importance of the military use and of the military advantage in destroying the object, in particular if the military has priority access to all remaining infrastructure. Under the wording of Protocol I, an attack on a dual-use object is in any event unlawful if the effect on the civilian aspect is intended, but the respect of that particular rule is impossible to assess in the heat of the battle.”

Now I’m not going to spell out why this passage is relevant to the Panel Report. It seems self-evident. But in retrospect, I apologize for engaging in what clearly appears to be a comical foray into pseudo-intellectualism. Perhaps even on my part. But next time you say, “the Geneva Conventions do not prohibit the attacking of civilian areas”, don’t forget to add the “just kidding! :)” at the end. Saves me the trouble of taking you seriously.

“an attack on a dual-use object is in any event unlawful if the effect on the civilian aspect is intended, but the respect of that particular rule is impossible to assess in the heat of the battle.”

I’m assuming here that you actually understand the above. If the effect on the civilian aspect is intended. I repeat, the GCs do not prohibit the attacking of civilian areas. No kidding ;)

Next time, do read the stuff you’re linking to. Will save me the trouble of explaining it to you. Run along now.

One more thing, it is upto the law to declare where and how an act fits into it. My area is war, not law, though I’m quite aware of how the law applies to war. So if you feel that my terminology doesn’t fit the terminology of the law, it’s upto you to clarify the law’s coverage of the area under discussion, hopefully with an unambiguous quote of the law. So far you’ve not been unable to do so. I’m quite aware that interpretation of law is allowed, and that this can help lawyers defend and prosecute, and that you might therefore be unable to provide an unambiguous quote. That’s OK. But if you want to have any credibility, you need to have a better line than “I know better”.

ROFL

“my area is war, not law”

That definitely belongs in a movie, preferably one with Bruce Willis acting.

I was hoping you’d pick up on that. I sent you those links in order to at least provide you with a premise to argue your point. I’m not dismissing your arguments altogether, merely attempting to put them in the right perspective. As I politely mentioned before, the issue of dual-use objects is complicated because IHL seems to permit their targeting under extreme circumstances. Concepts such as intentionality and proportionality will have to be carefully applied to the given facts.

Clever boy. You managed to figure out that attacking a dual-use object is unlawful if the effect on the civilian aspect is intentional. Now, let’s apply this rule to one of your scenarios. An attack on a barricaded town (which you obstinately insist on describing as a ‘civilian area’, even though the law doesn’t care about ‘areas’, only ‘individuals’ and ‘objects’) with civilians inside it is unlawful if:
a) the effect on the civilian aspect is disproportionate to the perceived military gain; or
b) the effect on the civilian aspect is proven to be intentional.

Wow. Now, isn’t that fascinating?

So let’s once again look at your comment: “GCs do not prohibit the attacking of civilian areas.” If you apply dictionary definitions, of course, you can’t say the conventions place a blanket prohibition an attacking, say, a town, as objects inside the town may be military objects or dual-use objects (surprise, surprise, you can attack a tank located inside a town! Who knew?). So that’s like saying, the law doesn’t prohibit me from driving a car, when I stand accused of intentionally knocking someone down. Barring the NFZ, those seriously analyzing the UN Panel Report are not going to even pause to think about civilian ‘areas’. The issue is whether the conventions prohibit the attack of certain dual-use objects within your so-called civilian area, town, whatever. That’s where the law gets complicated. That’s why I referred you to writing that attempts to examine the issue. Hope we’re on the same page now.

Good gooly, Gehan, you went to all that trouble of tying yourself in knots just to agree with me? Next time, why don’t you save us all the time and just say “Yes, David, you’re right” :D

Thank you for your concern in supporting my theory, but I think I was doing OK right along without the necessity of using terminology that would make things clear to you. If you had read my initial comment you would have understood that I already knew that intent is what is crucial in the prosecution of war crimes. You can pat yourself on the back if you wish and declare that you taught me that, but Aadhavan have been discussing this as far back as five years ago.

I’m not too bothered what the law cares about, Gehan, as you put it; only whether the parties are guilty or not under the law.

“So that’s like saying, the law doesn’t prohibit me from driving a car, when I stand accused of intentionally knocking someone down.”

Precisely why if you were to then argue that the law doesn’t recognise a car, you would look just as foolish as you’re doing now. I hope by now you’ve figured out that bringing a straw man into a debate and then proceeding to burn said man doesn’t really contribute to the discussion.

The discussion (FYI) was on whether the SL military and the GoSL is guilty of war crimes, not how the law views war. Perhaps you need to check your page number.

Nope, I didn’t say I agree with you either. Just pointed out that your premise was convoluted. I’m quite aware of what Aadhavan thinks of your theory, so let’s not go where one is likely to get embarrassed.

When you stand accused of running someone over, you don’t waste time reminding the judge that it’s legal to drive a car.
When you stand accused of targeting civilian objects, you don’t waste time reminding the tribunal that its OK to target objects in so-called civilian ‘areas’…particularly when the tribunal is likely to ask you ‘wtf are you talking about?’ You have to prove that the ‘objects’ you targeted were either military objects or that the incident falls within the narrow permissible sphere in which dual-use objects can be targeted. I hope you get the analogy now.

Alas, you’ve stumbled upon the topic of discussion. “The discussion (FYI) was on whether the SL military and the GoSL is guilty of war crimes.” Yet you remain averse to discussing IHL seriously. How the heck does one respond to that? Good ‘gooly’ indeed.

Forgetting all them petty contradictions, the question remains: was the GoSL guilty of using disproportionate means to target dual-purpose objects (let alone civilian objects)? Was the effect on civilian aspects during shelling campaigns ‘intentional’? (I’m almost afraid to begin a discussion on what ‘intention’ means in the int. criminal law context, as that may require more deadly scholarly works.) Now, to answer these questions, you would need to look at IHL. Yikes, it appears that reference to this particular field of law is a conversation stopper over in this neck of the woods. I’ll run along now. Cheers.

Things often seem convoluted when one lacks an understanding of the subject or has failed to actually listen to the conversation before getting involved. You’re not the first, Gehan, to realise the situ in SL is convoluted. Congrats on being able to admit it.

You wouldn’t have to remind the judge that it’s legal to drive a car, but you might occasionally have to remind the prosecution.

“When you stand accused of targeting civilian objects, you don’t waste time reminding the tribunal that its OK to target objects in so-called civilian ‘areas’”

But the GoSL doesn’t stand accused of trageting civilian objects before a tribunal :D The report is merely to the UNSG and has no legitimacy to the UN. So to treat it as an indictment is a bit foolish, and that’s infortunately becoming a habit around here.

“You have to prove that the ‘objects’ you targeted were either military objects or that the incident falls within the narrow permissible sphere in which dual-use objects can be targeted. I hope you get the analogy now.”

Er… no. It would be upto the prosecution to prove that the objects targeted were civilian objects or dual purpose objects not within the permissable sphere. Or does presumption of innocence not apply in IHL?

“Alas, you’ve stumbled upon the topic of discussion. “

Really? Thank goodness you bumbled in to set us right.

“Yet you remain averse to discussing IHL seriously.”

Not at all. I’m quite interested in discussing any areas of IHL the SL military might have broken; I am however quite uninterested in discussing IHL terminology just because you’ve no one to talk to at home.

“Now, to answer these questions, you would need to look at IHL.”

I’d suggest first looking at the crime scene ;) as any investigator will tell you. Do stop by again, but try and bring something to the discussion with you next time. Ta-ta.

Oh, and your subtitling of Aadhavan is pretty touching too.

That last response was hysterical. Thanks. I’m guessing you picked the lingo up from watching Ally McBeal and CSI. Yes, you’re right. The burden of proof, if there is an indictment, lies with the prosecution. But both sides, defense and prosecution, I assure you, will be focusing their attention on IHL and the distinctions I have drawn.

I did read the discussion earlier, and all I see is others disagreeing with your sentiments and specifically attempting to school you in IHL (perhaps they were more subtle). You’re welcome to point to any nuance I have missed.

“But the GoSL doesn’t stand accused of trageting civilian objects before a tribunal”. That’s an acute observation, champ. Great way to respond to an analogy.

“The report is merely to the UNSG and has no legitimacy to the UN.” I can’t think of the tv show you would have got that from. Sorry. Care to share how you came to that conclusion?

AFIK the sec gen’s job is to administer the UN not set it’s policy. this is policy matter, therefore the has no legitimacy as a document that effects UN policy.

May be. But the fact that he can’t unilaterally set policy is not the same as saying the report has no legitimacy to the UN, does it? The report advises the SG on a variety of things including what steps to take. I’m guessing the steps he does decide to take cannot be dismissed as lacking legitimacy to the UN. For instance, check Art.99 of the UN Charter.

Btw, I’m using the terms ‘legitimacy to the UN’ to link it to Blacker’s statement, and not because it’s grammatically correct.

OK if that’s what you mean by legitimacy in this context you’re correct.

“I’m guessing you picked the lingo up from watching Ally McBeal and CSI.”

Hmm, guesswork seems to play a large part in your analyses. Is that a part of IHL too? Or did you learn about war from watching Saving Private Ryan?

“But both sides, defense and prosecution, I assure you, will be focusing their attention on IHL and the distinctions I have drawn.”

Oh thanks for your assurances, but I think the only part of IHL they will be focusing on is its application to the war in SL, and not whether they’ve got the terminology right.

“I did read the discussion earlier, and all I see is others disagreeing with your sentiments and specifically attempting to school you in IHL

Really? That casts some doubts then on your abilities in perception.

“That’s an acute observation, champ. Great way to respond to an analogy.”

Perhaps you need to first figure out what an analogy is, Sherlock. I doubt an indictment will be filled with the sort of fuzzy ambiguity and broad assumptions that the Ban report is.

“The report advises the SG on a variety of things including what steps to take. I’m guessing the steps he does decide to take cannot be dismissed as lacking legitimacy to the UN.”

Only if his subsequent steps are first approved by either the UNGA or the UNSC. Until then any steps he might take will have no legitimacy, just as the report has no legitimacy. So beyond bringing it to the UN there are no legitimate steps the UNSG can take. In the case of SL, attention was already brought before the UNSC and action rejected. This has already damaged any legitimacy the Ban report might have. For such a report to actually have any legitimacy it would need to be sanctioned by a UN body.

Do carry on with your red herrings, Gehan.

Calm down, mate. No need to get agitated over Internet banter.

The UNSC has never considered Sri Lankan war crimes. The Human Rights Council has, and the initiative failed. The Panel asks the UN HRC to reconsider its special resolution of May 2009.

I’m perfectly calm, “mate”.

The panel has no authority to ask the HRC to do anything, because it is only an advisory panel to the SG. The SG’s decision to set up the panel had no legitimacy as far as UN proceedings are considered, especially given previous failures to spur the UN to take the very action the SG undertook on his own initiative. As I said. Should I use shorter words and less semi-colons?

You don’t sound calm, buster. Anyway, it’s not a question of authority. The ‘Advisory’ Panel doesn’t issue orders. It makes recommendations. There is no question as to whether it is legitimate for the SG to be advised by such a panel or for him to act under Art.99 upon receiving such advice. Only Russia and Sri Lanka have made the illegitimacy argument. You’re in great company.

Gehan, what is not so great company as far as the UN is concern?

“You don’t sound calm, buster. “

I think we’ve already established that perception isn’t your forte, Gehan, so why not stick to the subject matter rather than stretch your already overextended skills any further?

“It makes recommendations.”

To the SG, not the UNHRC or the UNSC. Anyone can make recommendations, but whether those recommendations will be considered valid, never mind acted upon, is what constitutes legitimacy in the context of advisory panels. As far as the UNHRC is concerned, the Ban panel has no official status, and any consideration shown will be to the SG himself if he chooses to follow the recommendations of the panel. Many steps to go, Gehan, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. What’s next — pretend this is a tribunal?

“There is no question as to whether it is legitimate for the SG to be advised by such a panel or for him to act under Art.99 upon receiving such advice.”

But the legitimacy of the panel to advise the SG was never in doubt. If you were to write Ban an email, that isn’t a illegitimate either vis a vis the SG’s right to receive recommendations from anyone he chooses to; however, the question was whether the panel is legitimate in the context of the UN’s view on SL, and in that is not. Keep flogging that horse, “mate”, maybe you’ll raise a pulse yet.

“Only Russia and Sri Lanka have made the illegitimacy argument. “

Which country’s must raise the point before it becomes valid in your eyes? As a “lawyer”, you should know that one country is as good as another in the UN, especially the the HRC ;)

Yes, this does feel like I’m flogging a dead horse.

It’s a waste of time Gehan. You are actually flogging a government sycophant aka Blacker. His other half DuckTer The Yarn is now an Embassy Duh! in France. You may have seen the Black & Decker government sycophant tag team in action on groundviews though…they were hilarious!

Again, that is a broad assumption. You’re assuming that when a town is shelled, the artillery is simply blindly targeting the entire town. This can be true, but not necessarily. Artillery can use ground or airborne spotters to adjust fire. So specific targets can be hit by artillery even in civilian areas such as a town or city. However, area denial weapons such as cluster munitions, napalm, white phosphorous, MRBLs, landmines etc would be illegal in a city or other area where civilians might be sharing adjacent space to a military force.

Here’s an example: When the RAF was conducting night raids against the military/industrial complexes of Germany, Bomber Harris, the commander of Bomber Command informed Churchill that they were mostly missing the targets. One solution was to cease the raids. Another was to switch to daylight raids where the taergets were more visible. Option one was rejected because the RAF needed to do its bit alongside the USAAF. Option two was rejected because the RAF bombers wouldn’t survive daylight raids. Harris’ third option was to increase the target area to include civilian housing around the factories in which factory workers resided. Thus the British could declare that their raids were in fact effective because without workers the factories couldn’t function. Churchill approved the plan. It had a definite military necessity, but it was also the intentional targeting of civilians. Legal? Certainly not.

Something that may interest you.

“In regard to the presence of the LTTE in the proximity of civilians in the NFZs, international tribunals, including the ICTY, have clarified that the ban on attacks against civilians protects a population that is “predominantly civilian”, and “the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilian [i.e. combatants] does not deprive the population of its civilian character.”

This is per the leaks, so I’m not sure the final report has this. But still, I think this could answer some of the questions you’ve raised. As you might notice, a ‘civilian area’ is not a helpful use of terminology. It’s the population and objects within a particular area that is considered. From what appears to be the observations of the Panel, the GoSL has violated international law.

I hardly see that argument holding much ground. That area was a fortified LTTE position. whatever civillian character it had was also probably lost when people trying to leave were shot down by the LTTE. That argument looks like a bad attempt at grasping at straws to me.

Well that’s a factual matter. If civilians were in fact purged, then the rule simply doesn’t apply to the facts. Not sure I’m competent to debate on the facts. There’s a helluva lot of material out there that needs to be carefully analyzed, which I’m guessing the Panel did.

My concern was with Blacker’s facetious use of terminology that prevented the actual determination of whether the rule is applicable or not. We need to agree on what the law is before moving on to questions of application. Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks that.

ha ha, i see your point about definitions though.

“Well that’s a factual matter.”

How inconveninient. Facts do seem to have a habit of getting in the way of academic discussions.

“Not sure I’m competent to debate on the facts.”

Strange that that hasn’t prevented you deciding that the Ban report is relevant to the facts. Your guess that the panel got the facts right without actually visiting the scene makes your grasp of reality seem extremely tenuous at best. Looks more like you’ve already decided what the facts are and are now trying to retrofit the reports findings to it.

“My concern was with Blacker’s facetious use of terminology that prevented the actual determination of whether the rule is applicable or not.”

The facetiousness of my terminology is subject to your inability to fit it to terminology that would suit an indictment; when what you should have been doing is seeing whether the legal terminology fits the facts on the ground. Facts you’ve already admitted you know little about. Let’s hope they don’t pick the prosecutors from the alumni of whatever institute you learned law at.

“Let’s hope they don’t pick the prosecutors from the alumni of whatever institute you learned law at.” Brilliant!!

:D

Yeah Blacker. Fuck Harvard.

lol! That explains a lot of the snobbishness. :p

that’s actually true :)

Thanks, Aadhavan. Be of some use and tell these nice people what you know about the legitimacy of the report and its significance within the UN framework. But for goodness sake, try not to be snobbish…

ha ha! this is too funny. for reasons i’m not going to divulge. :)

snobbish??…i believe we were talking about you ivy leaguers like yourself, not nikang buggers like me :)

Ok, so you want me to start praising your school also, no? The one that poached all the good professors. Classic bugger. I’m being serious, tell us why the report is legit.

Who said it wasn’t? The President agreed to address accountability for violation of IHL and IHRL in the may 2009 joint communique with ban ki moon. the sec gen then wanted to “look into the modalities, applicable international standards and comparative experience with regard to accountability processes, taking into account the nature and scope of any alleged violations in Sri Lanka.” This was only natural and entirely legitimate, since he was a party to the agreement between the President and himself. He didn’t have the time, inclination or capacity to do the study himself so he appointed a Panel to do it for him. A necessary precondition of their work was to determine the nature and scope of the violations in the first place. In any case, if you read the reparations case, it’s clear that the SG has a whole range of implied powers that are not explicitly enumerated in the charter. This is in addition to his good offices powers under 99. jose alvarez has done a comprehensive study of this in his book on IOs. yes, that jose alvarez – the poached one :)

Was there any mention at all, of IHL violations in the joint communique?
Wasn’t there quite a time lapse between the issuance of the joint communique and the appointment of the advisory committee, indicating that the appointment of the panel was not the natural outcome of the joint communique.
Isnt it irregular for the panel report to be publicised in it’s entirety when the report seems to exceed the original mandate of the panel?

Oh dear, Gehan. Why didn’t you just say you were from Harvard in the first place? Then we could have all hung on your every word, you know, like all those ivy leaguers who caused the global meltdown, instead of shooting you full of holes and laughing as you sputtered. Jesus, now poor ol’ Aadhavan has to come in and say “Psst, give the bugger a chance — he went to Harvard”. ROFLMAO. Did you actually graduate?

I’m pleasantly surprised you spelt Harvard correctly.

Aadhavan, that’s fascinating. The legitimacy of the report derives from both the contractual nature of the joint communique and the SG’s implied powers under the charter. That sums it up for me.

Yeah, Alvarez got away. Pity these buggers are whipped. I hear New York is a high-end shopping paradise. ;)

There are better bars & better beer there than boston buddy.

Amen to that!

“I’m pleasantly surprised you spelt Harvard correctly.”

I’ve never resented your ivy league snobbery more. That was below the belt.

ya machan….especially when you pay $30 for a tshirt on bleeker street…ado hoo

“I’m pleasantly surprised you spelt Harvard correctly.”

There’s a hardware store I pass everyday in Kirillapone called Harvard Stores so it’s hard to forget.

“The legitimacy of the report derives from both the contractual nature of the joint communique and the SG’s implied powers under the charter.”

As I said before, a random email from you to the SG would have the same legitimacy as the panel report.

Aney, sorry, dude. That was indeed below the belt, and more a jab at how you spelt ‘particularly’ in the other comment. I thought web-browsers come with spell-check these days.

What Aadhavan meant was that, as a party to the agreement expressed in the joint communique, the SG has an international obligation to enforce it. I’m sure you understand the point perfectly well.

But the joint communique doesn’t call for an investigative panel by a UN body, so the Ban panel exceeds its authority.

As for the typos, don’t worry your little head about it. I’m not on an English language browser, keyboard or OS at the moment. Isn’t it more important that you’re failing at what you went to Harvard to study?

The JC doesn’t have to call for an investigative panel by a UN body.

This is what it says: “Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The Government will take measures to address those grievances.”

If a party to the agreement is of the opinion that it has been violated, then that party should be able to enforce it. The agreement itself need not always specify the modalities of enforcement. The panel could easily fit into that framework. Plus we could examine the UNSG’s implied powers. E.g. “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security” (art.99). So it’s implied that he should have a means by which he could establish an informed opinion.

Anyway, this is boring now. You can throw your closing insult at me. May be it would have more pleasant if I hadn’t got under your skin so much. Mea culpa.

The JC doesn’t mention any enforcement whatsoever in the accountability process (I assume that’s the enforcement you’re talking about), and accountability obviously has to be based on monitoring of the actions undertaken. The panel report is nothing near that, which is why I said it hasn’t been sanctioned by the JC. Of course the UNSG’s powers include what you’ve mentioned, but it’s a subject on which action has already been rejected by the UN, which hardly contributes to its legitimacy. My point is just that.

But the panel report advises the SG on the accountability process. Sure, it does more by examining allegations. But its mostly to put in context how serious the allegations are and whether the current process genuinely addresses them. We can find plenty of problems in the report, but we really can’t question whether it’s a legitimate exercise of the SG contractual and/or implied powers. Let’s also not forget what one of the final conclusions of the report is. It’s for the GoSL to commence genuine domestic investigations. So the report is really drawing on the obligations on the state under the JC.

Ok yes, it was rejected by the HRC. But the Secretariat is not necessarily bound by that resolution. If a move to condemn something fails in one organ, it doesn’t bar a rehash of the issue before another organ, particularly following a report by a so-called independent panel. There’s no rule on double jeopardy here. In May 2009, the allegations of crimes were mostly speculative. But now the SG has in his possession a report by ‘independent’ experts, who have very carefully worded the report to set the stage up for investigations. When you compared the whole process to an application for an search warrant, you were right. This is the SG’s equivalent under his implied powers.

If your position is that the report is factually incorrect, then I suppose you may be privy to something I’m not, and I really am not competent to debate on this. But I don’t think one can argue that the process is all wrong and that the SG has no authority to commission this Panel.

OK, perhaps we’re back in the area of terminology here, and perhaps we mean two different things. Firstly, I’m not saying that the SG has exceeded his authority in commissioning the panel; I’m saying that the panel’s report has no legitimacy within the UN (ie no action can or will be undertaken based on it by any UN body). The SG may now bring the matter up before a UN body based on his analysis of the report. This step (if taken) is legitimate as it must be acted upon or rejected by UN bodies (ie legitimacy means an action that requires reaction). The panel report doesn’t require any action whatsoever on the part of the SG or any UN body. Hope that clears up what I mean by legitimacy, even if it isn’t couched in the terminology you’re comfortable with.

Secondly, it is impossible to say if the panel report is accurate or inaccurate because it doesn’t substantiate any of the allegations it makes. It doesn’t name eye witnesses or refer to expert witnesses, or explain its analyses. It brings nothing new to the debate. It merely states what has already been stated in other ways: “We believe crimes were committed and should be investigated, and we believe there’s evidence, though we haven’t any at the moment, and none of the witnesses are available”.

Overall, I think this is just another pointless bit of buck-passing to be seen to be going through motions no one really is too fussed about.

That’s ‘cos there really isn’t any new information. A proper investigation would have to be on the ground in the NE with forensic teams and military experts, digging through everything to find any real evidence. Plus they’d have to be finding witnesses, photos and footage, etc. For what this takes, have a look at all the work that went into investigating Serbia and Milosovic, how long it took and what it entailed. The Ban panel never even got to the NE. It’s just all eyewash. IF Ban does take this up again, it’ll be rejected again on the same grounds as before. Even Gehan’s started to backtrack now that he’s read the SG’s fence-sitting comments.

Meantime, the GoSL is using this as yet another crusade to send the villagers off to.

“Even Gehan’s started to backtrack now that he’s read the SG’s fence-sitting comments.”

I don’t recall ever suggesting that the UN can pull it off.

“IF Ban does take this up again, it’ll be rejected again on the same grounds as before.”

No, it’s not that simple. The previous initiative was in the HRC, the composition of which makes it near impossible to pass a resolution against SL. It never got to the UNSC. This time, the options are wider. The composition of the UNSC is different, and it’s a case of whether they’ll be 9 votes to see it through. I think you may still be right. But it’s not as simple as before. I don’t know how Lebanon, Brazil and Columbia will vote, and it may never get to the UNSC unless they were already assured of 9 votes.

“For what this takes, have a look at all the work that went into investigating Serbia and Milosovic, how long it took and what it entailed.”

Not so sure we can draw a clear comparison. Assuming that the UNSC can find 9 votes, the situation is, again, different. The ICTY was an ad-hoc tribunal, before the ICC came along. The UNSC has the option of submitting the matter to the ICC prosecutor now. All far-fetched, I admit. But the situation is different.

It all depends on how the US responds to this. If they push for a reference, China and Russia will most likely repeat their awkward abstention stunt and allow a reference. I don’t know if the US wants to expend that kind of political capital this early in the game. I reckon this thing will get to a vote in a few years time if Obama gets reelected and Samantha Power and Susan Rice keep their jobs. In the meantime, there may be some pressure through threats of universal jurisdiction prosecutions in the UK – because that’s where a lot of Sri Lankans like to travel.

The US has to deal with the Libya mess right now.

Spot on. It will be interesting to see how the momentum is maintained during the interim.

What about the chances of a veto? How does one compare China’s position on Sri Lanka with its position on Libya? Interest levels in Libya were comparatively the same or higher, right?

Spot on, as in what Aadhavan said.

“You mean like when the “Island” denies the SLA committed any HR violations during the last phase of the war?”

You can pick any portion of the Island you like, Heshan; but it still is retarded to quote it.

“Last time I checked, a certain clown was parroting the same line… hint hint”

Really? Can you link to any such claim by this clown? And would this clown have been quoting the Island when doing so?

“A university is the most liberal of places. “

Really? Have you actually met graduates from SL unis? Malinda Seneviratne is one (plus an ivy leaguer like ol’ Gehan), most of the JVP politburo past and present are — damn liberal buggers all, eh? Lol.

“The size of an army is often irrelevant compared to the quality of weaponry it possesses.”

Really? Then why did the US use conscription in Vietnam? Why did the UUSR use conscription in Afghanistan? Why is Israel still using conscription to fight the Arabs? Weaponry alone is meaningless in war, Paddy Field Marshal.

“How do you think Israel managed to win the Six-Day War?

Which superior weapons did the Israelis use in the Six-Day War that the Arabs didn’t possess? And why did Israel require conscripts in that war?

“Even if every Arab nation on Earth decided to attack Israel, Israel could withstand the attack.”

Then why couldn’t Israel locate and rescue the two captured POWs that it last invaded Lebanon for? Those men are still in Hizbollah hands after the Israelis invaded, spent millions, took casualties and retreated once more after having failed. Why was the IDF commander sacked immediately after? Why is it that Israel couldn’t suppress the rocket fire from Gaza after repeated invasions. Within hours of every Israeli withdrawal the rocket fire resumes. Why, General Ariel Heshan, why?

“I never made any of those claims”

Come come, Heshan, you claim to be a born again Christian, no? Why are you lying? Now Jesus won’t want you for a sunbeam. Should I post the links to those claims you made on Groundviews?

“In reality, JSDF are armed and equipped with modern firearms, so it was impossible to explain that they are not “Force / Military” in international society.”

So you agree that since the JSDF consists of an air force with modern fighter jets and attack aircraft, a ground force with main battle tanks, APCs, heavy artillery, infantry, special forces and marines, a naval force with missile cruisers, nuclear submarines, helicopter carriers, gun boats, etc, and that the whole is larger than the militaries of most of the world, that they are in fact a military, and you were talking out of your arse as usual?

“I never figured out why the Sinhalese geniuses didn’t realize the value of a draft. “

Because all professional armies are averse to conscripts, and resort to it only when forced. The fact that manpower numbers were raised to adequate levels in 2008 goes to show that conscription was unnecessary; all that was required was a revamping of the recruitment process, the proper propaganda, and attention to morale. Your own display of genius here on this and other forums might be said to be representational of the Sinhalese by someone less charitable than myself.

“Manpower alone would not have won the war, but manpower with the right tactics would certainly have cut in half the time required to do the job.”

But earlier you said “The size of an army is often irrelevant compared to the quality of weaponry it possesses.” You seem to be once more confused, Paddy Field Marshal. Maybe you should take your buffaloes for their daily walk so that you can walk behind them and replenish that Sinhalese genius of yours.

You can pick any portion of the Island you like, Heshan; but it still is retarded to quote it.

So when the “Island” says the UN allegations against SL are baseless, is it retarded to quote them on it?

Really? Can you link to any such claim by this clown?

Paint your nose red and stand in front of the mirror.

Really? Have you actually met graduates from SL unis?

Okay, since you haven’t actually attended a university, it’s probably impossible for you to understand the philosophy behind its existence. The philosophy is not governed by the political affiliations of a student group or its graduates. It’s more akin to taking a mind that’s a blank slate and empowering such a mind, via a combination of memorization/discussion/problem-solving to tackle subtle questions in a logically consistent manner. At an even higher level (post-graduate) you go beyond merely answering the questions; you actually learn to formulate the theories themselves. And at the highest level, you come up with original theories.

Really? Then why did the US use conscription in Vietnam? Why did the UUSR use conscription in Afghanistan? Why is Israel still using conscription to fight the Arabs? Weaponry alone is meaningless in war

The US could have stayed in Vietnam indefinitely, thanks to its superior weaponry. The weaponry alone, irrespective of manpower, guaranteed a stalemate at the very least . Why did these nations use conscription – because conscription is one way of maximizing your productive resources during war.

Which superior weapons did the Israelis use in the Six-Day War that the Arabs didn’t possess? And why did Israel require conscripts in that war?

Israel didn’t require conscripts to win that war. The outcome was not even close; Israel won by a margin of 1000 to 1. It was equivalent to the Polish on horseback trying to beat back the superior Blitzkreig-backed advance of the Germans. I don’t know what weapons they used, but I’m sure that weapons played a decisive role, given the margin of victory. If you keep denying it, of course, then I’ll have to do the usual research to prove your wrong (surprise surprise).

Then why couldn’t Israel locate and rescue the two captured POWs that it last invaded Lebanon for?

Israel could nuke Lebanon back to Allah’s paradise, for all eternity, if push came to shove. Why do you think Iran is so desperate to build a nuclear weapon? Without nuclear weapons, Iran could have a ten million strong army, but Israel would need just a few thousand men and a couple dozen nuclear weapons to claim superiority. A nuke is like no other weapon, why do you think the West is hell-bent on no hostile Muslim nation owning one?

Should I post the links to those claims you made on Groundviews?

I have nothing to hide. But if you do quote me, quote me exactly and provide a link, otherwise consider it BS.

So you agree that since the JSDF consists of an air force with modern fighter jets and attack aircraft, a ground force with main battle tanks, APCs, heavy artillery

Which they wouldn’t use if Japan was attacked, because the USA would defend Japan, as per mutual agreement. Do you agree?

Because all professional armies are averse to conscripts, and resort to it only when forced.

Every nation, except Sri Lanka, has resorted to conscription, when it came to a major war. The only reason why Western nations don’t do conscription anymore is because advances in technology have made up for lack of manpower. But in the case of SL, the technology was always sub-par, and the manpower was also lacking, so what’s the excuse for lack of a draft?

But earlier you said “The size of an army is often irrelevant compared to the quality of weaponry it possesses.”

You clearly missed the word “often.” Often is a qualifier that precludes “always.” Try again, Blacker.

“So when the “Island” says the UN allegations against SL are baseless, is it retarded to quote them on it?”

Which part of “You can pick any portion of the Island you like, Heshan; but it still is retarded to quote it” do you not understand?

“Paint your nose red and stand in front of the mirror.”

But I asked you for a link to substantiate your claim that I said SL had committed no HR violations. Don’t have any? Lol thought not.

“It’s more akin to taking a mind that’s a blank slate and empowering such a mind blah blah”

I repeat, have you actually met any SL uni graduates? :D

“The US could have stayed in Vietnam indefinitely, thanks to its superior weaponry. The weaponry alone, irrespective of manpower, guaranteed a stalemate at the very least .”

It could have stayed indefinitely if it was willing to lose thousands of troops as casualties every year with no success in winning the war. Stalemate for anti-insurgent forces is not stalemate; it is defeat. In 1972 the US had no more control over Vietnam, or its population, than it did in 1965. The US lost the Vietnam War in spite of overwhelmingly superior firepower. Same goes for the USSR in Afghanistan. The same applied to the SL military for most of the war. Firepower is only vital if you choose a firepower-dependent strategy. So you’re wrong, as usual, Paddy Field Marshal.

“Israel didn’t require conscripts to win that war.”

Israel requires conscripts to maintain its military, and without a military, Israel cannot wage war. The Six-Day War was based on Blitzkrieg, but the latter cannot function without manpower. The majority of the IDF is conscripted.

“I don’t know what weapons they used”

Surprise, surprise. When did ignorance ever stop you?

” but I’m sure that weapons played a decisive role, given the margin of victory.”

But the IDF had the same weapons or their equivalent in every war, as did the Arabs. If weaponry was the decisive factor as you claim, why was the margin of victory greater in ’67 than in other wars? Isn’t the reality that it was the tactics and strategy, not the weapons, that were decisive, rubbishing your claim?

“If you keep denying it, of course, then I’ll have to do the usual research to prove your wrong”

Oh, that’s always good for a laugh. Go for it. For the record, I deny that weaponry was the decisive factor in Israel’s victory in that war.

“Israel could nuke Lebanon back to Allah’s paradise, for all eternity, if push came to shove.”

But how would that have helped rescue the POWs? :D How was Israel able to rescue hundreds of hostages from Entebbe, thousands of miles away in central Africa, but not two POWs in next-door Lebanon? Was it because of weaponry, as you claimed? The objective in war is to gain your objectives, not destroy the enemy. It’s the mistake the Yanks made in Vietnam; while they were counting VC and NVA bodies, North Vietnam gained its objectives and won the war.

“Without nuclear weapons, Iran could have a ten million strong army, but Israel would need just a few thousand men and a couple dozen nuclear weapons to claim superiority.”

Rubbish. The only nukes Israel can use against an invasion is tactical, and that won’t stop an invasion. If Israel uses strategic weapons it’s basically Armageddon and Israel would be history too. The point is, in Israel’s current wars, nukes (and firepower) are irrelevant and that’s why they lost.

“A nuke is like no other weapon, why do you think the West is hell-bent on no hostile Muslim nation owning one?”

An aircraft carrier too is like no other weapon, but is largely useless in certain conflicts. It is this American trust in firepower over all else that prevents it from winning wars of late. Pakistan is a Muslim nation and has nukes. Didn’t you know? :D

“Which they wouldn’t use if Japan was attacked, because the USA would defend Japan, as per mutual agreement. “

The agreement doesn’t preclude Japan defending itself; only that the use would help. If Japan didn’t need to defend itself, why would it have such a large military; cos they like those cool uniforms and hi-tech gadgets?

“Every nation, except Sri Lanka, has resorted to conscription, when it came to a major war.”

No it hasn’t. The US didn’t conscript for the Korean War. Britain continued national service into the ’50s and early ’60s even when it wasn’t fighting wars. Nations have chosen conscription either when it needed to exapand rapidly in time of war (US and Britain in WW2), when it was politically sensitive to heavy casualties but still needed the men (the US in Vietnam — they chose to conscript instead of mobilising the reserves because draftees couldn’t vote but reservists could; France in its wars of decolonisation — French conscripts served in the Metropol, taking over roles to free the volunteers to fight in places like Indochina), or when they need to maintain a standing military but can’t afford the all-volunteer manpower (Israel, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, etc). Historically, the quality of conscript armies have been far inferior to professional or volunteer ones, and any army will prefer to manage without conscription if it is at all possible. And the SL Army has demonstrated ably that it didn’t require conscription. There is also the moral factor of forcing civilians into uniform to fight when they don’t want to. Now that the war is over, I think we should go for national service as it’ll help us reduce the professionals to a smaller cadre, maintain a few all-volunteer specialist units, and save us a lot of money.

“The only reason why Western nations don’t do conscription anymore is because advances in technology have made up for lack of manpower.”

But Germany, one of the most technologically advanced nations, still conscripts; as does Israel, France, etc. The USSR at the peak of its military power relied heavily on conscripts. If technology and weaponry were the answer, why the need for conscription in these countries?

“But in the case of SL, the technology was always sub-par, and the manpower was also lacking, so what’s the excuse for lack of a draft? “

Haven’t you answered your own question? In anti-insurgency warfare, firepower isn’t as important as manpower, training, mobility, and political will. By the mid to late ’90s, the SL military was realising this, and under SF this was taken care of without any need for conscription. Currently, the SL military could increase its size without requiring conscription. Why deplete your standards when you don’t need to? Now that we don’t have to fight anymore we can consider national service.

“You clearly missed the word “often.” Often is a qualifier that precludes “always.””

So are you saying you don’t know which is more important, or that both are equally important? Either way it contradicts your statement that weaponry is often more important than manpower; clearly this is untrue.

Are you aware of the casualties from the Vietnam War?

1,100,000 North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong military personnel deaths during the Vietnam War

58,267 KIA American casualties

This means the North Vietnamese were losing 19 men for every 1 man lost by the Americans. The only explanation is the superior weaponry of the Americans.

This clearly proves my point about technology and not manpower being the decisive factor in modern warfare. Technology has obviously improved by leaps and bounds since the Vietnam War. That’s why the total number of NATO casualties in Afghanistan from 2001 – 2011 is 2,340. That’s equal to less than 2 NATO soldiers being killed every day of the year between 2001 and 2011. Just as importantly, the Taliban has not won a single battle against NATO in 10 years. The only reason NATO has not won in Afghanistan is because of the rules of engagement imposed on it by Karzai. This restriction is compounded by the fact that the Pakistani’s secretly aid the Taliban, and the higher echelons of the Afghan government are corrupt to the max, which leads to the Afghan civilians supporting the Taliban. Obama has actually tried to circumvent all these problems by boosting the number of troops, but so far the surge has not yielded any spectacular results.

But I asked you for a link to substantiate your claim that I said SL had committed no HR violations.

You have never admitted the SL Army is guilty of HR violations.

Israel requires conscripts to maintain its military,

No it doesn’t. Not if 28% of the eligible male population manages to avoid conscription: http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-nearly-28-of-israeli-males-avoided-conscription-in-2007-1.232645

Israel has one of the best militaries in the world, and this is due to the fact that they invest billions in weapons technology every year ($16 billion in 2011, which is 6.1% of the GDP). That’s an extraordinary investment considering that Israel has no natural resources worth speaking of, unlike its Arab neighbors that have endless oil. Iran is the world’s second largest oil producer (= no lack of financial capital) but it is still decades away from producing a nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia has a few fighter jets bought from the Americans; it has never invested in any proper military upgrade, it needed the Americans to keep Saddam away, which is why the Americans are still stationed in Saudi now. The rest of the Arab “armies” are not worth speaking of. What this means is that if all the Arab nations combined their manpower into one big invasion force, Israel would still beat them back. That just proves my point about technology and not manpower being the decisive factor in modern-day warfare.

No it hasn’t. The US didn’t conscript for the Korean War.

Yes it DID:

Between the Korean War’s outbreak in June 1950 and 1953, Selective Service inducted 1,529,539 men.[16] Another 1.3 million volunteered.[17] Most joined the Navy and Air Force.[12] Congress passed the Universal Military Training and Service Act in 1951 to meet the demands of the war. It lowered the induction age to 18½ and extended active-duty service commitments to 24 months. Despite the early combat failures and later stalemate in Korea, the draft has been credited by some as playing a vital role in turning the tide of war.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

But how would that have helped rescue the POWs? :D

What does rescuing hostages have to do with anything?

How was Israel able to rescue hundreds of hostages from Entebbe, thousands of miles away in central Africa, but not two POWs in next-door Lebanon? Was it because of weaponry, as you claimed?

Weaponry and hostage-rescue are mutually exclusive. Hostage rescue relies on stealth. Also, hostage rescue has nothing to do with deciding the outcome of a war, or even a battle.

The objective in war is to gain your objectives, not destroy the enemy. It’s the mistake the Yanks made in Vietnam;

No, the Americans “lost” because of the terrain. They (Americans) captured every significant landmark without much struggle, but the Vietcong were always able to regroup. The “enemy” was always there in the dense jungles, in elaborate bunkers and tunnels underground in the jungle, hiding in the trees, hiding in Laos and Cambodia, etc, hiding among the civilians in South Vietnam, etc. The problem for the Americans was that no place in Vietnam was safe, in other words, the enemy could be routed only temporarily, but it was not a permanent retreat.

Historically, the quality of conscript armies have been far inferior to professional or volunteer ones,

Is that why the Americans beat the British during the Revolutionary War? Do you think D-Day would have been possible without a conscripted force?

and any army will prefer to manage without conscription if it is at all possible.

Conscription makes sense from an economic point of war. The Americans conscripted men of a certain age during WWII; women were sent to work in armaments factories. The war-time economy in the USA boomed. And of course, it was the Americans that turned the tide of war during WWII against both the Germans and the Japanese, if we discount Stalingrad. But the Germans could have recovered from Stalingrad, in contrast, no recovery from Stalingrad was possible when you combine the decimation of the 6th Army plus American involvement.

And the SL Army has demonstrated ably that it didn’t require conscription.

As I said earlier, the LTTE would have been wiped out much earlier, had a conscription been in place. From what I have read, the SL “victory” – as it occured – was at least partially accidental. Karuna just happened to defect the CFA. Sonia Gandhi, a true SL ally unlike the BJP, happened to be there. Bush’s War on Terror gave added leeway to the SLA to use excessive force. Chinese and Pakistani military assistance were unprecedented, even while the West was scaling back on military sales to SL. There is also the question of Prabhakaran’s intransigence, which most people seem to discount or are unaware of. He actually believed a favorable result in the Indian election would mean Indian assistance for the LTTE. He thought the IC would enforce a cease-fire. He believed these things even when the LTTE was reduced to fighting defensive battles. Basically, Prabhakaran never grasped the post millenium geo-political reality. If he had, he would’ve escaped in time – the Tamil blogs say he had 1 yr to do so – and the LTTE could’ve regrouped at a more favorable time.

“Are you aware of the casualties from the Vietnam War?”

Are you aware of who won the Vietnam War? Or is this another case similar to your claim that Hitler won WW2? The point of a war isn’t to see who can kill the most; it is to win. The USSR lost millions more than Germany, but they still won. Same applies to Vietnam. North Vietnam’s objective was to unify both halves of Vietnam as a single communist state. The US’ was to prevent this. Somewhere along the way, however, the US thought that bodycounts were indicative of winning; it wasn’t, and they lost.

“This clearly proves my point about technology and not manpower being the decisive factor in modern warfare. “

Actually, it does the opposite. The technologically inferior NVA and VC beat the Ameriacans and the South Vietnamese.

“You have never admitted the SL Army is guilty of HR violations. “

But you said that I claimed that SL hadn’t committed HR violations. Where is the link to this claim?

“No it doesn’t. Not if 28% of the eligible male population manages to avoid conscription”

Well that means it’s conscripting 72% of the eligible male population, which is the bulk of it. I repeat Israel requires conscripts to maintain its Army. Why else will it be drafting if it doesn’t need to?

“The rest of the Arab “armies” are not worth speaking of. What this means is that if all the Arab nations combined their manpower into one big invasion force, Israel would still beat them back.”

Lol Paddy Field Marshal Heshan. Why don’t you stick to watching reruns of 300? If all the Arab armies attacked together, there’d be no room to walk, never mind fight. The land approaches to Israel are limited to armoured offensives and are capable of handling only a few divisions at a time, which Israel has been able to fight off. As I proved to you on GV, Israel survives because of US military aid.

“That just proves my point about technology and not manpower being the decisive factor in modern-day warfare.”

I asked you to prove to me that weaponry was the decisive factor in the Six-Day War, as you claimed, and boasted you could prove. So where’s this proof?

“Despite the early combat failures and later stalemate in Korea, the draft has been credited by some as playing a vital role in turning the tide of war.”

But I thought you said firepower and technology was more important?

“What does rescuing hostages have to do with anything?”

Simply the fact that it was the reason for the most recent invasion of Lebanon. So what happened?

“Weaponry and hostage-rescue are mutually exclusive. Hostage rescue relies on stealth. “

Quite the opposite. I’m playing with you here, because it’s clear your military knowledge is sub-zero. Stealth is necessary only in the approach phase of hostage rescue. Once it gets into the actual rescue, overwhelming speed and firepower is essential. But back to the point. Israel launched a conventional invasion of Lebanon to rescue two soldiers. Millions were spent, billions were destroyed, hundreds died. Mission failure. Ignominous retreat. IDF Commander sacked. Why? Israel unleashed its vaunted firepower and still failed. Tell us why, Paddy Field Marshal, if firepower and technology is the decisive factor?

“Also, hostage rescue has nothing to do with deciding the outcome of a war, or even a battle.”

It is if you invade over two missing soldiers :D

“No, the Americans “lost” because of the terrain.”

Lol, poor buggers. You go to war and say, “oops sorry, we didn’t know there’d be jungle in SE Asia, we were hoping for a bit of desert”. The US fought in similar terrain in WW2 and won. Why, Paddy Field Marshal? In Vietnam they had more technology in comparison to the NVA and VC than they did in comparison to the Japs. They dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than in all of WW2, but they still lost. Why oh why?

“They (Americans) captured every significant landmark without much struggle, but the Vietcong were always able to regroup. The “enemy” was always there in the dense jungles, in elaborate bunkers and tunnels underground in the jungle, hiding in the trees, hiding in Laos and Cambodia, etc, hiding among the civilians in South Vietnam, etc.”

But you said firepower and technology was what was important. So why didn’t these things overcome the advantages of jungle and fortifications? The task of war isn’t to capture landmarks, it’s to win. If the enemy is in the jungle, you go live in the jungle too as the Brits, and Commonwealth troops did in Malaya and Borneo. The Tigers hid in the jungle and elaborate bunkers too and lots of civilians, but we beat ‘em. So why couldn’t the Americans do it with their superior technology and firepower? Was it because none of that mattered in the jungle and in the hearts and minds of the population?

“Is that why the Americans beat the British during the Revolutionary War? Do you think D-Day would have been possible without a conscripted force?”

The Americans beat the British for the same reason the Vietnamese beat the Americans — the Brits were untrained for that sort of warfare. At Normandy, both the Allies and the Germans fielded conscripts; the Allies broke through because they were facing second-rate German troops. Conscription wasn’t a factor. For a good example, look at the difference between the all-volunteer Brits and the conscript Argentinians in the Falklands. Thing is, you’ll rarely get the chance to make such a direct comparison with all other factors being equal. The fact is, forcing civilians into uniform when they don’t want to fight is the issue. If they’re motivated as they were in WW2, it’s less of a problem, but if it’s an unpopular war such as Algeria, Vietnam, the Falklands, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even SL, then conscription is debilitating.

“Conscription makes sense from an economic point of war.”

No, it doesn’t. Wartime service, even when volunteer, is short term, and doesn’t entail the financial commitments that peacetime professional armies require. Wartime conscription is purely for manpower needs. It makes no financial sense to pull a trained factory worker or technician out of civilian life, retrain him to be a soldier, and train someone else to replace him in the factory. Not if you have enough volunteers for the military already. That’s why US conscription for Vietnam was so cynical. It targeted those between 18 to 21, who were too young to vote against the regime.

“The war-time economy in the USA boomed.”

The boom was because of increased manufacture, not conscription. For a nation that manufactures its own material, war is good for the economy, as long as the war is not on home ground.

“And of course, it was the Americans that turned the tide of war during WWII against both the Germans and the Japanese, if we discount Stalingrad.”

Right about Japan, wrong about Germany. The USSR won the war in Europe, and they’d have done it without the western Allies. They’d have taken years longer and lost a few million more, but they’d have done it. The Soviets broke Germany. If Stalin had been defeated in 1940 or early 1941, the US would have stayed out of the war. The only thing the Americans did was ensure that post WW2 Europe wasn’t communist since once Stalin had taken Berlin he’d have kept going all the way to London, and nothing would have stopped him.

“As I said earlier, the LTTE would have been wiped out much earlier, had a conscription been in place.”

But I thought you said technology and firepower was more important? Lol. Certainly if the SL Army had more manpower, it might have won earlier. But conscript manpower would have been counter-productive, just as it was in Vietnam and Afghanistan. What should have been done was an expansion of volunteer recruitment.

“From what I have read, the SL “victory” – as it occured – was at least partially accidental.”

I suggest you stop reading Tamilnet then :D The background happenings might have been fortunate circumstances, but SF’s and GR’s revamping of the SL Army, the expansion, GR’s ability to get the services to work together, the diplomatic efforts to secure weapons and support, and the plitical will to see it through, were certainly not accidental. That’s how wars are won.

b>

Are you aware of who won the Vietnam War? Or is this another case similar to your claim that Hitler won WW2?

I never claimed that Hitler won WW2. This is another one of your failures, next to your inability to count from 1 – 40 when the numbers are right in front of you.

The point of a war isn’t to see who can kill the most; it is to win. The USSR lost millions more than Germany, but they still won. Same applies to Vietnam. North Vietnam’s objective was to unify both halves of Vietnam as a single communist state. The US’ was to prevent this. Somewhere along the way, however, the US thought that bodycounts were indicative of winning; it wasn’t, and they lost.

I already posted the casualty figures from Wikepedia: 1 million+ North Vietnamese versus 58K Americans. If you consider that a smoking victory, good luck. It was really a stalemate; the North Vietnamese only “won” in the sense that the USA simply left, due to the growing unpopularity of the war back home. Of course the American objective in Vietnam was on winning; one component of winning is maximizing enemy losses. The other component was training the South Vietnamese so that they were up to par in combat. Considering that the Americans lost 1 man for every 19 men the North Vietnamese lost (I already proved this), its pretty clear who was the superior fighting force. At least the Americans didn’t need a press censorship to hide their casualty figures unlike the SLA.

Actually, it does the opposite. The technologically inferior NVA and VC beat the Ameriacans and the South Vietnamese.

Losing 19 men on your side for every 1 man lost by the enemy is not exactly sustainable. Even the Taliban have not sustained such heavy casualties, which (assuming you know basic arithmetic) is apparent here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan. It’s also interesting to speculate what kind of losses the Vietcong would have sustained had the Soviets or Chinese not supported them with weapons, intelligence, etc. I’ll go with at least 40:1. But I’m sure you must think 40:1 is no problem either since the enemy will (hopefully) pack up and leave in the long-term. By the way, how many people do you think would willingly volunteer given a 19:1 or 40:1 ratio, in favor of the other side?

Well that means it’s conscripting 72% of the eligible male population, which is the bulk of it. I repeat Israel requires conscripts to maintain its Army. Why else will it be drafting if it doesn’t need to?

And I repeat, Israel does not require conscripts to maintain its Army. Eligible males are required to serve only 3 years. The whole idea of conscription is to maintain a combat-ready reserve force, in case of an emergency. The reserves would only be called to the front as a last-resort. As far as Army maintenance goes, this is the bottom rung of the ladder. In the Israeli case, both the Regular service and the Permanent service would have to fail – or be in a dire situation – before they called up large batches of reserves. Given the laughable quality of the Arab enemy – and considering the presence of hundreds of thousands of US troops in the Mid-East – its unlikely that the reserves will be called up anytime soon.

“The rest of the Arab “armies” are not worth speaking of. What this means is that if all the Arab nations combined their manpower into one big invasion force, Israel would still beat them back.”

As I proved to you on GV, Israel survives because of US military aid.

Israel could easily survive without US military aid. The military aid subsidizes a joint technological partnership between the US and Israeli militaries; it’s not a welfare check, the Israeli’s actually uses some of the money to build first-rate weapons systems, which is what they’re known for.

I asked you to prove to me that weaponry was the decisive factor in the Six-Day War, as you claimed, and boasted you could prove. So where’s this proof?

James Reston, writing in the New York Times on May 23, 1967, noted, “In discipline, training, morale, equipment and general competence his [Nasser's] army and the other Arab forces, without the direct assistance of the Soviet Union, are no match for the Israelis… Even with 50,000 troops and the best of his generals and air force in Yemen, he has not been able to work his way in that small and primitive country, and even his effort to help the Congo rebels was a flop.”[35]

Why does Reston mention equipment, but not manpower?

By nightfall, Israel said it destroyed 416 Arab aircraft, while losing 26 of its own in the first two days of the war.

I remember a certain clown on here claiming the Israeli’s and Arabs had the same quality weaponry. : D

But I thought you said firepower and technology was more important?

Thanks for proving your lack of knowledge in regards to the Korean War.

Simply the fact that it was the reason for the most recent invasion of Lebanon. So what happened?

What happened is that Hezbollah took such a beating, that it hasn’t fired a single rocket into Israel since.

“Weaponry and hostage-rescue are mutually exclusive. Hostage rescue relies on stealth. “

Quite the opposite. I’m playing with you here, because it’s clear your military knowledge is sub-zero. Stealth is necessary only in the approach phase of hostage rescue. Once it gets into the actual rescue, overwhelming speed and firepower is essential.

It depends on the environment as well. There are also situations when minimal firepower is needed. But there’s absolutely no connection to man-power, like you claimed earlier.

<b? But back to the point. Israel launched a conventional invasion of Lebanon to rescue two soldiers. Millions were spent, billions were destroyed, hundreds died. Mission failure. Ignominous retreat. IDF Commander sacked. Why? Israel unleashed its vaunted firepower and still failed. Tell us why, Paddy Field Marshal, if firepower and technology is the decisive factor?

LOL your an idiot. The invasion was a message to Hezbollah not to mess with Israel. Millions were spent – Israel doesn’t exactly have a budget deficit. Hundreds died on the Arab side. Israel “retreated” due to external pressure.

It is if you invade over two missing soldiers :D

The soldiers weren’t the only reason for “invasion”; ever heard of Hezbollah firing rockets? Also, Israel “invades” routinely invades the Gaza strip. It “violates” the “airspace” that belongs to the PLA. Yet these “invasions” almost never miss their target. In any event, the fact that Israel can invade any of its neighbors

“No, the Americans “lost” because of the terrain.”

Lol, poor buggers. You go to war and say, “oops sorry, we didn’t know there’d be jungle in SE Asia, we were hoping for a bit of desert”. The US fought in similar terrain in WW2 and won. Why, Paddy Field Marshal? In Vietnam they had more technology in comparison to the NVA and VC than they did in comparison to the Japs. They dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than in all of WW2, but they still lost. Why oh why?

“They (Americans) captured every significant landmark without much struggle, but the Vietcong were always able to regroup. The “enemy” was always there in the dense jungles, in elaborate bunkers and tunnels underground in the jungle, hiding in the trees, hiding in Laos and Cambodia, etc, hiding among the civilians in South Vietnam, etc.”

But you said firepower and technology was what was important. So why didn’t these things overcome the advantages of jungle and fortifications? The task of war isn’t to capture landmarks, it’s to win. If the enemy is in the jungle, you go live in the jungle too as the Brits, and Commonwealth troops did in Malaya and Borneo. The Tigers hid in the jungle and elaborate bunkers too and lots of civilians, but we beat ‘em. So why couldn’t the Americans do it with their superior technology and firepower? Was it because none of that mattered in the jungle and in the hearts and minds of the population?

“Is that why the Americans beat the British during the Revolutionary War? Do you think D-Day would have been possible without a conscripted force?”

The Americans beat the British for the same reason the Vietnamese beat the Americans — the Brits were untrained for that sort of warfare. At Normandy, both the Allies and the Germans fielded conscripts; the Allies broke through because they were facing second-rate German troops. Conscription wasn’t a factor. For a good example, look at the difference between the all-volunteer Brits and the conscript Argentinians in the Falklands. Thing is, you’ll rarely get the chance to make such a direct comparison with all other factors being equal. The fact is, forcing civilians into uniform when they don’t want to fight is the issue. If they’re motivated as they were in WW2, it’s less of a problem, but if it’s an unpopular war such as Algeria, Vietnam, the Falklands, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even SL, then conscription is debilitating.

“Conscription makes sense from an economic point of war.”

No, it doesn’t

Actually it does. Once again, its called making optimum use of resources.

“The war-time economy in the USA boomed.”

The boom was because of increased manufacture, not conscription. For a nation that manufactures its own material, war is good for the economy, as long as the war is not on home ground.

The boom was because women finally got a chance to work in the factories, and also the factories made stuff mostly for the war.

“And of course, it was the Americans that turned the tide of war during WWII against both the Germans and the Japanese, if we discount Stalingrad.”

The USSR won the war in Europe, and they’d have done it without the western Allies.

Nonsense. Stalin simply threw wave after wave of poorly trained conscripts to fight the Germans. If Hitler had pulled the 6th Army out of Stalingrad, the war would’ve taken a very different course.

They’d have taken years longer and lost a few million more, but they’d have done it. The Soviets broke Germany.

Losing 20 million men (Soviet side) is not breaking Germany. That’s why the Soviets went after the women when they captured Berlin; it was to appease the total destruction of the many Soviet cities and the slaughter of millions of Soviet citizens that the Germans had wrought.

If Stalin had been defeated in 1940 or early 1941, the US would have stayed out of the war.

The USA would have entered the war on the side of Britain sooner or later, like it did in WWI.

The only thing the Americans did was ensure that post WW2 Europe wasn’t communist since once Stalin had taken Berlin he’d have kept going all the way to London, and nothing would have stopped him.

Couldn’t be further from the truth. This is what the Americans did:

Freed France from Nazi Occupation
Freed Italy from Nazi Occupation
Freed Poland from Nazi Occupation
Freed Belgium from Nazi Occupation
Freed Scandinavia fro Nazi Occupation
Freed Netherlands, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Denmark, Finland

But I thought you said technology and firepower was more important? Lol. Certainly if the SL Army had more manpower, it might have won earlier. But conscript manpower would have been counter-productive, just as it was in Vietnam and Afghanistan. What should have been done was an expansion of volunteer recruitment.

Conscript manpower was not counterproductive in Vietnam. If it was counterproductive the Americans would not have lost 1 man for every 19 men on the Vietcong side. An example of conscript manpower being counterproductive is the Hitler Youth being recruited to defend Berlin during its last days. Conscript manpower would not have been counterproductive in SL; given the high rate of unemployment and the general dismal state of the economy, it would have actually been economically viable. If the Tamil youth had been conscripted as well, it would have driven a major wedge between the LTTE and Tamil diaspora, which would then have had an adverse impact on LTTE fundraising, since the Tamil diaspora was the single biggest source of LTTE funding.

I suggest you stop reading Tamilnet then :D The background happenings might have been fortunate circumstances, but SF’s and GR’s revamping of the SL Army, the expansion, GR’s ability to get the services to work together, the diplomatic efforts to secure weapons and support, and the plitical will to see it through, were certainly not accidental. That’s how wars are won.

No need to read Tamilnet. If Karuna had not defected, the war would have taken three or four times as long to complete. As Karuna said in his interviews, it was the Eastern batallions that did most of the dirty work (heavy fighting) for the LTTE. But three or four times as long equates to 6 – 10 extra years, which is a long time in geopolitical terms. The SL budget would have been stretched very thin – making the prospect of a ceasefire more likely – India may have decreased her support, Chinese generosity could have worn out, and of course, the LTTE could have found new ways to regroup.

Blacker, it’s a pretty hefty claim to say stalin would have beaten the germans by himself. From what i know germany was fighting on multiple fronts. Had they concentrated on russia alone the out come may have been different.

Heshan, these posts you make are fantastic.

“I never claimed that Hitler won WW2. “

This is what you said in the discussion on GV about whether only losers and not victors have been prosecuted for war crimes; your claim was that Nuremberg was a case of the victors being punished. Your words: “So in this sense, he [Hitler] is a victor indeed. This is a clear case of the victor being punished.” Here is the link: http://groundviews.org/2011/02/20/the-curious-case-of-diplomats-that-%E2%80%98internal-conflict%E2%80%99/

I will also link to your claims about Ranil Wickramasinghe not being elected to parliament, North Korea leaving the UN, and a few others soon ;)

“the North Vietnamese only “won” in the sense that the USA simply left, due to the growing unpopularity of the war back home. Of course the American objective in Vietnam was on winning; one component of winning is maximizing enemy losses. The other component was training the South Vietnamese so that they were up to par in combat. Considering that the Americans lost 1 man for every 19 men the North Vietnamese lost (I already proved this), its pretty clear who was the superior fighting force.”

So the Americans won one component, or battle, and lost the war. Withdrawing, also known as retreating, is considered one component of defeat :D The North Vietnamese achieved their goal of uniting the two countries under the communist regime, and the Americans failed to prevent it. So I repeat, regardless of what Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris tell us, the US lost the war in Vietnam, just as the Germans lost WW2. Understand now?

“Losing 19 men on your side for every 1 man lost by the enemy is not exactly sustainable.”

They were able to sustain it long enough to win the war, just as the Soviets were able to; that”s all that matters. Still think the US won the Vietnam War? Lol. I”ll be quoting this for many years, Paddy Field Marshal, I guarantee it. Ha ha.

“It’s also interesting to speculate what kind of losses the Vietcong would have sustained had the Soviets or Chinese not supported them with weapons, intelligence, etc. “

Oh boo hoo, those cheating Chinese lol. Now you sound like the Tamils who think SL didn’t beat the Tigers fairly and the US didn’t beat the Japs fairly. Have a little cry; but that”s war, and the US lost it. Please don’t let this stop you, however, from trying to convince us that the US won the Vietnam War. It’s quite hilarious.

,em>”And I repeat, Israel does not require conscripts to maintain its Army. Eligible males are required to serve only 3 years. The whole idea of conscription is to maintain a combat-ready reserve force, in case of an emergency.”

Lol, Paddy Field Marshal, your military theories are truly astounding! Yes, eligible males are required to serve three years, after which they are replaced by more eligible conscripts. The reserve force is part of the IDF, and conscripts go into the reserve only AFTER they serve their time as regulars. If the IDF didn’t require conscripts, it wouldn’t conscript. No nation that doesn’t need draftees conscripts, dimwit.

“Israel could easily survive without US military aid. “

Whether they could or not is a moot point because the reality is that the US subsidises Israeli weapons through military aid.

“The military aid subsidizes a joint technological partnership between the US and Israeli militaries; it’s not a welfare check, the Israeli’s actually uses some of the money to build first-rate weapons systems, which is what they’re known for.”

Weapons systems for themselves. The US doesn’t use Israeli weapons, but the IDF is mostly US-quipped in the area of aircraft, missile systems, and infantry weapons. So i repeat, Israel survives because of the US.

“James Reston, writing in the New York Times on May 23, 1967, noted, “In discipline, training, morale, equipment and general competence his [Nasser's] army and the other Arab forces, without the direct assistance of the Soviet Union, are no match for the Israelis… Why does Reston mention equipment, but not manpower?”

Because, Prof Heshan, the Arabs are NOT inferior to the Israelis in manpower numbers :D Reston would have to be a retard (like you) to suggest otherwise. You will also note that Reston does NOT say that firepower was the decisive factor in the Six-Day War, and that was the claim you said you could substantiate. I’m waiting, Heshan; where’s your evidence?

” By nightfall, Israel said it destroyed 416 Arab aircraft, while losing 26 of its own in the first two days of the war. I remember a certain clown on here claiming the Israeli’s and Arabs had the same quality weaponry”

And I stand by that statement; unless you can show evidence that firepower was the decisive factor. Keep trying, kid. Lol.

“Thanks for proving your lack of knowledge in regards to the Korean War. “

But we’re not talking about the Korean War, Buffalo Bill Heshan; we’re talking about the Vietnam war; you know, the one ten years later, that the Americans lost? :D You said: ““They (Americans) captured every significant landmark without much struggle, but the Vietcong were always able to regroup. The “enemy” was always there in the dense jungles, in elaborate bunkers and tunnels underground in the jungle, hiding in the trees, hiding in Laos and Cambodia, etc, hiding among the civilians in South Vietnam, etc.”” And I asked you how this was possible if firepower and technology was what was important, according to you. Is it because you”re basically clueless about war and history that you’re now talking about Korea? Ha ha ha, you are an entertaining fool, aren’t you?

“What happened is that Hezbollah took such a beating, that it hasn’t fired a single rocket into Israel since.”

First of all, my question to you was why the Israeli goal of rescuing the missing soldiers wasn’t achieved. Why, Paddy Field Marshal Heshan? As for the rockets, here’s what AP said in 2009: “Lebanese militants fired at least three rockets into Israel early Thursday, threatening to open a new front for the Jewish state as it pushed forward with a bloody offensive in the Gaza Strip that has killed nearly 700 people. Israel responded with mortar shells. The rockets that exploded in Israel’s north raised the specter of renewed hostilities with Hezbollah, just 2 1/2 years after Israel battled the guerrilla group to a 34-day stalemate. Hezbollah started the 2006 war as Israel was battling Palestinian militants in Gaza.” (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hezbollah-launches-rockets-into-israel) Didn’t you say that not a SINGLE rocket was fired from Lebanon since the invasion? The only thing that prevented Hizbollah continuing their rocket attacks was the Lebanese Army moving into southern Lebanon. According to the Winograd Commision, the IDF couldn’t stop the rockets. Here’s what it had to say about the effectivity of Israel’s invasion :D : “The report continued to state that “a semi-military organization of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East, which enjoyed full air superiority and size and technology advantages”. Furthermore, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks continued throughout the war and the IDF did not provide an effective response to it. Following a long period of using standoff fire power and limited ground activities, the IDF launched a large scale ground offensive close to the UN Security Council’s resolution which imposed a cease-fire. “This offensive did not result in military gains and was not completed”.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War#Winograd_Commission_Report) This might explain why the IDF commander was subsequently sacked, no? Any further comments, Paddy Field Marshal, on how technology and firepower are the decisive factors in war?

“It depends on the environment as well. There are also situations when minimal firepower is needed. But there’s absolutely no connection to man-power, like you claimed earlier.”

But the discussion isn’t about the quantity of firepower, but the fire superiority. If a hostage has a pistol, and the hostage rescuer kills him with a sniping rifle, that is minimal use of firepower, but it is still superior firepower. So can you show me any military hostage rescue operation where the rescuers did not have superior firepower and manpower numbers. I’ll make it easier for you by giving you a few famous rescues that you can Google: the SAS at Princes Gate, Sayaret Matkal at Entebbe, GSG9 and the SAS at Mogadishu.

“LOL your an idiot. The invasion was a message to Hezbollah not to mess with Israel. Millions were spent – Israel doesn’t exactly have a budget deficit. Hundreds died on the Arab side. Israel “retreated” due to external pressure”

Really? But the rocket fire had been going on for years without an Israeli incursion; so if rocketing was the reason for the invasion, why did it only happen after the capture of the two Israeli soldiers? Also, if the invasion was a success, why did it fail to both stop the rocketing and rescue the soldiers? And why was the IDF commander sacked? And it wasn’t hundreds that died on the Arab side, it was 1,700, almost 1,200 of whom were Lebanese civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War).

“Also, Israel “invades” routinely invades the Gaza strip. It “violates” the “airspace” that belongs to the PLA. Yet these “invasions” almost never miss their target.”

But we’re not talking about piddly Gaza; we’re talking about Lebanon, a country Israel has had to ignominiously retreat from twice. There’s no point pointing to another battle when you’ve lost the one in point. Your claim was that firepower and technology are the decisive factors; so why then did Israel fail to meet its objectives in Lebanon in 2006?

“Actually it [conscription during war] does [make economic sense] . Once again, its called making optimum use of resources.”

Lol, you need to substantiate your claims, not repeat them with words you found in a thesaurus. How can taking trained members of the civilian workforce off the factory line and retraining them as soldiers, and then once more retraining a new workforce to replace the original workforce make military sense? The only reason it was done in WW2 by industrial nations such as the US, UK, and USSR, was because it was an absolute necessity for victory; not because it made economic sense. In contrast, conscription in peacetime does make economic sense because it saves longterm investment in career soldiers. Why don’t you have a peek at this, which talks about the long-term economic damage of conscription during the Vietnam War: http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/3064 In Vietnam, 92% of the eligible male population was exempt, so if 8% caused damage, imagine what WW2 caused.

“The boom was because women finally got a chance to work in the factories, and also the factories made stuff mostly for the war.”

The second part is correct (mostly because you’re repeating what I told you); however, the first part isn’t. How did women getting to work in factories contribute to an increase in the economy over having the original male factory workers in place?

“Nonsense. Stalin simply threw wave after wave of poorly trained conscripts to fight the Germans. If Hitler had pulled the 6th Army out of Stalingrad, the war would’ve taken a very different course.”

Yes, that IS making optimum use of resources :D Those poorly trained conscripts overwhelmed the Germans. As for your “if” about the 6th Army, even if he had allowed them to retreat, the bulk wouldn’t have been able to disengage fast enough to break through to Hoth. Pointing to Hitler’s mistakes doesn’t change the fact that the Soviets beat the Germans.

“Losing 20 million men (Soviet side) is not breaking Germany. That’s why the Soviets went after the women when they captured Berlin; it was to appease the total destruction of the many Soviet cities and the slaughter of millions of Soviet citizens that the Germans had wrought. “

Still stuck in those bodycounts, eh, Untersturmfuhrer Heshan? Lol. Try and stay off the Hollywood version of WW2 and read a few books. Stalin would have lost another 20 million and still accepted it to beat Hitler. The Germans were destroyed on the Eastern Front; and the only reason the western Allies even got as far as they did was because the German high command kept stripping units facing them and sending them off to fight the Russians. I know you enjoy masturbating to those rape stories, but that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR had to beat the Germans to get to Berlin. Or are you back to suggesting that Germany actually won WW2? Lol.

“The USA would have entered the war on the side of Britain sooner or later, like it did in WWI. “

Impossible to say. If Moscow had fallen in 1941, and the Caucasus oil fields had been taken, the war in North Africa would have been different. If either the Soviets or the British had been still in the war by the year’s end, yes, the US would have come in. But with the Soviets gone and German”s oil supplies secure, Britain might have sued for peace, and then the US wouldn’t have had a launching pad.

“This is what the Americans did: Freed France from Nazi Occupation Freed Italy from Nazi Occupation Freed Poland from Nazi Occupation Freed Belgium from Nazi Occupation Freed Scandinavia fro Nazi Occupation Freed Netherlands, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Denmark, Finland”

Lol, how naive. The Americans couldn’t have done any of the above if the USSR wasn’t bleeding the Germans dry. The Axis lost over 5.5 million military dead in WW2, of which almost 4.5 million were killed on the Eastern Front, not to mention the 5.5 million captured by the Soviets. That means in ALL the battles between Normandy and Berlin, in ALL the battles in North Africa, in ALL the sea battles in the Atlantic and Med, and in ALL the air battles in the west just 1.1 million German servicemen were killed, less than a quarter of the number killed by the Russians! One quarter. If the Russians killed and captured 10 million German servicemen in five years, how long do you think they’d have taken to kill another million?

“Conscript manpower was not counterproductive in Vietnam. If it was counterproductive the Americans would not have lost 1 man for every 19 men on the Vietcong side.”

But as already explained to you, shitforbrains, the objective in Vietnam wasn’t to kill commies, but to stop the commies winning. And in that, every account of the Vietnam War concedes the poor quality, training, motivation, and morale of the US’ conscript troops. Read Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam by Prof John Nagl, Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare by Dr Daniel Marston and Dr Carter Malkasian for a start.

“Conscript manpower would not have been counterproductive in SL; given the high rate of unemployment and the general dismal state of the economy, it would have actually been economically viable.”

You don’t take military decisions according to economic viability, dimwit. The fact that the SL Army was expanded to a satisfactory strength without the need for conscription proves it wasn’t necessary, and conscription is done only as a necessity. If you don”t understand that basic of governance then you really shouldn’t be allowed out on the net without adult supervision.

“If the Tamil youth had been conscripted as well, it would have driven a major wedge between the LTTE and Tamil diaspora”

Oh yes, brilliant. Why didn’t the US conscript some Vietnamese into the US forces in Vietnam? Or how ’bout a few Iraqis and Afghans? Bet that’d drive a nice wedge between them and AQ. Meantime, perhaps you should get your head out from where it’s wedged up your butthole.

“If Karuna had not defected, the war would have taken three or four times as long to complete.”

But Karuna’s defection was no accident, which is my point.

Jibber jabber jabber jibber…

This is what I actually said; which is worlds apart from the selective portion you’ve quoted out of context. Heard of context, Blacker?

Which means that in terms of sheer conquest, Hitler outdid them all by leaps and bounds. So in this sense, he is a “victor” indeed – but the victory ended after he made the wrong enemies, e.g. Soviet Union and USA. This is a clear case of the victor being punished.

http://groundviews.org/2011/02/20/the-curious-case-of-diplomats-that-%E2%80%98internal-conflict%E2%80%99/

The USA doesn’t use Israeli weapons system? Yeah, that’s like saying David Blacker completed 8th grade.

————-

Israeli Weapons Systems Employed by the U.S.

Israel, a small nation surrounded by enemies many times her size, has long been known as a great innovator of cutting-edge military technology at affordable costs. Over the years, Israel’s ingenuity has helped it win many battles and protect the lives of its soldiers. American interest in Israeli systems is growing as the U.S. military looks for ways to decrease its spending and minimize casualties during wartime. “Made in Israel” solutions are now meeting some of America’s biggest needs.

ITALD (Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy)

These jet powered, unpiloted decoys look and maneuver like an airplance. They are used to confuse enemy radar and draw the fire away from the piloted aircraft. Therefore, piloted aircraft can perform their missions under “safer” conditions because enemy radar attention is diverted and the enemy’s air defense power is degraded. Earlier unpowered glider versions of the ITALD were used extensively during the initial stages of the Gulf War and in Bosnia.

Reactive Armor Tiles

These tiles, developed by the IDF after the Yom Kippur War, protect its tanks and the soldiers operating them. These tiles overlay the tank’s armor and have explosives embedded in them that explode outward when hit by missiles. The explosion destroys and repels the incoming missile before it penetrates the tank’s main armor. During the 1982 Lebanon war, not a single Israeli tank equipped with these tiles was lost to enemy fire. The Army has received funds to outfit several hundred armored vehicles used in peacekeeping or urban combat operations with the protective tile sets.

Litening

The Litening is a navigation and targeting device that enables aircraft to fly and target in bad weather and at night. The Litening transforms older planes into round-the-clock fighters. The Litening is equipped with two cameras. One uses heat sensors to identify targets at night and during bad weather. A second provides powerful images from long-range, and therefore safer, distances during the day. The U.S. Air National Guard, a quarter of whose fleet cannot fly at night, has purchased the Litening to enhance the capabilities of its F-16s. The Litening is also being purchased by the U.S. Marine Corps.

The Popeye/ HAVE NAP AGM-142

The HAVE NAP AGM-142, known as the Popeye, is used to destroy targets, such as concrete military bunkers, with exceptional precision from great distances. It is the only air-to-ground missile that can be retargeted after launch. The United States uses the Popeye on B-52 bombers. A small number of these aircraft, armed with the Popeye, were deployed to Europe for use in Kosovo. The Popeye’s unique capabilities are especially useful for the types of pinpoint strikes seen in Operation Allied Force.

UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles)

The introduction of the UAV has been one of the most important factors enabling the United States to fight effective air wars with a minimum of casualties. Today, the United States has one of the largest fleets of Israeli-made UAVs. UAVs are used to identify targets and assess bomb damage without putting pilots at risk. During the Gulf War, as well as in Kosovo, Israeli-made Pioneer and Hunter UAVs were used to stop hard-to-detect targets such as missile launchers, artillery units and command and control bunkers. This information enabled commanders to target their aircraft to destroy these sites.

Python-4-Air-to-Air Missile

The Python-4 is recognized as the world’ most advanced short-range air-to-air missile. Unlike other missiles of its kind, the Python can fire at targets from any angle, not just those directly in front of it. This gives it a much larger zone in which in can effectively destroy enemy aircraft.
Army/Ground

Simon: A system used to access buildings with locked or barricaded doors without endangering U.S. troops or the people inside.
AN/PRC-149 Radio Set and AN/URT-140 Radio Beacon Set: Radio sets signal search and rescue satellites, which in turn beam the location of lost personnel to every receiving station within range.
SINCGARS Tactical Communications: Employing a number of high-tech Israeli electronic components, this is the most widely used tactical radio in the U.S. Army inventory.
Marine Amphibious Vehicle Armor Upgrade: An add-on layer of non-reactive armor tiles, this system greatly improves the survivability of U.S. Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicles.
Mine Plows: Both the U.S. army and the Marine Corps have attached these armored plows to the front end of their tanks, enabling the lead tank in a column to push land mines aside, thus allowing safe passage for the rest of the vehicles.
CLAMS: Used by U.S. Marine Corps tank crews in the Gulf War, this system enabled columns of tanks to navigate safely through enemy minefields.
UZI 9mm Submachine Gun: The U.S. Secret Service currently uses this world-renowned automatic weapon.
B300/SMAW Bunker-Busting Missile: The U.S. Marine Corps procured this missile for use in destroying deeply buried and hardened concrete-reinforced bunkers.
Towed Assault Bridge: Both the U.S. Army and Marine Corp attached these devices to their tanks, enabling a single tank to cross obstacles up to approximately 30 feet wide without any additional assistance.

Naval

Pioneer UAV: Used in Kosovo, this remote-controlled surveillance aircraft enables operators to see targets and conduct bomb damage assessment day or night, and through smoke, fog or dust.
Tactical Air-Launched Decoy: The TALD, used extensively by the U.S. Navy in the Gulf war, is an unpowered glider used to confuse and thwart enemy ground and airborne radar operators, thus protecting U.S. pilots.
Vertical Launch System (VLS): Used extensively by the U.S. Navy in the Gulf war, these launchers sent sea-to-sea, sea-to-air, and anti-submarine and Tomahawk cruise missiles from the bellies of the U.S. Navy cruisers into action against Iraqi targets.

Air Warfare

Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System: This system allows fighter pilots to target enemy aircraft by using a display within their helmet to guide the missiles at the target they are looking at, rather than having to maneuver their aircraft into an attack position.
Night Targeting System (NTS): The NTS is used on U.S. Marine Corps Cobra attack helicopters and allows the Cobra pilots to operate day or night, in good and bad weather. It also provides automatic targeting, easing the gunner’s workload in flight.
Helicopter Crash Survival Seats: These seats drastically reduce the effects of a helicopter crash by absorbing much of the crash’s energy, resulting in fewer injuries and fatalities.
Light Defender SEAD System: Designed to suppress enemy air defense capabilities, this highly versatile precision munition can find and destroy enemy air defenses even when they are non-transmitting or silent. It can also be retargeted in flight.
600 Gallon Fuel Tanks: This external fuel tank greatly increases the range of U.S. and Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers.
Kfir Fighter Aircraft: Designed and developed in Israel in the early 1980s, this fighter was loaned to the United States for use in simulated combat missions and training.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/israelisystems.html

————————–

I will leave the rest of your buffoonery, inaccuracies, and total misperceptions untouched, as the weather today is gloomy enough. You might want to contact the circus though; they’re always in need of extra clowns.

“which is worlds apart from the selective portion you’ve quoted out of context. Heard of context, Blacker?”

I have given the context as well as the link so that everyone can see the context for themselves. To reiterate, the debate was whether only losers in wars are prosecuted for war crimes, or the victors too. The debate was not whether achievers were prosecuted. Hitler certainly achieved a lot; but he wasn’t a victor in WW2. To claim that he was (as you have) is to claim he won WW2. Thanks for confirming it. Stand by for your other gaffs.

The Israeli weapons you’ve listed are not exclusively used by the Americans, but the US aid to Israel is exclusively used by the IDF; so it isn’t an exchange as you make out. UAVs, reactive armour, radar, etc are used all over the world. Try again, idiot.

Good move to abandon the debate now that you’ve looked like a fool again. Never reinforce defeat, Paddy Field Marshal lol.

“The police don’t have to do everything the military does, in order to qualify as a larger version of the military.”

So now the police is a larger version of the military? Lol. You actually think the police force is larger than the three armed forces? Jesus. So how can there be a similarity, Professor Heshan, when you can find no similarities?

“Both institutions are extremely corrupt and above the law.”

But we have already established that the military isn’t above the law but following the laws set by parliament, ie the PTA and Emergency Regulations. Also, can you point to any evidence of comparable levels of corruption between the police and the military. I mean, other than stuff you dreamt up yourself.

“Both utilize excessive force to achieve their own ends.”

Really? But the job of the military is to use overwhelming force to achieve its objectives :D Do you know of any military that goes about saying, “please can you do as we say or we’ll be very cross”? The Israelis perhaps? The guys at Abu Ghraib maybe?

“Both do the bidding of politicians and lack independence.”

But according to the constitution, the military must be subserviant to the civil power, ie the GoSL which is made up of politicians and civil servants. Surely, you’re not suggesting that the military must set its own policies and do what it pleases, independent of the political objective?

“Get it? If you don’t, I really can’t help you; you’ll need to begin with “Sesame Street”, progress to “Teletubbies”, etc. “

Oh, is that where you get your genius ideas on governance and war? And there I was thinking, you might be another ivy leaguer like our Gehan.

“I’m talking about human rights violations by the military. In this context, the guilty part is the military. They (can) arrest whomever they choose, and abuse that person, so regardless of whether or not the arrested person has committed any crime, the military is guilty. “

Afraid not, My Unlearned Friend. You see guilt isn’t assumed; so you can’t just presume the military is guilty because you’ve heard of violations. In that case the entire US Army would be genocidal maniacs. And if the Army can arrest, that is because the PTA and the ERs empower them to do so, making it legal.

“Except that the statistics don’t back up your assertion. More than 50 US soldiers have been punished for crimes related to Iraq/Afghanistan”

Can you link to the list of these 50? Your stats are usually quite entertaining!

“whereas less than 10 SLA soldiers were punished for committing atrocities against Tamil civilians in over 30 years of war. If you want to argue this, provide statistics related to convictions of SLA soldiers.”

How would the numbers convicted show that the military is acting with impunity, when even the conviction of a single soldier proves that the acts you’ve described are regarded as illegal, forcing said soldiers to disguise their crimes by planting evidence? You basically shot your argument in the foot when you admitted that soldiers planted evidence. If they had impunity, they wouldn’t have to.

“It’s both, you dumb piece of shit.”

Lol, forgot your happy pills today, Heshan? Have they noticed the padded cell’s empty? So you’re claiming that the military is uncontrollable but controlled by politicians? Does this actually make sense to anyone else on planet earth? How can it be both?

“If you disagree, then explain why zero investigations have been conducted into the behavior of soldiers during the last days of war.”

There have been no civil or national investigations, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been internal military investigations. The latter are rarely publicised, and even then only when it’s in regard to a major incident such as the Kokkadicholai massacre. The civil government believes that the military acted within reason and there’s no reason to investigate. So does this prove that the politicians control the military or that the military is out of control? :D

“Just dismissing every allegation as “LTTE propaganda”, e.g. Channel 4 videos, does not constitute credible proof.”

But neither the military nor the GoSL needs to provide credible proof of innocence. It’s credible proof of guilt that needs to be provided, and the Ch 4 tapes can very well be isolated incidents as there in all armies at war.

“There were hundreds of such incidents – Channel 4 alone claims to have dozens of videos””

And how do dozens of videos equate to hundreds of incidents? Even the two tapes Ch4 has released are of the same incident. Why don’t we stick to the actual evidence instead of what people claim to have but no one’s seen.

“if the LTTE had time to make all these videos, plus “fabricate” the dozens of photos of abused Tamil POWS, then who the hell was doing the fighting on their side?”

You mean all of the two videos? :D

“SL army camps were used to protect Sinhalese settlements time and again.”

But my question to you was: since colonisation started in the late ’40s, why was there no parallel increase in Army camps in the 1940s since you claim both happened in conjunction? Why is it that militarisation only began in the ’80s after the militants had taken up arms?

“I’ve already answered the question; you’re attempt to counter it by mentioning how people protest freely in the South is irrelevant.”

No, you haven’t. You have been unable to provide a SINGLE incident of military involvement in the civil governance outside the NE. That was my challenge to you; to substantiate your claim that the military was taking over the civil administration in SL.

“What does it matter if they agreed to leave or not?”

Because you claimed that they agreed to leave by a specified date. I’m asking you to prove that they agreed to leave by a specified date.

“I left Groundviews because Sanjana Hattotuwa is arse-licking GOSL puppet Dayan Jayatilleke.”

Really? I thought it was because you claimed you’d leave GV if DJ proved you wrong. He did it with ease and you wriggled until he made fun of you and humiliated you ’til you had no choice but to do as you’d promised.

“Sanjana wouldn”t publish my posts regarding Dayan’s sub-par academic credentials”

Well, given that you have no credentials whatsoever, yet think yourself worthy enough to hold forth on subjects you’re plainly ignorant on, what does DJ’s qualifications matter? All that matters is the subject of the debate and the points brought up. As is obvious, no one needs a qualification to make a fool out of you. You have ignominously retreated first from Transcurrents, subsequently making accusations about DBS Jeyaraj behind his back, and now after being laughed out of GV, you’re doing the same to Sanjana. Don’t you have the balls to take people head on?

And if the Army can arrest, that is because the PTA and the ERs empower them to do so, making it legal.

That can arrest on the basis of “suspicion”, which is vaguely defined, which is why the PTA and ER become failures from the start. They can also suspects indefinitely on the basis of forced confessions and other circumstantial evidence. And a minister can keep a suspect detained longer, if he so wishes, which basically puts ministers above the law, since they can overrule the law at their choosing.

“Except that the statistics don’t back up your assertion. More than 50 US soldiers have been punished for crimes related to Iraq/Afghanistan”

Can you link to the list of these 50?

Abu Grahib: 11 convictions (Wikipedia)

Mahmudiya: 5 convictions (Wikipedia)

Haditha: 1 conviction (Wikipedia)

Hamdania: 1 conviction (Wikipedia)

Bagram: 7 convictions (Wikipedia)

12 convictions in this Afghanistan incident: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-23/justice/us.afghan.sport.killing_1_jeremy-morlock-adam-winfield-michael-wagnon?_s=PM:CRIME

2 in this one (Afghanistan):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4662890.stm

1 here (Afghanistan):

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/02/soldier-accused-afghan-death-mental-facilty/

2 here (Afghanistan):

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2011/03/25/1081596?sac=Home

1 here (Afghanistan)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/60minutes/main1364163.shtml

2 here (Afghanistan):

http://caosblog.com/archives/127

That’s 45 convictions of US soldiers right there.

How would the numbers convicted show that the military is acting with impunity,

An ordinary civilian cannot get away with murder very easily, but a person in the Sri Lankan military, operating within the perimeters of combat zone or former combat zone, certainly can. Once again, the classic example: pick a Tamil civilian at random, kill him, plant a grenade on him, and claim he was a member of the LTTE. The grenade satisfies the “probable cause” stipulation of the PTA, where “probable cause” is precisely equivalent to “suspicion.” Assuming the soldier had to justify himself before a judiciary, his defense would simply be that said civilian was in possession of a grenade. The grenade was found during a routine search. The actual homicide took place when said civilian tried to lob grenade. This is how the criminal SLA has got away with murder for 30 years!

when even the conviction of a single soldier proves that the acts you’ve described are regarded as illegal,

A single conviction means nothing. A greater sample size is far more indicative of a general trend. That’s why no one takes a survey with just one person.

forcing said soldiers to disguise their crimes by planting evidence? You basically shot your argument in the foot when you admitted that soldiers planted evidence.

They don’t want others to others to know about their dirty work. That’s why they cover it up.

So you’re claiming that the military is uncontrollable but controlled by politicians? Does this actually make sense to anyone else on planet earth? How can it be both?

The military has life and death powers over Tamil civilians in the North and East, but the military must still perform certain functions for the politicians. But this doesn’t mean the politicians give a shit how the military rapes Sarathambal and blows her vagina up with a grenade. The military still gets to choose which Tamils to kill and how to kill them, thanks to the PTA. In that regard, no one controls their choice of either victim or method of execution.

There have been no civil or national investigations, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been internal military investigations. The latter are rarely publicised, and even then only when it’s in regard to a major incident such as the Kokkadicholai massacre. The civil government believes that the military acted within reason and there’s no reason to investigate. So does this prove that the politicians control the military or that the military is out of control? :D

If convictions fail to materialize in the well-publicized cases, e.g. Janaka Perera/Chemmani, Trinco 5, its a foregone conclusion that convictions don’t occur via “internal military investigations.” Impunity is the key word here. The SLA acts with impunity thanks to the PTA/ER.

But neither the military nor the GoSL needs to provide credible proof of innocence. It’s credible proof of guilt that needs to be provided, and the Ch 4 tapes can very well be isolated incidents as there in all armies at war.

Isolated is not what GOSL claimed – fabricated is how they denied every incident. There is a difference between “isolated” and “fabricated.” Fabricated implies it never happened. Isolated is an admission of guilt. The fact that GOSL has publicly refused to acknowledge the misbehavior of its soldiers – isolated or otherwise – is indicative of a far more serious issue, a coverup, which is why Moon got his panel of experts to issue the report. He knew he could only expect a coverup from GOSL.

And how do dozens of videos equate to hundreds of incidents?

600 Tamil youth disappeared from Jaffna alone after the SLA recaptured it (Operation Sunshit). And that was in a 1-2 year span. Now lets factor in the other 28 years of the war.

But my question to you was: since colonisation started in the late ’40s, why was there no parallel increase in Army camps in the 1940s since you claim both happened in conjunction? Why is it that militarisation only began in the ’80s after the militants had taken up arms?

It would depend on the ethnic demography of the particular areas that were colonized. You would also have to analyze the trends in Sinhalese nationalism at the time; e.g. was the latest trend language discrimination, disenfranchisement of estate Tamils, standardisation, etc. And who was leading the charge, e.g. the SWRD, JR, or the clown in the red scarf. Each had/has a unique approach to the “Tamil Question.”

No, you haven’t. You have been unable to provide a SINGLE incident of military involvement in the civil governance outside the NE.

My argument was limited to military involvement in the North and East, lol.

That was my challenge to you; to substantiate your claim that the military was taking over the civil administration in SL.

I don’t know why you’re trying to extend my argument from the particular to the universal, when I’ve clearly delineated the constraints. That’s a bizzare way of arguing. Not every argument is universally true. Apologies if you were taught otherwise in school.

Because you claimed that they agreed to leave by a specified date.

Where did I make that claim. Quote me exactly. I merely said they agreed to leave.

Really? I thought it was because you claimed you’d leave GV if DJ proved you wrong.

I left because Sanjana Hattotuwa did not let me adequately defend myself. E.g. it was not a level playing field with Sanjana resorting to selective censorship.

He did it with ease and you wriggled until he made fun of you and humiliated you ’til you had no choice but to do as you’d promised.

Actually I had DJ running for his life, when I clearly exposed him as a supporter of Tamil separatism. I quoted him exactly, when he affirmed his commitment to the existence and preservation of a “Tamil nation” – where the expression in quotes are his words, not mine. I also proved that despite his claims to greatness, he has never made a prediction that demonstrates his expertise. Which goes to show that he’s nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual commie, that blindly supports GOSL, because he has a personal vendetta against the UNP (a point which commentator Agnos also made clear).

“Sanjana wouldn”t publish my posts regarding Dayan’s sub-par academic credentials”

Well, given that you have no credentials whatsoever,

I have several degrees, nevertheless, I don’t go around on the Internet posing as a “Dr”, passing along Marxist inspired gibberish in attempt to defend a totalitarian regime. If, however, anyone wants to call themselves Dr, you better have the academic credentials to prove it, not least of all, a proven track record of cited published papers, which Dayan does not have. The moron has written a book on Castro. No one famous has even reviewed his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fidels-Ethics-Violence-Dimension-Political/dp/074532696X

Neither has anyone read it and left a positive rating (or any rating, for that matter) meaning the book is not popular. Which is backed up by the fact that as far as “bestsellers” go, its #2,116,270 on the list.

yet think yourself worthy enough to hold forth on subjects you’re plainly ignorant on,

Just because I have shattered your arguments to pieces time and again, doesn’t mean you have to get all defensive now. Your IQ is obviously on the low end, whereas mine is above-average. It’s not expected that you could win an argument with me. For one thing, your arguments lack creativity. Most of what you write, I can shatter to pieces in 10 or 15 different ways. On the other hand, I’ll give you credit for trying. It looks as if you write to a lot of different forums (for what purpose exactly, I know not). It’s a tragedy that you lack the intellect to put forth valuable arguments, despite the remarkable amount of effort you exert. Particularly when those like Dayan, who never cease to advertise their credentials, effortlessly sputter forth mounds of dribble.

As is obvious, no one needs a qualification to make a fool out of you.

Hahaha. Search carefully through “Groundviews”, my friend. You will find no shortage of accolades from those praised me. People I never met claiming they read everything I write. Now, personally, I don’t care for compliments. I don’t post on anonymous forums to receive compliments. I am just pointing it out given your above quote there.

You have ignominously retreated first from Transcurrents, subsequently making accusations about DBS Jeyaraj behind his back,

DBSJ is a fraud. if push came to shove, I could easily prove it. The evidence is all there on Transcurrents. A long time ago, I wrote something on there that so totally pissed off DBSJ (told you I’m creative!) that he could only respond by pretending to be me, e.g. by impersonating me and writing BS under my name. Well, I’m not one to give up easy – I tried to BS using DBSJ’s name, but the MF couldn’t stand that either and deleted what I wrote. I only left when he started deleting what I wrote. I don’t give a shit if people impersonate me or hurl insults. But if I’m not allowed to reply back, then it’s not a level playing field anymore. Transcurrents, Groundviews, and Infolanka Forum (which banned my IP address, so I couldn’t post there anymore, lol)… Sri Lankans seem to be fond of censorship, which is probably 35% of the reason why SL is so f ed up, period.

and now after being laughed out of GV, you’re doing the same to Sanjana. Don’t you have the balls to take people head on?

If Sanjana, Dayan Jayatilleke, and DBSJ want to debate me in an open forum, I’m all willing to take up the challenge. But I’m not gonna put up with their censorship crap; censorship is just cheating, and cheating is for cowards.

pardon the grammatical errors in the above.

It’s true enough what Heshan is saying, Sanjana Hattotuwa is a bit of a cunt. He screams about censorship by the SL government, but has no qualms about imposing his overbearing censorship on Groundviews and yet has the gall to claim it is a website on “citizen journalism.”

“That can arrest on the basis of “suspicion”, which is vaguely defined, which is why the PTA and ER become failures from the start.”

But your argument is that the SL military acts with impunity and outside the law; but the examples you’re providing show that it is in fact acting in accordance with the law (the ERs and PTA are laws). You can argue against laws if you like, but you can’t argue that the SL military is above the law and then give examples that in fact show the opposite :D Not unless you’re retarded, of course.

“They can also suspects indefinitely on the basis of forced confessions and other circumstantial evidence.”

Lol once more you’re giving examples of soldiers attempting to disguise the fact that they’re breaking the law. If they were above the law, why would they bother?

“And a minister can keep a suspect detained longer, if he so wishes, which basically puts ministers above the law, since they can overrule the law at their choosing.”

Nope. The only ministers that can do so are the defence minister or other minister in charge of internal security, and this is detailed in the ERs and PTA. So it’s not an act above the law. If you have proof of other ministers doing so, let’s see it, beacuse then you’d have evidence of an illegality. Either way, how does this substantiate your claim that the military acts with impunity? All you’ve shown are that ministers are arseholes, and we didn’t need you to tell us that, Prophet Muhammed Heshan.

Judge Advocate General Heshan’s List of 50 Convicted US War Criminals from Iraq and Afghanistan (pay attention, boys and girls, ‘cos this is fun):

Abu Grahib: 11 convictions (Wikipedia) — acts of murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Death_of_Manadel_al-Jamadi), rape and paedophelia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Raping_of_prisoners) and multiple acts of torture and sexual abuse. Only the lowest rankers were tried, none received more than 10 years, the bulk of them serving less than a year. At least one was reinstated and promoted after serving time. Not a single officer ever faced a court martial even though all evidence showed a policy of torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Courts-martial.2C_non-judicial_punishment.2C_and_administrative_reprimands).

Mahmudiya: 5 convictions (Wikipedia) — fair enough, these guys got what they deserved.

Haditha: 1 conviction (Wikipedia) — Five enlisted men charged with multiple counts of murder, three officers with covering up said crimes; all charges dropped, no convictions whatsoever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings#Charges_dropped).

Hamdania: 1 conviction (Wikipedia) – out of 8 men in the squad; the other 7 had the murder charges dropped in exchange for screwing over the 8th guy. According to Wiki charges were dropped on several others who were uncovered during investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident#Charges_and_investigation).

Bagram: 7 convictions (Wikipedia) – 15 people charged, only 3 saw prison time, none over 3 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Investigation_and_prosecution)

12 convictions in this Afghanistan incident: according to your link, no one has even been brought to trial.

2 in this one (Afghanistan): according to your link no one sentenced to more than 6 months .

1 here (Afghanistan): according to your link, never brought to trial.

2 here (Afghanistan): according to your link, the charges are fraud and embezzlement, and nothing to do with HR or war crimes (do you actually read the stuff you’re “researching”?) Ha ha ha.

1 here (Afghanistan) — lol this is the same incident in Bagram you’ve listed above. Willie Brand didn’t see a day of prison.

2 here (Afghanistan): lol according to your link, these three are not US servicemen, and they were sentenced by an Afghan court, not the US military or civil judicial system.

“That’s 45 convictions of US soldiers right there.”

I count 20 prison convictions, not 45, of which just NINE got sentences of over 6 months! Yes, Judge Heshan, that sure does convince us that the US is prosecuting its war criminals. Thanks, Heshan, you never cease to entertain me ha ha ha…

Sorry, I’m laughing too hard to concentrate. I’ll be right back.

But your argument is that the SL military acts with impunity and outside the law; but the examples you’re providing show that it is in fact acting in accordance with the law (the ERs and PTA are laws). You can argue against laws if you like, but you can’t argue that the SL military is above the law and then give examples that in fact show the opposite

The PTA and ER don’t actually say you can murder someone and get away with it. But that’s what happens in Sri Lanka. SL military personnel use the PTA and ER to break the law. You’re trying to argue that it’s not possible to break a law using a law. Actually it IS possible, as long as the two laws are different . An example being that in order to torture someone, you need to detain them. There is no law in SL that says torture is okay. But the ER and PTA make detaining a piece of cake.

Nope. The only ministers that can do so are the defence minister or other minister in charge of internal security, and this is detailed in the ERs and PTA.

Nope. The only ministers that can do so are the defence minister or other minister in charge of internal security, and this is detailed in the ERs and PTA. So it’s not an act above the law.

So you’re admitting that the Defense Ministry and not the Supreme Court or any other civilian court or even the Parliament as you earlier claimed, have life and death powers over a Tamil civilian. Since the military comes under the purview of the Defense Ministry, it makes sense to ask how likely the Defense Ministry is to investigate abuses by its soldiers. That question can be answered rather easily:

—-

On June 7, BBC presenter Stephen Sackur confronted Sri Lanka Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, brother to Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse, with an assertion by Sarath Fonseka, former general who had led the final bloody assault against the Tamil Tigers, that he would testify before any independent investigation about alleged government abuses during the Tamil war. “I will not hide anything,” Gen. Fonseca had vowed.

Defense Secretary Rajapakse responded to the BBC interviewer, “That’s a treason. We will hang him if he do that.”

—-

The above is even more fun when you actually see the interview in person, with GR’s face turning a nice shade of red and his voice taking on Mozart-opera-like mezzo-soprano overtones. Anyway, Blacker, I leave it for you to answer a simple question: how likely is a ministry to investigate its subordinates, considering that the head of said ministry considers it treason to even mention the possibility of abuses .

Eleven soldiers have been convicted of various charges relating to the incidents”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse ———- > ( CONVICTIONS = 11)

2.

Green was arrested as a civilian, and convicted by a civilian court, the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky.[32] The other four, all active-duty soldiers, were convicted through courts-martial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings ————–> (CONVICTIONS = 5)

3. Haditha

On October 19, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt’s commanding officer decided the charges should be lowered to involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings ——————- > (CONVICTIONS = 1)

4. Hamdania

November 2006: Shumate gets 21 months after striking conspiracy plea
February 2007: Pennington gets eight years in plea deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident ——————- > (CONVICTIONS = 2)

5. Bagram:

DEFENDANT 1: Spc. Brian Cammack 377th MP

Pled guilty on May 20, 2005 to charges of assault and two counts of making a false statement, and agreed to testify in related cases in exchange for a dismissal of the charge of maltreating detainees. Sentenced to three months in prison , reduction to the rank of private, and a bad-conduct discharge.[19] Cammack claimed he hit Habibullah because Habibullah had spit on him.[22]

DEFENDANT 2: Pfc. Willie V. Brand 377th MP

Charged with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, simple assault, maiming, maltreatment, and making a false sworn statement. Convicted in August, 2005 of assault,

DEFENDANT 3: Sgt. Anthony Morden 377th MP

Charged with assault, maltreatment and making a false official statement. Pled guilty. Sentenced to 75 days of confinement, reduction to the rank of private, and a bad-conduct discharge.[19][25][26]

DEFENDANT 4: Spc. Glendale C. Walls

Pled guilty on August 23, 2005.[37]
Received a sentence of two months imprisonment.[3

DEFENDANT 5: Sgt. Joshua Claus

Claus pleaded guilty in September 2005 to maltreatment and assault of the man, known only as Dilawar, at the Bagram airfield detention centre outside Kabul. He was sentenced to five months in jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/346304

—————- > (CONVICTIONS = 5)

I’m already at 24 convictions, Blacker started pissing at 20.

6. Afghanistan

In all, officials charged 12 U.S. soldiers in what they called a conspiracy to kill Afghan civilians and cover it up, along with charges they mutilated corpses and kept grisly souvenirs.

Five of the soldiers face murder charges, while seven others are charged with participating in a cover-up.

Morlock was the first of the five to face an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing, at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

If convicted, Morlock faces a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole, the military said.

Holmes is charged with the premeditated deaths of three civilians, possessing a dismembered human finger, wrongfully possessing photographs of human casualties and smoking hashish.

He is also accused of conspiring with Morlock to shoot at a civilian and then toss a grenade so it would look like the soldiers were under attack.

All of the accused men were members of a 2nd Infantry Division brigade operating near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-23/justice/us.afghan.sport.killing_1_jeremy-morlock-adam-winfield-michael-wagnon?_s=PM:CRIME

Expect 12 convictions unless you’re Blacker and think no one has been brought to trial.

————– > (12 VERY LIKELY convictions)

7. Afghanistan

US soldier guilty of Afghan abuse
Afghan prisoner and US soldier
Rights groups have made a number of abuse allegations
A US soldier has been found guilty by a court martial in Kabul of assaulting prisoners in an American military base in Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province.

Sgt Kevin D Myricks was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to maltreat and two counts of maltreatment, a US military statement said.

Myricks has been reduced in rank and sentenced to six months’ detention.

On Saturday, another soldier, James Hayes, was sent to four months in prison for the same incident of abuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4662890.stm

———- > (2 CONVICTIONS)

8. Afghanistan:

Indiana soldier Pfc. David Lawrence faces the death penalty for killing a top Taliban commander in a prison cell last October. The I-Team 8 investigation however, begins a full month before the killing and a soldiers request for help.

(1 LIKELY CONVICTION or else permanent lockup in looney bin, might as well be considered a conviction)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2678735/posts

——– > (1 CONVICTION)

9. Afghanistan:

Sgt. Edwin Vando and Sgt. Juan Lamboy Rivera pleaded guilty Thursday before U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle as part of a plea agreement, according to The Fayetteville Observer. They promised to testify against a Fort Bragg soldier who has not been indicted or publicly identified.

Vando and Rivera were charged with aiding and abetting an employee of the United States in converting property of another.

Court documents say the soldiers, working along with an Afghan interpreter, embezzled the money while deployed with Fort Bragg’s 82nd Finance Battalion in 2009.

Vando and Rivera could face 10 years in prison.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/ap-army-bragg-plead-guilty-embezzlement-040711/

(But definitely not 0 years in prison).

———– > (CONVICTIONS = 2)

10. Afghanistan:

At his court-martial, Willie Brand was convicted of assault and maiming.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/60minutes/main1364163_page3.shtml?tag=untagged

—————— > (CONVICTIONS = 1)

11. Afghanistan:

KABUL, Afghanistan – Three Americans, led by a former Green Beret who boasted he had Pentagon support, were found guilty Wednesday of torturing Afghans in a private jail and were sentenced to prison.

— ( Two of them are are ex-soldiers)

http://caosblog.com/archives/127

———- > (CONVICTIONS = 2)

Grand total: 31 definitive convictions , with 12 more on the way (99.9% likely), and one other looney likely to be locked up forever.

So we can say with definite certainty that 44 US soldiers have been publicly convicted.

But your argument is that the SL military acts with impunity and outside the law; but the examples you’re providing show that it is in fact acting in accordance with the law (the ERs and PTA are laws).

You don’t seem to be aware of how one law can be used to break another. This is what the PTA/ER does. By allowing the military to arrest anyone on the basis of suspicion, without any search warrant (allowed by PTA/ER), it increases the likelihood that that person will be abused/murdered. But this doesn’t mean the PTA/ER have been violated – it just means the PTA/ER make violations that much easier.

Nope. The only ministers that can do so are the defence minister or other minister in charge of internal security,

So you admit that the psychopath Gothabaya Rajapakse is above the law since he can arbitrarily change the judgment of any Court, in regards to detained suspects? On other hand, this psychopath is also in charge of the Defense Ministry, which is in charge of the military. It would be fair to say that Gothabaya’s reaction to the prospect of any investigation into military would influence the chances of any such investigation taking place. Thus we can gauge whether or not such an investigation would take place by the following gem:

–
Fonseka roused the fury of the ruling Rajapaksa clan when he joined the opposition, a rift which deepened when he suggested there was eyewitness evidence of the defence secretary ordering army officers to shoot and kill surrendering Tamil Tiger leaders at the end of the war. That witness is said to be a Sri Lankan embedded journalist who is in hiding overseas. In a clandestine telephone interview, Fonseka confirmed that he had heard this account. He said he would be prepared to testify to an independent investigation of alleged abuses during the Tamil war. `I will not hide anything,` he said.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa responded angrily to the prospect of Fonseka giving evidence. `He can`t do that. He was the commander!` Rajapaksa said. `That`s a treason. We will hang him if he does that. I`m telling you! How can he betray the country? He is a liar, liar, liar.`

———–

Those are harsh words – does anyone in the room (except Blacker) need more reassurance that SLA abuses will NOT be investigated?

Judge Advocate General Heshan’s List of 50 Convicted US War Criminals from Iraq and Afghanistan

Perhaps they should have taught you to count in the SLA, before you blindly threw grenades at old ladies. I’m only concerned with the number of convictions.

Between Abu Grahib, Mahmudiya, Haditha, Hamdania, and Bagram, there were 11 + 1 + 1+ 5 convictions = 18 convictions alone. The trial you claimed never happened is irrelevant; all 12 have been charged, and there’s a 99.9% chance that all will be convicted, considering that none of them have thus far been acquitted. That equates to 30 convictions right there. I didn’t double count anything; the two of three you claimed weren’t soldiers were ex-soldiers. What does it matter if they were convicted for embezzlement? Your SLA buddies stole even the roof tiling off civilian empty houses to make an extra buck. In Groundviews there was a thread about your SLA buddies stealing Hindu statues to sell on the black market. And of course, we know how good your SLA buddies are at extortion; letting LTTE inmates leave the IDP camps in exchange for big payouts. Not to worry, psychopath Gotabhaya will ensure zero investigations occur. Which is the difference between US Army and the SLA: the convictions may be laughable in the US case, but in the case of the SLA, the investigation doesn’t even begin!

Now where were we, lol? oh yes…

“An ordinary civilian cannot get away with murder very easily, but a person in the Sri Lankan military, operating within the perimeters of combat zone or former combat zone, certainly can. Assuming the soldier had to justify himself before a judiciary, his defense would simply be that said civilian was in possession of a grenade.”

But all you’re still doing is proving that the law makes it easier for the military to get away with murder, not that the military is above the law. Your example about the grenade proves yet again that the only way a soldier who has committed murder can escape is by falsifying evidence. If the military operated with impunity, he wouldn’t have to. He could just say, “yup, he was a Tamil, so I killed him” and would walk away just as a German soldier could have done if he had murdered a Jew in WW2. So for instance if you were to bribe a cop to prevent him giving you a ticket, that doesn’t mean you’re above the law. If you were, you wouldn’t have to resort to bribery. And the laws that thus empower the military are passed by parliament, once more underlining the fact that the military is subserviant to the civil power. Try again :D

“A single conviction means nothing. A greater sample size is far more indicative of a general trend. That’s why no one takes a survey with just one person. “

But this isn’t a survey. If you were using a survey to prove your point, you’d have to list out all the crimes committed and all the convictions against that list. Instead you asked me how many soldiers have been convicted. Convicted of what? For example, you’ve listed out a number of US war crimes and we’ve seen that the vast majority of the men, while found guilty, have received a slap on the wrist for their crimes, thereby proving that the US isn’t interested in punishing war criminals. It never has, as we know from the case of Lt William Calley, the convicted mass murderer of Mai Lai, who served six months of home arrest for murdering hundreds of old men, women, and children. In SL, those found guilty have been punished. You’re assuming guilt without any trial or judgements and attempting to show that this means the guilty arte not punished. Which guilty? The fact that there have been convictions and prison time for convicted war criminals means that war crimes are viewed as crimes in SL; once more rubbishing your claim that the SL military is above the law. Wanna have another go? :D

“They don’t want others to others to know about their dirty work. That’s why they cover it up.”

Who are these “others”? And why would they want to hide their dirty work when impunity would not make it necessary to hide anything?

“The military has life and death powers over Tamil civilians in the North and East, but the military must still perform certain functions for the politicians.”

The job of the military, according to the constitution, is to perform functions for the politicians, namely politics by other means. How does this show that they have impunity from the law?

“The military still gets to choose which Tamils to kill and how to kill them, thanks to the PTA. “

Well let’s for a moment accept that the PTA enables the military to go about the NE picking up Tamils to kill :D The PTA is a law passed by parliament, voted on each year by representatives elected by the people. So how can the military be out of control if it is following the law?

“In that regard, no one controls their choice of either victim or method of execution.”

Well, in the case of the victim, the PTA specifies which individuals or groups may be targeted; so that is control. In the case of method, do you no of any nation where politicians dictate which tactics or weapons may be used to perform a specific task?

“If convictions fail to materialize in the well-publicized cases, e.g. Janaka Perera/Chemmani, Trinco 5, its a foregone conclusion that convictions don’t occur via “internal military investigations.””

That’s a fallacious conclusion based on assumption, not fact. You’ve already presumed guilt and are disappointed at the actual result. To the contrary, it’s far more likely that less publicised incidents would be prosecuted because the results wouldn’t be public and therefore unlikely to cause a PR issue.

“Isolated is not what GOSL claimed – fabricated is how they denied every incident.”

Regardless of how the GoSL treated the tapes, the fact remains that the tapes only show a single incident. I myself have said many times that I think the tape looks legit, but it’s still one incident, and not enough to show a trend.

“600 Tamil youth disappeared from Jaffna alone after the SLA recaptured it”

I asked you how a dozen tapes (which no one has actually seen, mind you) equate hundreds of incidents. In other words, I’m asking for evidence, not extrapolation from an assumed crime. You’re building assumptions on yet more assumptions :)

“It would depend on the ethnic demography of the particular areas that were colonized. You would also have to analyze the trends in Sinhalese nationalism at the time; e.g. was the latest trend language discrimination, disenfranchisement of estate Tamils, standardisation, etc. And who was leading the charge, e.g. the SWRD, JR, or the clown in the red scarf. Each had/has a unique approach to the “Tamil Question.””

But the question to you wasn’t about so-and-so’s view of the Tamil Question, trends in Sinhalese nationalism, MR’s fashion sense, or any other smoke and mirrors you would like to bring up to dodge the actual question. You justified your quoting VP whining about the IPKF not closing down SL Army camps as that the camps were a part and parcel of colonisation (even though the point was your inability to show SL Army impunity to the law, and it being a larger version of the police). I then asked you why if colonisation began in the late ’40s under DSS, there was no militarisation until the ’80s, after Tamil militancy began; suggesting that militarisation of the NE was in fact a reaction to Tamil separatism. Why are you unable to answer this?

“My argument was limited to military involvement in the North and East, lol.”

Really? But this is what you initially said, Father Heshan: “The approach of the present regime, to entrench the military even further in civil affairs (for example, by making military training compulsory for first-year university students) is a big step in the wrong direction. It very much looks as if SL is moving in the direction of Burma, where a military junta has the final say in every civil service matter of significance.” Lying again, Heshan? Is your allegation about military training for uni students limited to the NE? Your example is also of Burma where a junta rules the country, not one province in one corner. Since your Christian beliefs include barefaced lying, how can we believe any of the stuff you claim happened on GV? Lol. So shall we take it that you don’t have any examples outside the NE, and that the example of the Allied military governing Germany and Japan post-WW2 is a better parallel than Burma?

“Where did I make that claim. Quote me exactly. I merely said they agreed to leave.”

Sure. Here is what you said: “the Allies left within a specific time period”. More lies, Heshan? Ha ha ha. Specified means something planned or set out. So can you please link to this specified time period within which the Allies agreed to leave?

“I left because Sanjana Hattotuwa did not let me adequately defend myself. E.g. it was not a level playing field with Sanjana resorting to selective censorship.”

Oh, Sanjana always selectively censored; but you never ran off to mummy before. We’ve all been censored over there and accepted it as par for the course. Isn’t it rather that you had no defence to the fact that you had bet you would leave if proven wrong? ha ha ha.

“Actually I had DJ running for his life”

Well if he was running, it was circles around you. Isn’t it a fact that DJ demolished you with one hand behind his back, and your fragile ego couldn’t handle the public himiliation?

“I also proved that despite his claims to greatness, he has never made a prediction that demonstrates his expertise blah blah”

Brave words from someone who ran away when he lost lol. I mean, you don’t have the balls to say this on GV, but you’re prancing here where DJ can’t see you, eh? ;) Tough guy lol

“I have several degrees”

And I’ve 15″ inch dick, but no one’s seen that either :D But I have one, I promise.

“The moron has written a book.”

Isn’t that heady praise from someone who can barely read one?

“Your IQ is obviously on the low end, whereas mine is above-average.”

Would your IQ be similar to my above-average penis that no one’s seen?

“For one thing, your arguments lack creativity.”

Oh, we all agree yours are very creative; some would even say they go as far as fantasy.

“Most of what you write, I can shatter to pieces in 10 or 15 different ways. “

Yes, we saw the 10 or 15 (or should we say 45 ;)) different ways you tried.

“It looks as if you write to a lot of different forums”

That’s ‘cos I haven’r fled whining from them all like you have lol.

“Search carefully through “Groundviews”, my friend. You will find no shortage of accolades from those praised me. People I never met claiming they read everything I write.”

People no one else has met either :D People like Santa, PresiDunce Bean, TT, Yapa, etc. Very qualified accolades there; you must treasure them very much, given your high regard for qualifications!

“DBSJ is a fraud. if push came to shove, I could easily prove it.”

Oh big words again, but so little proof lol.

“Sri Lankans seem to be fond of censorship, which is probably 35% of the reason why SL is so f ed up, period. “

And yet you keep coming back. Either you’re a masochist, or you’ve no one to talk to in the USA. Or both.

“If Sanjana, Dayan Jayatilleke, and DBSJ want to debate me in an open forum, I’m all willing to take up the challenge.”

Oh, I’m sure they’ve got time to scratch every flea on their arses lol

“You don’t seem to be aware of how one law can be used to break another.”

That is something that must then be addressed within the civil system of government. The military’s job is to obey the laws of the civil power. Your claim is that the military is outside the law, but it isn’t because the ERs and PTA are laws. You can’t show impunity by arguing that the law is at fault :D Not unless you’re a retard.

“So you admit that the psychopath Gothabaya Rajapakse is above the law since he can arbitrarily change the judgment of any Court, in regards to detained suspects?”

If the law says that he can (and that law was written and passed long before GR became DefSec), then how can he be acting above that law? :D

“On other hand, this psychopath is also in charge of the Defense Ministry, which is in charge of the military.”

But you earlier said that the military was out of control; now you’re saying that the DefSec and the MoD control the military. Which is it?

“does anyone in the room (except Blacker) need more reassurance that SLA abuses will NOT be investigated?”

Alleged abuses, you mean.

“Perhaps they should have taught you to count in the SLA, before you blindly threw grenades at old ladies. I’m only concerned with the number of convictions. “

But the debate wasn’t whether there were US convictions or not; it was whether the SL military could act with impunity before the law. I pointed out that enforcement of the law on guilty parties was what proved that the parties were subservient to the law or not. As you’ve ably proven with your list, it is clear that in the US military, those found guilty are rarely given more than a slapon the wrist. 6 months house arrest for mass murder, 3 months prison for rape and torture; and more often than not, all charges dropped. Hardly a nation that sends its military the message that war crimes will be punished, no?

“Between Abu Grahib, Mahmudiya, Haditha, Hamdania, and Bagram, there were 11 + 1 + 1+ 5 convictions = 18 convictions alone. The trial you claimed never happened is irrelevant; all 12 have been charged, and there’s a 99.9% chance that all will be convicted, considering that none of them have thus far been acquitted.”

Ha ha ha nice try there. Your claim was that there were 50 convictions in Iraq, and you had listed 45. Now it turns out there’ve been just 18! And of those, only a handful served more than a year. Contrary to your expectation that the 12 from Afghanistan will be convicted when they haven’t even had a trial date set yet, the statistics in your list show that they have a better than even chance of having their charges dropped, being acquitted, or receiving a light sentence.

“considering that none of them have thus far been acquitted.”

How can they be acquitted when there hasn’t even been a trial date? Lol.

“That equates to 30 convictions right there.”

Nope, it’s still 18. You can’t count suspects as convicts without a trial lol.

“I didn’t double count anything.”

Yup, you did :D Pfc Willie V Brand, 377th Military Police Company, was the third accused in the Bagram incident you claimed had seven convictions. In reality there were just three that saw prison time. Brand was acquitted. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Investigation_and_prosecution In this link you provided further down your list as a separate single conviction for Afghanistan, Willie Brand is interviewed by CBS. Are you suggesting there were two Willie Brands accused of torture at Bagram and both acquitted? :D Is this how you said you can beat my arguments? Here’s your link, have another look, numbnuts: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/60minutes/main1364163.shtml

“the two of three you claimed weren’t soldiers were ex-soldiers.”

I claimed all three weren’t soldiers, and yup, ex-soldiers aren’t soldiers :D The point is in a debate on whether the military punishes its own, how is the conviction of civilians by a foreign civilian court relevant?

“What does it matter if they were convicted for embezzlement?”

Because we’re discussing war crimes, shit-for-brains, and fraud isn’t one :D

“Your SLA buddies stole even the roof tiling off civilian empty houses blah blah”

Yes, yes, and your mummy’s the Pope, we know. Isn’t it time to take your meds again?

“the convictions may be laughable in the US case”

Oh, I’m so glad you agree lol

I asked you how a dozen tapes (which no one has actually seen, mind you) equate hundreds of incidents.

Well, Lance Corporal Somaratne Rajapakse already mentioned 400. : ) Even though thats not where I got the 600 from.

“Amnesty International reported in November 1997 that approximately 600 people from the northern Jaffna peninsula in custody of the security forces in 1996 had disappeared.” (1)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA37/027/1997/en

You justified your quoting VP whining about the IPKF not closing down SL Army camps as that the camps were a part and parcel of colonisation

Where those colonization schemes of the 40′s, 50′s, and 60′s located? Care to provide a map?

“There are 24 in electorates in the Tamil homeland (Tamil Eelam) and TULF put this resolution as their election mandate and contested 22 electorates in the Tamil homeland. Out of that 22 they won 18 of them; all 14 in the Northern Province and 4 out of 8 in the Eastern Province. Out of the 24 electorates they did not contest 2 electorates (Amparai and Seruwila in the Eastern Province) because it was once a district with overwhelming majority of Tamils but that changed because of the state sponsored colonization, brutality of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Sinhalese mobs success in chasing the Tamils out to create Sinhalese villages.”

This just proves my earlier assertion that colonization and militarization go hand in hand. Basically, Tamils were chased out of many villages in the East through a combination of Sinhalese mob violence and Sinhalese Army (SLA) intimidation.

pecified means something planned or set out.

Except for the Russians, the Allies left as soon as the Germans were able to handle their own affairs, without posing a security threat to anyone. The plan was always to hand over administrative affairs to the Germans as soon as possible. But once you hand over administrative power, you’re not in charge anymore.

Oh, Sanjana always selectively censored; but you never ran off to mummy before. We’ve all been censored over there and accepted it as par for the course. Isn’t it rather that you had no defence to the fact that you had bet you would leave if proven wrong?

I was never proven wrong. The claim was that I would leave if it was shown that Dayan had made a spectacular prediction. If you disagee, show me the said prediction.

Well if he was running, it was circles around you. Isn’t it a fact that DJ demolished you with one hand behind his back, and your fragile ego couldn’t handle the public himiliation?

As I said, I exposed DJ as a supporter of the LTTE cause. That was one of my greatest victories on “Groundviews.” This is what Dayan said:

(a) The armed actions in the North are not terroristic and alien to Marxism-Leninism but are in fact typical of an early stage of a protracted peoples war of national liberation.

(b) These actions are very much in the authentic tradition of the Bolsheviks under Lenin.”

“The Tamil guerillas, while being in the phase of ‘Strategic Defensive’, are accumulating strength through a series of relatively minor tactical offensives. The massive retaliation by the State reveals to the Tamil people their enemy in all its bestial ferocity. But this is not all. The repression which, making no distinction between the armed combatants and unarmed youth, encompasses in its scale and scope, the entire Tamil nation in the North. Every Tamil there, by the very fact of his or her Tamilness, is deemed an enemy and treated as such in practice. This forces the Tamil people to see themselves as the State sees them at the very time it tries to deny it, i.e., as a separate nation!

http://www.sangam.org/2008/03/Dissecting.php?uid=2804

The website is “Sangam.org” but that’s irrelevent, as I’ve only quoted Dayan’s own words. The last line is classic: the Tamils are FORCED to see themselves as a seperate nation.

Brave words from someone who ran away when he lost lol. I mean, you don’t have the balls to say this on GV,

In fact I did say it on GV, before Sanjana Hattotuwa accused me of making ad hominem attacks.

eople no one else has met either :D People like Santa, PresiDunce Bean, TT, Yapa, etc.

I’m sure none of them have degrees either. : D. Perhaps they’re like Dayan Jayatillake, waiting till age 49 to do their Ph.D (the average age is 34).

Oh big words again, but so little proof lol.

It’s true that I usually provide proof, but I don’t see the need to do so here. I have no beef with DBSJ or Sanjana. They created their own blogs, they decide the rules of engagement. Since its not my blog, I don’t have a justifiable case as far as the censorship goes. I can point out the censorship, but they still have the right to censor. Unfortunately, these rules of engagement were never stated explicitly – DBSJ did not tell anyone he would impersonate them – which is why I got sucked in. End of story.

But all you’re still doing is proving that the law makes it easier for the military to get away with murder, not that the military is above the law.

Once again, if you don’t believe the military is above the law, show me the number of convictions of SLA soldiers in the last ten years. Just because a law exists that in theory applies to everyone doesn’t mean that the law actually applies equally to everyone in practice .

Your example about the grenade proves yet again that the only way a soldier who has committed murder can escape is by falsifying evidence.

Nonsense. Read the example again. The PTA/ER gives the soldiers an excuse to arrest anyone on the basis of “suspicion.” Suspicion is a purely subjective notion. Without the PTA/ER, a arrest warrant from the magistrate would be required to detain a suspect. But an arrest warrent could only be obtained after providing evidence that said person was engaging in suspicious behavior. In other words, under normal circumstances, suspcion alone is not sufficient grounds to arrest someone . Thats why the PTA and ER are failures from the start. The FBI could not randomly arrest Muslims after 911 – they still had to go through the Courts.

So for instance if you were to bribe a cop to prevent him giving you a ticket, that doesn’t mean you’re above the law.

If you can successfully bribe the cop 99 out of 100 times, then you are indeed above the law. The only stipulation for “above the law” is that the law is not enforced, on average , for an individual or group of people.

And the laws that thus empower the military are passed by parliament, once more underlining the fact that the military is subserviant to the civil power.

Once again, a law is designed to cover the most general case. But it cannot possibly concieve of every loophole. There are ways around it, regardless of whether Santa Claus, Mother Teresa, or Sarath Fonseka passes the law. If a group of individuals such as the SLA can abuse the law and still find ways to evade prosecution, then they are indeed above the law. And the proof of that, of course, are the number of convictions, or in the case of the SLA, the lack thereof.

But this isn’t a survey.

LOL. Its how the real world works, Blacker. No one cares about a single incident. The average is more indicative of the mean (the norm). If you just look at a single case, you have no way of knowing whether its an outlier (extreme case).

It never has, as we know from the case of Lt William Calley, the convicted mass murderer of Mai Lai, who served six months of home arrest for murdering hundreds of old men, women, and children.

Back to basics – Calley is an extreme case. You need the equivalent of many Calley’s before you have a case.

In SL, those found guilty have been punished.

And yet you’re unable to provide statistics. Where are the numbers and names?

Who are these “others”?

The non-combatants, aka civilians. Remember what your ex-SLA buddy Somaratne Rajapakse said in the Supreme Court, “we did not kill anybody. We only helped to bury bodies.”

”
In Krishanti`s rape and murder trial, the first accused Lance Cpl. Dewage Somaratne Rajapakse when asked by the court whether he has anything to say before sentencing said, We did not kill anyone. We only buried bodies that were sent to us by our superior officers. He went on to drop the bombshell which even the Court could not have anticipated We can show you where 300 to 400 bodies have been buried at Chemmani. Other co-accused persons corroborated the first accused statement from the dock.”

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2008/10/33220_space.html

It proves my earlier point about a coverup. The higher-ups made the subordinates do the dirty work of covering up the evidence, in this case, hiding the bodies. And when a third-party goes and tries to investigate, as at Chemmani, this video shows what happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jCJC0bv7s

The Brigadier at the end of the video also denies the existence of mass graves, which is basically disputing Somaratne’s claims. But if Somaratne was lying, why is the journalist in the youtube video not allowed to visit the site? Wouldn’t it be simple to let the journalist go dig in the mud for ants; no way he’d ever stumble upon 400 dead bodies of Tamil kids. : D

All of the above suggests a cover-up, which just proves my point that the Sri Lankan military is indeed above the law.

The job of the military, according to the constitution, is to perform functions for the politicians, namely politics by other means. How does this show that they have impunity from the law?

How does it not prove that the military can do what the politicians tell them, and still be above the law, when it comes to exercising life and death powers over Tamils in the North and East? After all, the politicians never took preventive measures to ensure the military CANNOT have life and death powers over Tamil civilians. If such preventive measures were their objective, they would have not have passed the ER/PTA in Parliament.

The PTA is a law passed by parliament, voted on each year by representatives elected by the people.

The politicians don’t require the votes of the people to make laws. They require a majority in the Parliament.

That’s a fallacious conclusion based on assumption, not fact.

It’s a fact. Don’t you think if all it took to prevent the UN from releasing its report, is to release the results of these “internal investigations” carried out by the military, that GOSL would do so? In the real world, its called reputation. There’s a point at which any more attempt at a coverup will actually prevent further damage control. That’s why the American Defense Secretary Rumsfeld apologized to the Iraqis after 911. I’m sure that if it was up to him, he would’ve liked to keep everything under wraps. But that’s just not how you counter negative publicity.

Regardless of how the GoSL treated the tapes, the fact remains that the tapes only show a single incident.

There are many more tapes. I personally have seen 4. In one tape, you could hear artillery going off in the distance; meanwhile, you could see a group of SLA soldiers dragging a pile of naked or semi-naked female LTTE soldiers into a single cluster, and then one soldier taking pictures of a naked body while shouting obscenities. I knew it was real (I) because of the way the artillery sounded, and (II) a similar thing occurred when the SLA piled on naked bodies of dead SLA in Anuradhapura:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otWn2PlEOdY/R1KzA8qkioI/AAAAAAAADNE/4IME28ATdjs/s400/image003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2007_12_02_archive.html&usg=__z8UPOjLrUuQx7EZbJHhvV9baPU0=&h=187&w=269&sz=10&hl=en&start=68&zoom=1&tbnid=ztLSPFesqGriKM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=146&ei=NyC6Te2BPczn4wbc7_3uDg&prev=/search?q=Anuradhapura+attack&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1076&bih=411&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=329&page=7&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:68&tx=128&ty=54

It never has, as we know from the case of Lt William Calley, the convicted mass murderer of Mai Lai, who served six months of home arrest for murdering hundreds of old men, women, and children.

Back to basics – Calley is an extreme case. You need the equivalent of many Calley’s before you have a case.

In SL, those found guilty have been punished.

And yet you’re unable to provide statistics. Where are the numbers and names?

Who are these “others”?

The non-combatants, aka civilians. Remember what your ex-SLA buddy Somaratne Rajapakse said in the Supreme Court, “we did not kill anybody. We only helped to bury bodies.”

”
In Krishanti`s rape and murder trial, the first accused Lance Cpl. Dewage Somaratne Rajapakse when asked by the court whether he has anything to say before sentencing said, We did not kill anyone. We only buried bodies that were sent to us by our superior officers. He went on to drop the bombshell which even the Court could not have anticipated We can show you where 300 to 400 bodies have been buried at Chemmani. Other co-accused persons corroborated the first accused statement from the dock.”

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2008/10/33220_space.html

It proves my earlier point about a coverup. The higher-ups made the subordinates do the dirty work of covering up the evidence, in this case, hiding the bodies. And when a third-party goes and tries to investigate, as at Chemmani, this video shows what happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jCJC0bv7s

The Brigadier at the end of the video also denies the existence of mass graves, which is basically disputing Somaratne’s claims. But if Somaratne was lying, why is the journalist in the youtube video not allowed to visit the site? Wouldn’t it be simple to let the journalist go dig in the mud for ants; no way he’d ever stumble upon 400 dead bodies of Tamil kids. : D

All of the above suggests a cover-up, which just proves my point that the Sri Lankan military is indeed above the law.

You justified your quoting VP whining about the IPKF not closing down SL Army camps as that the camps were a part and parcel of colonisation

Where those colonization schemes of the 40′s, 50′s, and 60′s located? Care to provide a map?

“There are 24 in electorates in the Tamil homeland (Tamil Eelam) and TULF put this resolution as their election mandate and contested 22 electorates in the Tamil homeland. Out of that 22 they won 18 of them; all 14 in the Northern Province and 4 out of 8 in the Eastern Province. Out of the 24 electorates they did not contest 2 electorates (Amparai and Seruwila in the Eastern Province) because it was once a district with overwhelming majority of Tamils but that changed because of the state sponsored colonization, brutality of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Sinhalese mobs success in chasing the Tamils out to create Sinhalese villages.”

This just proves my earlier assertion that colonization and militarization go hand in hand. Basically, Tamils were chased out of many villages in the East through a combination of Sinhalese mob violence and Sinhalese Army (SLA) intimidation.

Well, Lance Corporal Somaratne Rajapakse already mentioned 400.”

But you earlier claimed that confessions were often coerced. How can you now trust a confession, when even a legit confession isn’t credible without evidence? Back to the question: how do a dozen tapes which no one has seen equate to hundreds of incidents?

““Amnesty International reported in November 1997 that approximately 600 people from the northern Jaffna peninsula in custody of the security forces in 1996 had disappeared.” (1)”

Aside from the fact that this happened 15 years ago, the AI report doesn’t give any substantiation for its claim, and concludes by saying Although the rate has dropped, Amnesty International continues to receive reports of “disappearances” in Jaffna, with around 41 cases in the first seven months of 1997. If the rate had dropped, how can the ’96 figure be used as extrapolation?

“Where those colonization schemes of the 40?s, 50?s, and 60?s located? Care to provide a map? “

Lol why do I have to provide a map to substantiate your claim that militarisation paralleled colonisation? That’s upto you to justify your own claims.

“it was once a district with overwhelming majority of Tamils but that changed because of the state sponsored colonization, brutality of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Sinhalese mobs success in chasing the Tamils out to create Sinhalese villages.”

Lol I’ve never contradicted the claim that there was state-sponsored colonisation, or that the Army was used to chase away Tamil settlers in the East. In fact I pointed it out to TT (one of the people who has praised your viewpoint btw) on GV. But that is not militarisation. Can you or can you not provide the evidence to substantiate your claim of increased SL militarisation of the NE in parallel with colonisation that began in ’48? If, as you boast, you can demolish my arguments, why are you unable to do so now? :D

“This just proves my earlier assertion that colonization and militarization go hand in hand. Basically, Tamils were chased out of many villages in the East through a combination of Sinhalese mob violence and Sinhalese Army (SLA) intimidation.”

This was in the Gal Oya settlement area in the East, and there isn’t evidence of similar acts elsewhere. However, this only proves Sinhalese violence, not militarisation of the NE. FYI there was subsequent colonisation in the Wanni and Welioya areas, but no militarisation until the Tigers began terror raids against the Dollar Farms and other settlements. You need to show militarisation without provocation if you’re to argue that militarisation accompanied colonisation and not as a consequence of terrorist attacks.

“Except for the Russians, the Allies left as soon as the Germans were able to handle their own affairs, without posing a security threat to anyone. The plan was always to hand over administrative affairs to the Germans as soon as possible. But once you hand over administrative power, you’re not in charge anymore.”

But the western Allies didn’t hand over administrative powers to all of West Germany for decades; states rejoined the Federal Republic gradually, some as late as the ’60s or even after. If your claim is now that the Allies left once they considered Germany no longer a threat (untrue since they are still in Germany), isn’t it also common sense that the GoSL will demilitarise the NE only when they’re satisfied that there is no further threat of Tamil militancy? Your claim however, was that the Allies set a specific time period for withdrawal. After repeated calls for you to show evidence of this you continue to be unable to do so. Shall we accept once more that you are wrong? As usual?

“I was never proven wrong. The claim was that I would leave if it was shown that Dayan had made a spectacular prediction. If you disagee, show me the said prediction.”

Nope. “Spectacular” is subjective. What may be spectacular to one person isn’t to another. Eg: you regularly make a spectacular fool of yourself, but you don’t think so :D Your challenge to him was to show that he had made an accurate prediction, and if he did, you would leave. He did, you left (only after much taunting of course), end of story. The fact that you’re now left to make spurious claims on another site instead of calling him on his evidence is proof of it. Anyone with integrity wouldn’t be prancing about in the street after getting thrown out of the pub :D

“As I said, I exposed DJ as a supporter of the LTTE cause. That was one of my greatest victories on “Groundviews.””

But so are you lol. DJ has never hidden the fact that he supported separatism prior to the 13th Amendment. He was even a part of Perumal’s so-called government. This has never been a secret ha ha! So when you say “greatest”, do you mean “spectacular” as above? Anyway, DJ can speak for himself and is still doing so on GV; you, on the other hand, ran away like a mama’s boy lol.

“Unfortunately, these rules of engagement were never stated explicitly – DBSJ did not tell anyone he would impersonate them – which is why I got sucked in. End of story.”

But we have only your claim that he impersonated you lol. Personally, I can’t see a journalist of DBSJ’s stature needing to impersonate the village idiot.

“Once again, if you don’t believe the military is above the law, show me the number of convictions of SLA soldiers in the last ten years. Just because a law exists that in theory applies to everyone doesn’t mean that the law actually applies equally to everyone in practice . “

As already explained to you, you cannot request a list of convictions without providing or requesting a list of trials first; and you cannot do the latter without first providing a list of alleged crimes. How can there be convictions without trials or crimes? For instance with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a list of crimes, trials, and convictions, therefore we’re able to see that in relation to the crimes and trials, the conviction rate and the sentences meted out were woefully inadequate. Try again? :D

“Nonsense. Read the example again. The PTA/ER gives the soldiers an excuse to arrest anyone on the basis of “suspicion.” Suspicion is a purely subjective notion.”

I have read it, and I’ve also read the PTA and ERs; have you? Neither of the latter gives common soldiers the right to arrest civilians on “suspicion”; that requires the authority of a ranking officer. Nevertheless, you’re still arguing that the law empowers the military to commit what you consider crimes. That isn’t impunity from the law, since the soldiers are obliged to follow the law. We can go on like this forever, Heshan; but if you want to beat my argument you need to come up with a counter argument that hasn’t already been demolished. Repeating yourself won’t help :D Perhaps you don’t understand what impunity means? Could you explain your definition of it?

“In other words, under normal circumstances, suspcion alone is not sufficient grounds to arrest someone .”

But these are not normal circumstances, and the ERs and PTA are specific laws to counter subversion and insurgency which the normal laws cannot. Nevertheless, they are laws, and a military that follows the laws cannot be said to be above it.

“If you can successfully bribe the cop 99 out of 100 times, then you are indeed above the law.”

No you’re not. If you were above the law, you would say “I am Heshan, my mummy is the IGP” or “the ambassador to France is my mango friend” and drive away. Bribery is done to avoid punishment under the law. If you were above it, you wouldn’t be under it, no? Still don’t get it, numbnuts?

“If a group of individuals such as the SLA can abuse the law and still find ways to evade prosecution, then they are indeed above the law.”

Nope, they are not. They are just clever criminals, but still criminals under the law; and being under the law isn’t being above it. Try again?

“LOL. Its how the real world works, Blacker. No one cares about a single incident. The average is more indicative of the mean (the norm).”

But it was you that used a survey as an example. In a survey you take all the stats or a substantiated representative grouping that can be extrapolated from. You have done neither. So if you make a random request, I am justified in also countering it with a random justification.

” If you just look at a single case, you have no way of knowing whether its an outlier (extreme case).”

Exactly why you need to produce a substantial list of crimes from which to start looking for trials and convictions. You can’t first look for convictions because this isn’t indicative of what percentage of crimes and trials they were extracted from. For instance, if you were to claim 18 convictions in Iraq, it sounds good; but if you then match them to the actual list of crimes, you realise that it’s laughable as you yourself admit. Have another go?

“Back to basics – Calley is an extreme case. You need the equivalent of many Calley’s before you have a case. “

Oh, but Calley was the only one found guilty. All of his men were acquitted for witnessing against him, even though they had all confessed at various times to other witnesses of having taken part in the massacre, as well as having been seen to take part. Calley’s superior officer Capt Medina, who allegedly gave the orders and set the mood for the My Lai patrol, was never even charged. In addition, your list of crimes and convictions makes the idea of US military justice a joke. Horrendous crimes, the majority of the accused never convicted, and the majority of the convicted never serving more than a year in prison. I think that makes a good case.

“And yet you’re unable to provide statistics. Where are the numbers and names?”

First, where are the crimes? How can you ask for convictions without crimes? :D Convicted of what — starring in your bedroom fantasies?

“The non-combatants, aka civilians. Remember what your ex-SLA buddy Somaratne Rajapakse said in the Supreme Court, “we did not kill anybody. We only helped to bury bodies.””

But why hide it from anyone if they were above the law? Why deny killing if there was impunity? Wasn’t the fact that Cpl Rajapaksa was convicted show that he was guilty of a crime and not above the law as you claim?

“The Brigadier at the end of the video also denies the existence of mass graves, which is basically disputing Somaratne’s claims. But if Somaratne was lying, why is the journalist in the youtube video not allowed to visit the site? Wouldn’t it be simple to let the journalist go dig in the mud for ants; no way he’d ever stumble upon 400 dead bodies of Tamil kids.”

Firstly, your video isn’t available on Youtube. Secondly, refusal of access isn’t proof of guilt. If you refuse a cop access to your home without a search warrant, that doesn’t make you guilty. The military is often unreasonably paranoid about security, and there could be a number of reasons why the journo was refused access. Impossible to tell without seeing the actual video.

“All of the above suggests a cover-up, which just proves my point that the Sri Lankan military is indeed above the law.”

No, it just proves my point that cover ups are only necessary if one is subservient under the law. Lol.

“How does it not prove that the military can do what the politicians tell them, and still be above the law, when it comes to exercising life and death powers over Tamils in the North and East? “

Because the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. You have to prove your claim, not ask me how it doesn’t prove it. Evidence is evident. So unless you can show examples of politicians giving the military an unlawful order, the military is following orders of the civil power as it is constitutionally compelled to do. Last try?

“If such preventive measures were their objective, they would have not have passed the ER/PTA in Parliament.”

That then is the fault of the law and the parliament that passed it and, as I said before, you’re free to argue that. However, that is nothing to do with the military since it is not involved in making or passing laws.

“The politicians don’t require the votes of the people to make laws. They require a majority in the Parliament. “

Yes, that’s how government works, Sherlock. If the public were to decide on all bills and laws, why would we need parliament. It’s called representational government; didn’t you hear of it when getting those “degrees”?. If the public doesn’t like what its representatives are doing, it doesn’t re-elect them.

“It’s a fact. Don’t you think if all it took to prevent the UN from releasing its report, is to release the results of these “internal investigations” carried out by the military, that GOSL would do so?”

Lol that’s not a fact, that’s an assumption — you’re assuming that there were crimes and that they were investigated.

“That’s why the American Defense Secretary Rumsfeld apologized to the Iraqis after 911.”

Really? Rummy apologised after 9/11? :D What did he apologise for, bringing down the WTC?

“There are many more tapes. I personally have seen 4. In one tape, you could hear artillery going off in the distance; meanwhile, you could see a group of SLA soldiers dragging a pile of naked or semi-naked female LTTE soldiers into a single cluster, and then one soldier taking pictures of a naked body while shouting obscenities. I knew it was real (I) because of the way the artillery sounded, and (II) a similar thing occurred when the SLA piled on naked bodies of dead SLA in Anuradhapura”

Oh, I have personally stripped and searched Tiger corpses, both male and female. It’s routine procedure when checking for weapons, documents, personal effects, etc. Intelligence goes through it all. There’s nothing heinous about it. And like all teenagers we made silly jokes about the dead, some of them obscene. It’s not a war crime.

But you earlier claimed that confessions were often coerced.

Are you saying the military coerced Rajapakse into admitting he killed 400 Tamils? Actually they did the opposite; they threatened him were he to talk. In any event, Chemmani was one instance of a mass murder committed by the SLA that makes Abu Grahib look like Walt Disney World.

How can you now trust a confession, when even a legit confession isn’t credible without evidence?

LOL. The evidence was all there, including the bodies of the girl, her mother, brother, and neighbor, as well as witnesses and confessions from others who participated. There was never any doubt he raped and murdered her; but when you arrest someone for 1 murder and they confess to being an accessory to 400 murders, that obviously demands a major investigation.

Back to the question: how do a dozen tapes which no one has seen equate to hundreds of incidents?

““Amnesty International reported in November 1997 that approximately 600 people from the northern Jaffna peninsula in custody of the security forces in 1996 had disappeared.” (1)”

Aside from the fact that this happened 15 years ago,

It doesn’t matter if it occurred 500 years ago or 50 years ago or 15 years ago. It still occurred.

the AI report doesn’t give any substantiation for its claim,

Actually it does. It compiled testimony from hundreds of family members that lost their loved ones, as well as other acquaintances of the victims. It also relied on sources like the UTHR, which is anti-LTTE; the UTHR says the same thing that Amnesty does. But I think the best evidence is the testimony of Somaratne Rajapakse. He was on the dock, and ready to implicate his higher-ups, like Janaka Perera, Sri Lal Weerasooriya, etc. He had nothing to lose, which is the only reason why he confessed.

If the rate had dropped, how can the ’96 figure be used as extrapolation?

Just because the rate drops doesn’t mean you shun investigations. What didn’t change is the fact that the SLA continued to abuse the PTA/ER, in other words, what didn’t change was that the SLA remained above the law.

Lol I’ve never contradicted the claim that there was state-sponsored colonisation, or that the Army was used to chase away Tamil settlers in the East.

If you admit the Army was used to chase away Tamil settlers in the East, then you admit that the Army had a hand in State-sponsored colonization. The East was where the most Sinhalese colonization took place, which is why there are so many Sinhalese in Trinco today.

But that is not militarisation. Can you or can you not provide the evidence to substantiate your claim of increased SL militarisation of the NE in parallel with colonisation that began in ’48?

Why don’t you name the colonization schemes and their locations in ’48?

This was in the Gal Oya settlement area in the East, and there isn’t evidence of similar acts elsewhere. However, this only proves Sinhalese violence, not militarisation of the NE.

Are you saying that after the Sinhalese violence ended, the Tamils were able to come back. : D

Many of the Army camps existed in the proximity of Sinhalese settlements.

but no militarisation until the Tigers began terror raids against the Dollar Farms and other settlements.

Dollar Farm was an illegal settlement comprised of Sinhalese ex-convicts. That’s a great excuse for militarization.

You need to show militarisation without provocation if you’re to argue that militarisation accompanied colonisation and not as a consequence of terrorist attacks.

“In July 1983 President Jayawardene of Sri Lanka and his government were implicated in the worst bout of communal violence against the Tamils,which was followed by India covertly backing the Tamil militancy. Arbitrary violence by the almost exclusively Sinhalese government forces led to a mounting toll of massacres and disappearances of Tamil civilians running into the thousands2. As a means of territorially marginalising the Tamils, the government also took the first steps towards militarily-imposed settlements of marginalised Sinhalese in predominantly Tamil areas,such as Manal Aru (Weli Oya), along the lines of the trans-migration policies of the militarised regime in Indonesia3. The regime in Colombo enjoyed very little sympathy abroad and large sections of the Sinhalese watched with alarm as democratic freedoms were trodden under and the country plunged headlong into militarisation of its polity. By 1985 the legitimacy of the Tamil separatist cause stood at its peak.

Great to see that JR used 1983 as an excuse for colonization and militarization. This clearly shows that the Tamils were provoked first. Of course, using your logic, we could say that 1983 was justified; after all 13 policemen were killed in a “terrorist attack.”

But the western Allies didn’t hand over administrative powers to all of West Germany for decades; states rejoined the Federal Republic gradually, some as late as the ’60s or even after. If your claim is now that the Allies left once they considered Germany no longer a threat (untrue since they are still in Germany), isn’t it also common sense that the GoSL will demilitarise the NE only when they’re satisfied that there is no further threat of Tamil militancy?

GOSL will never demilitarize the NE. The high security zones are permanent. Most of the Army camps are probably permanent too. The goal is to so thoroughly colonize the NE with Sinhala-Buddhists, that Tamil separatism loses any basis. This is what TT was vouching for in “Groundviews.” Of course, the Army camps will aid in the process of colonization, since the Army is considered a crucial component of “development.” If a bunch of Sinhalese want to grab some land in the North, the Army will find a way to make it happen. It’s exactly similar to how Israel uses its Army to protect Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Which proves my point that colonization and militarization go hand in hand. If colonization and militarization did not go hand in hand, why is the SLA still aiding Sinhalese settlers, even when the LTTE is gone?

Your claim however, was that the Allies set a specific time period for withdrawal. After repeated calls for you to show evidence of this you continue to be unable to do so. Shall we accept once more that you are wrong? As usual?

“The Allies agreed that the occupation was to be temporary and Germany should not be allowed to become strong enough to threaten Europe again .”

http://eastgermany.info/afterWW2.htm

Now show me where Gothabaya and the other fundamentalist Buddhist Nazis agreed that military occupation of ethnic-majority Tamil areas is to be temporary.

Nope. “Spectacular” is subjective. What may be spectacular to one person isn’t to another. Eg: you regularly make a spectacular fool of yourself, but you don’t think so :D Your challenge to him was to show that he had made an accurate prediction, and if he did, you would leave. He did, you left (only after much taunting of course), end of story. The fact that you’re now left to make spurious claims on another site instead of calling him on his evidence is proof of it. Anyone with integrity wouldn’t be prancing about in the street after getting thrown out of the pub :D

What is this great prediction that he made? That the LTTE would be defeated? Or was it that a SEPARATE Tamil Nation would come to be, “und sich/fur sich.” ROFLMAO. Show me the prediction.

“As I said, I exposed DJ as a supporter of the LTTE cause. That was one of my greatest victories on “Groundviews.””

But so are you lol. DJ has never hidden the fact that he supported separatism prior to the 13th Amendment. He was even a part of Perumal’s so-called government. This has never been a secret ha ha! So when you say “greatest”, do you mean “spectacular” as above? Anyway, DJ can speak for himself and is still doing so on GV; you, on the other hand, ran away like a mama’s boy lol.

Haha, DJ never admitted he supported separatism. Where did you get that from? He is basically arse-licking the Rajapakse regime for two reasons: (I) he hates the UNP, ever since JR made him apologize, (II) he will do anything to retain his position in the civil service. It’s unfortunate that DJ takes people like you for a ride. This is what Agnos wrote about DJ:

—–

Agnos
November 17, 2010 • 7:25 am

Maverick,

Don’t waste time with a guy who carries the blood of hundreds of innocents murdered by Ranasinghe Premadasa (and now Mahinda Rajapaksa) on his hands. You are talking to a guy who wrote that JRJ “rammed through the constitution” but when the latter threatened to take legal action, meekly tendered an apology, despite being the [edited out] of then President Premadasa.

And you are talking to a guy who claims he is Catholic and then says he is also Marxist. How can such confused people have any standing to hold forth on “just war?” Â Some of these self-declared “philosophers” are simply people who can’t tell the truth, but who can find thousands of ways of telling lies in high sounding prose. Â Such a problem pervades academia and the “publish or perish” culture. Â For instance, those of us who have talked to Cuban exiles in Puerto Rico and Florida know that this guy’s claims about Fidel Castro are simply lies. And he goes onto write a book based on such lies! Â In other words, his journalism and academic writing is based on fundamental falsehoods. Don’t waste your time.

http://groundviews.org/2010/11/16/a-just-war-or-was-it-just-war/

——————

Then again, DJ pretends to be Catholic but supports a fascist Sinahala-Buddhist regime, whereas you put your life on the line for the sake of Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism… now I see why you get along. One bends, the other inserts the plug! : D

“Unfortunately, these rules of engagement were never stated explicitly – DBSJ did not tell anyone he would impersonate them – which is why I got sucked in. End of story.”

But we have only your claim that he impersonated you lol. Personally, I can’t see a journalist of DBSJ’s stature needing to impersonate the village idiot.

Well, I must be on the higher end of idiots then, since there exist another class of idiots in an organization whose Commander-in-Chief has just been accused of war crimes, by the UN. I don’t think idiot is the right word to describe someone that joins such an organization; fighting for a few rupees a day to preserve Mahavamsa mythology while the actual Commander-in-Chief and his band of elites indulge in corruption and luxury to the max. A simple question for you, Blacker: how many of your SLA buddies could afford even one night at the Hilton? : D

“Once again, if you don’t believe the military is above the law, show me the number of convictions of SLA soldiers in the last ten years. Just because a law exists that in theory applies to everyone doesn’t mean that the law actually applies equally to everyone in practice . “

As already explained to you, you cannot request a list of convictions without providing or requesting a list of trials first; and you cannot do the latter without first providing a list of alleged crimes. How can there be convictions without trials or crimes? For instance with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a list of crimes, trials, and convictions, therefore we’re able to see that in relation to the crimes and trials, the conviction rate and the sentences meted out were woefully inadequate. Try again? :D

But the trial does not even begin in Sri Lanka. : D. Without a trial, a conviction (whether for a sentence of 1 hr, 1 day, or 100 years) will not occur.

I have read it, and I’ve also read the PTA and ERs; have you? Neither of the latter gives common soldiers the right to arrest civilians on “suspicion”; that requires the authority of a ranking officer. Nevertheless, you’re still arguing that the law empowers the military to commit what you consider crimes. That isn’t impunity from the law, since the soldiers are obliged to follow the law. We can go on like this forever, Heshan; but if you want to beat my argument you need to come up with a counter argument that hasn’t already been demolished. Repeating yourself won’t help :D Perhaps you don’t understand what impunity means? Could you explain your definition of it?

Not quite Blacker. Read and behold:

Authorised places of detention need not be published in the government gazette, a legal requirement under the previous emergency regulations. Detainees may now be held in the custody of any member of the police or armed forces, and ‘shall be deemed to be in lawful custody’ (ER17(3)). The power to authorise unpublished detention centres has trickled down from the Defence Secretary to the Inspector General of Police under the new regulations. The likelihood of abuses associated with secret detention, such as torture and extra-judicial killing, has increased. The regulations provide no separation of detainees and their investigators. Prisoners held in the custody of their interrogators, however, are most at risk of abuse.12

Power of search, seizure, arrest and detention: These regulations dealing with arrest and investigation procedures give powers to authorised persons – any police officer, [any member of an armed forces division], or any other person authorised by the President – to search, detain, or arrest without warrant suspected violators of any emergency regulation. Arrests, searches and seizures may be made upon ‘reasonable ground for suspecting’ an offence (ER18(1)). Normal chains of command and accountability are put out of order. Under paragraph (3) of Regulation 18, such an ‘authorised person’, in the course of his investigation, may at any point question any person present on the premises being searched and break any door or window for the purposes of the search (ER18(6)). Any persons arrested under ER18 may be detained for 90 days or for an extended period of time (under Regulation 19).13

http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/512/512%20abizer%20zanzi.htm

I have checked out tbe background of Abizer Zanzi: “Abizer began his legal career as an associate at Latham & Watkins LLP in Chicago, where he focused his practice on employment litigation and counseling. He also has experience defending companies in class action, intellectual property, securities and complex commercial disputes. Before joining the Firm, Abizer served as a law clerk for the Honorable Philip P. Simon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. During law school, Abizer was the editor-in-chief of the Alaska Law Review and was on the Duke Moot Court Board.”

It’s definitely the same guy, you can find the above extract as part of the paper here: http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/512.htm

Looks like the legal profession agrees the PTA and ER are total failures. Those damn scholarly people! : D

“In other words, under normal circumstances, suspcion alone is not sufficient grounds to arrest someone .”

But these are not normal circumstances, and the ERs and PTA are specific laws to counter subversion and insurgency which the normal laws cannot. Nevertheless, they are laws, and a military that follows the laws cannot be said to be above it.

Except that even if the military follows the ER and PTA, it still uses the ER and PTA to break other laws. The consistency with which it successfully does this indicates that the military is above the law. As usual, if you disagree, show me the statistics of convicted SLA. : D

No you’re not. If you were above the law, you would say “I am Heshan, my mummy is the IGP” or “the ambassador to France is my mango friend” and drive away. Bribery is done to avoid punishment under the law. If you were above it, you wouldn’t be under it, no? Still don’t get it, numbnuts?

You’re not making any sense. All I’m saying is that if the law is not enforced when it comes to a particular group of people, then those people are above the law. You’re argument that the people announce themselves when breaking the law is just plain dumb. Criminals don’t announce themselves. Established criminals, however, have a good idea of what they can get away with, and how consistently.

Nope, they are not. They are just clever criminals, but still criminals under the law; and being under the law isn’t being above it. Try again?

Read it again.. if you break the law and get away with it, then you’re above the law. The law doesn’t have to say you’re above it, to make you actually be above it.

But it was you that used a survey as an example. In a survey you take all the stats or a substantiated representative grouping that can be extrapolated from. You have done neither. So if you make a random request, I am justified in also countering it with a random justification.

You haven’t provided any data to indicate the existence of a pattern of convictions among SLA soldiers. The lack of such data indicates a lack of convictions. On the other hand, SLA crimes have been well-documented. This clearly demonstrates that the SLA is above the law.

Exactly why you need to produce a substantial list of crimes from which to start looking for trials and convictions. You can’t first look for convictions because this isn’t indicative of what percentage of crimes and trials they were extracted from. For instance, if you were to claim 18 convictions in Iraq, it sounds good; but if you then match them to the actual list of crimes, you realise that it’s laughable as you yourself admit. Have another go?

I’ve already proved that there were close to 40 convictionsof American servicemen/ex-servicemen between Iraq and Afghanistan. Whereas you haven’t been able to come up with a single conviction in the case of GOSL. This shows that quality-wise, the SLA is really pathetic. But that makes sense, considering it’s an army of economically-deprived Sinhala-Buddhist Nazis, who mostly join up due to economic hardship. The difference with the US Army is something called the “G.I. Bill.” That’s why I keep laughing at your accusations of “genocide” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Humans respond to incentives; the incentives for joining the US Army includes (I) training in state-of-the-art weapons systems, (II) salary, (III) the government paying your full college tuition + housing expenses for 5 years, which is no small matter, considering that many middle-class college students in the USA take out huge loans to pay their college expenses, and then work 10-20 years to pay the loans back. For Americans, the army is an excellent career-path . For Sri Lankans, the army is a chance to torture, kill, rape, and extort money from Tamils.

Oh, but Calley was the only one found guilty. All of his men were acquitted for witnessing against him, even though they had all confessed at various times to other witnesses of having taken part in the massacre, as well as having been seen to take part. Calley’s superior officer Capt Medina, who allegedly gave the orders and set the mood for the My Lai patrol, was never even charged. In addition, your list of crimes and convictions makes the idea of US military justice a joke. Horrendous crimes, the majority of the accused never convicted, and the majority of the convicted never serving more than a year in prison. I think that makes a good case.

Yep, only one conviction, but why didn’t the US Government just claim that My Lai never happened? Why not claim it was an “Eastern Conspiracy” : D. Can you name a single war crime that GOSL has publicly acknowledged? As bad as My Lai was, the US Government did not deny it happened.

“And yet you’re unable to provide statistics. Where are the numbers and names?”

First, where are the crimes? How can you ask for convictions without crimes? :D Convicted of what — starring in your bedroom fantasies?

“The non-combatants, aka civilians. Remember what your ex-SLA buddy Somaratne Rajapakse said in the Supreme Court, “we did not kill anybody. We only helped to bury bodies.””

But why hide it from anyone if they were above the law? Why deny killing if there was impunity? Wasn’t the fact that Cpl Rajapaksa was convicted show that he was guilty of a crime and not above the law as you claim?

“The Brigadier at the end of the video also denies the existence of mass graves, which is basically disputing Somaratne’s claims. But if Somaratne was lying, why is the journalist in the youtube video not allowed to visit the site? Wouldn’t it be simple to let the journalist go dig in the mud for ants; no way he’d ever stumble upon 400 dead bodies of Tamil kids.”

Firstly, your video isn’t available on Youtube. Secondly, refusal of access isn’t proof of guilt. If you refuse a cop access to your home without a search warrant, that doesn’t make you guilty. The military is often unreasonably paranoid about security, and there could be a number of reasons why the journo was refused access. Impossible to tell without seeing the actual video.

“All of the above suggests a cover-up, which just proves my point that the Sri Lankan military is indeed above the law.”

No, it just proves my point that cover ups are only necessary if one is subservient under the law. Lol.

“How does it not prove that the military can do what the politicians tell them, and still be above the law, when it comes to exercising life and death powers over Tamils in the North and East? “

Because the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. You have to prove your claim, not ask me how it doesn’t prove it. Evidence is evident. So unless you can show examples of politicians giving the military an unlawful order, the military is following orders of the civil power as it is constitutionally compelled to do. Last try?

“If such preventive measures were their objective, they would have not have passed the ER/PTA in Parliament.”

That then is the fault of the law and the parliament that passed it and, as I said before, you’re free to argue that. However, that is nothing to do with the military since it is not involved in making or passing laws.

“The politicians don’t require the votes of the people to make laws. They require a majority in the Parliament. “

Yes, that’s how government works, Sherlock. If the public were to decide on all bills and laws, why would we need parliament. It’s called representational government; didn’t you hear of it when getting those “degrees”?. If the public doesn’t like what its representatives are doing, it doesn’t re-elect them.

“It’s a fact. Don’t you think if all it took to prevent the UN from releasing its report, is to release the results of these “internal investigations” carried out by the military, that GOSL would do so?”

Lol that’s not a fact, that’s an assumption — you’re assuming that there were crimes and that they were investigated.

But you just claimed that (I) there are “internal investigations” carried out, and (II) if there is abuse, there will be an investigation. Are you admitting that you were BSing on both accounts?

Really? Rummy apologised after 9/11? :D What did he apologise for, bringing down the WTC?

Typo there. He apologized to the Iraqis for Abu Grahib.

“There are many more tapes. I personally have seen 4. In one tape, you could hear artillery going off in the distance; meanwhile, you could see a group of SLA soldiers dragging a pile of naked or semi-naked female LTTE soldiers into a single cluster, and then one soldier taking pictures of a naked body while shouting obscenities. I knew it was real (I) because of the way the artillery sounded, and (II) a similar thing occurred when the SLA piled on naked bodies of dead SLA in Anuradhapura”

Oh, I have personally stripped and searched Tiger corpses, both male and female. It’s routine procedure when checking for weapons, documents, personal effects, etc. Intelligence goes through it all. There’s nothing heinous about it. And like all teenagers we made silly jokes about the dead, some of them obscene. It’s not a war crime.

“The PTA and ER don’t actually say you can murder someone and get away with it. But that’s what happens in Sri Lanka.”

Well if the PTA and ERs don’t allow that, then it’s a breaking of the law and illegal and, if proven, punished, as in the case of Cpl Rajapakse. There is no impunity.

”SL military personnel use the PTA and ER to break the law. You’re trying to argue that it’s not possible to break a law using a law. Actually it IS possible, as long as the two laws are different . An example being that in order to torture someone, you need to detain them. There is no law in SL that says torture is okay. But the ER and PTA make detaining a piece of cake.”

Yes, so while the detaining is legal, the torture isn’t; and if torture can be proven, and the torturer identified, then the torturer will be charged. No impunity. If your argument is that some laws make the breaking of other laws easier, that is true, and I’ve never denied it; and if you’re arguing that some laws supersede other laws, that too is true. But if your argument is that one law gives you impunity from another, that is patently untrue. Murder is still murder, rape is still rape, torture is still torture. No impunity. Keep it up; I’m trained in patience lol.

So you’re admitting that the Defense Ministry and not the Supreme Court or any other civilian court or even the Parliament as you earlier claimed, have life and death powers over a Tamil civilian.”

I made no such admittance of him having life and death powers; what I admitted is what is in the ERs and PTA, namely that he has the power to authorise arrest and detention.

”Since the military comes under the purview of the Defense Ministry, it makes sense to ask how likely the Defense Ministry is to investigate abuses by its soldiers. That question can be answered rather easily”

Since all militaries (including the US military) come under a political ministry, what likelihood is there of investigation anywhere?

”Anyway, Blacker, I leave it for you to answer a simple question: how likely is a ministry to investigate its subordinates, considering that the head of said ministry considers it treason to even mention the possibility of abuses .”

But there have been investigations and convictions, so it’s clear that the likelihood is high. On the other hand, in the US, while the likelihood of investigation is also high, the likelihood of a meaningful conviction is pretty laughable (as you yourself admit).

”Did they not teach you to count in the SLA? Were you too busy hurling grenades at old women? Let’s go through the list again. Only this time, I’ll highlight the word “conviction” so that your pea-brain doesn’t mix apples with oranges.”

But as pointed out to you several times, the debate isn’t about the number of convictions, but about how likely it is for a criminal to be punished (if a soldier knows he will not get serious punishment, that would be akin to the impunity you speak of. Lol.

”1. Abu Ghraib: Eleven soldiers have been convicted of various charges relating to the incidents””

As already pointed out to you, of the 11, only 10 received prison sentences, the majority under a year.Only 3 served more than one year, and none over ten years. Basically slaps on the wrist for all but 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Courts-martial.2C_non-judicial_punishment.2C_and_administrative_reprimands)

”2. Mahmudiyah 5 convictions — Green was arrested as a civilian, and convicted by a civilian court, the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky.[32] The other four, all active-duty soldiers, were convicted through courts-martial.”

As I said already, Mahmudiyah was the only incident where the criminals got what they deserved. Look at the difference between their sentences (life, 90 years, etc) with that of the others.

”3. Haditha 1 conviction – On October 19, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt’s commanding officer decided the charges should be lowered to involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault.”

Nope, still no convictions there lol. Here is what your own link says (you only copy/pasted part of the info (surprise, surprise!): On August 9, 2007, all charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Randy Stone were dropped. On October 19, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt’s commanding officer decided the charges should be lowered to involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings#Charges_dropped) Ever wonder how charges that have been dropped can be lowered two months later? The reason is that regardless of whether charges are dropped, the personnel file of the soldier would contain the fact that he was charged. So his CO is lowering the charges and the file would record that reduction. So no convictions for Haditha, my unlearned friend.

In addition, here is why Haditha has been compared to Mai Lai: The most frequent parallel drawn between the execution of 504 Vietnamese villagers at My Lai and the two dozen Iraqis killed in Haditha is the military instinct to cover-up and whitewash civilian deaths. Martin Shaw pointed out on the analysis website OpenDemocracy, that of the 22 officers put on trial for the My Lai massacre, all were acquitted except for Lieutenant William Calley, who served only three and a half years of his life sentence [this was the reduced sentence of which he only saw 6 months house arrest – I know teenagers grounded for longer for breaking curfew lol]. Professor Shaw observed that “in the few cases in which soldiers have been accused over atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, convictions have been few and far between.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings#Comparisons_with_My_Lai_massacre_and_other_incidents)

”4. Hamdania 2 convictions – November 2006: Shumate gets 21 months after striking conspiracy plea February 2007: Pennington gets eight years in plea deal”

Fair enough. 2 convictions.

”5. Bagram 5 convictions”

As I already said, 15 people charged, only 3 saw prison time, none over 3 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Investigation_and_prosecution)

”I’m already at 24 convictions, Blacker started pissing at 20.”

Lol you’re at 23 actually, and of that 23 only 13 saw sentences over a year.

”6. Afghanistan (12 VERY LIKELY convictions)”

Likely or not, they haven’t been tried yet, so no convictions so far.

”7. Afghanistan – (2 CONVICTIONS)”

Both men for 6 months or less – sort of what you get for shoplifting lol.

”8. Afghanistan: (1 LIKELY CONVICTION ——– > (1 CONVICTION)”

Likely or not, no conviction there either.

”9. Afghanistan: (CONVICTIONS = 2)”

Lol these convictions were for embezzlement at Ft Bragg, North Carolina – a financial crime in the continental US and not a war crime in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are hundreds of servicemen convicted on such criminal acts, but these are irrelevant to a discussion on war crimes. Ha ha. So no convictions can be counted there.

”10. Afghanistan: (CONVICTIONS = 1) At his court-martial, Willie Brand was convicted of assault and maiming.”

Lol this is the same Pfc Willie Brand who was reduced one rank grade from Private First Class to Private in the Bagram incident, so you can’t count him twice. I already pointed this out last week haha

”11. Afghanistan:KABUL, Afghanistan – Three Americans, led by a former Green Beret who boasted he had Pentagon support, were found guilty Wednesday of torturing Afghans in a private jail and were sentenced to prison.———- > (CONVICTIONS = 2)”

As already explained to you, these two are no longer servicemen and were tried by a foreign civilian court, so you can’t count ‘em in a debate on whether the US military punishes its war criminals.

”Grand total: 31 definitive convictions , with 12 more on the way (99.9% likely), and one other looney likely to be locked up forever. So we can say with definite certainty that 44 US soldiers have been publicly convicted.”

Lol you can say it if you like, but the “grand” total is actually 25 convictions by the US for war crimes, of which only 13 saw jail time of over a year. I believe your original claim was of 50, which you then downgraded to 45, which we’ve now established is only 25 :D I wonder how much further this’ll drop if we keep scrutinizing the details ha ha.

“Are you saying the military coerced Rajapakse into admitting he killed 400 Tamils?”

I’ve no idea, but my point is if you will not accept a confession by a Tamil in SL custody, you cannot do so for a Sinhalese either.

“LOL. The evidence was all there, including the bodies of the girl, her mother, brother, and neighbor, as well as witnesses and confessions from others who participated. There was never any doubt he raped and murdered her; but when you arrest someone for 1 murder and they confess to being an accessory to 400 murders, that obviously demands a major investigation. “

Not if the confession about the 400 is in all likelihood made to deflect blame.

“It doesn’t matter if it occurred 500 years ago or 50 years ago or 15 years ago. It still occurred.”

I didn’t say that the years fade reality; those are commas not fullstops. I said that the fact that the statement is 15 years old, unsubstantiated, and admittedly the high watermark of disappearances, makes it an inaccurate figure from which to extrapolate. Your claim was that the dozen Ch4 tapes equal hundreds of incidents. Ch4 doesn’t have tapes from 15 years ago, so using figures from back then is irrelevant today. You need to show how those dozen tapes equal hundreds of incidents.

“If you admit the Army was used to chase away Tamil settlers in the East, then you admit that the Army had a hand in State-sponsored colonization.”

I never denied it lol. What I asked you to prove was that militarisation accompanied colonisation as you claimed. Colonisation began in the 1940s, so why was there no militarization until the 1980s, forty years later?

”Why don’t you name the colonization schemes and their locations in ’48?”

Why? Don’t you believe that colonization started under DSS’ UNP?

”Are you saying that after the Sinhalese violence ended, the Tamils were able to come back. “

In Gal Oya they definitely came back, and were periodically chased away again during various anti-Tamil riots. They finally left permanently in the ‘90s by when the area was actually militarized.

”Many of the Army camps existed in the proximity of Sinhalese settlements.”

If they were, how were the Tamil settlers able to return and need to be chased away again during the riots? So to repeat, where is the evidence of militarization in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s during which Sinhalese settlers continued to live in the NE. Why was militarisation only noticeable after Tiger terrorists started attacking the colonies in the ‘80s?

”Dollar Farm was an illegal settlement comprised of Sinhalese ex-convicts. That’s a great excuse for militarization.”

Regardless of its legality (and it wasn’t illegal), why was there no militarisation before the Tiger attacks if indeed militarisation accompanied colonistaion as you claim :D

” “In July 1983 President Jayawardene of Sri Lanka and his government were implicated in the worst bout of communal violence against the Tamils,which was followed by India covertly backing the Tamil militancy. Arbitrary violence by the almost exclusively Sinhalese government forces led to a mounting toll of massacres and disappearances of Tamil civilians running into the thousands2. As a means of territorially marginalising the Tamils, the government also took the first steps towards militarily-imposed settlements of marginalised Sinhalese in predominantly Tamil areas blah blah”

First of all, you need to substantiate the credibility of the above by providing the source. Second, my question still remains the same: If your claim is that militarisation accompanied colonization, and not as a result of terrorism, you need to show militarisation that predates terrorism. The ‘80s do not lol. Also, the existence of military bases doesn’t substantiate a claim of militarisation; the latter is much more complex, and is a definition for a transformation of society or a region. Best read this before you make an idiot of yourself yet again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization

”Great to see that JR used 1983 as an excuse for colonization and militarization. This clearly shows that the Tamils were provoked first. Of course, using your logic, we could say that 1983 was justified; after all 13 policemen were killed in a “terrorist attack.” “

Not at all. If you had read my discussions with TT, Yapa, and Wijayapala on GV, you would have seen me pointing out to them that it was Sinhalese racism that sparked Tamil militancy. Unfortunately, you had run away, crying, by then.

GOSL will never demilitarize the NE.”

Never is an absolutist word, and while that may be your belief, we have no way of knowing that. Similarly, there was no prediction of when the western Allies would leave Germany. So your claim that there was is bullshit, as usual.

”This is what TT was vouching for in “Groundviews.”

TT is mostly a dimwitted bigot (probably why he admires your writing), and what he says is mostly wishful.

”Of course, the Army camps will aid in the process of colonization, since the Army is considered a crucial component of “development.” If a bunch of Sinhalese want to grab some land in the North, the Army will find a way to make it happen.”

Development and colonisation are two different things. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the SL Army engineers are aiding that development at a far faster and more efficient rate than the UDA and other civilian organizations are capable of.

”It’s exactly similar to how Israel uses its Army to protect Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Which proves my point that colonization and militarization go hand in hand. If colonization and militarization did not go hand in hand, why is the SLA still aiding Sinhalese settlers, even when the LTTE is gone?”

The IDF is protecting the Jewish settlements from Palestinian attacks, just as the SL Army did against attack by the Tigers. Can you explain what this “aiding of settlers” you mention is? Settlers from the ‘40s and ‘80s are now residents, and there isn’t any new colonisation post-war. The LTTE maybe gone, but to ensure they stay gone requires security for awhile more.

“The Allies agreed that the occupation was to be temporary and Germany should not be allowed to become strong enough to threaten Europe again .”

How temporary? Ten years, twenty, thirty? Was there a date set? Not allowing Germany to become a threat again suggests an indefinite presence.

”Now show me where Gothabaya and the other fundamentalist Buddhist Nazis agreed that military occupation of ethnic-majority Tamil areas is to be temporary.”

I think they have made it clear that a military presence is required until it is clear that Tamil militancy is no longer a threat. Sounds remarkably similar to what the Allies said.

”What is this great prediction that he made? That the LTTE would be defeated? Or was it that a SEPARATE Tamil Nation would come to be, “und sich/fur sich.” ROFLMAO. Show me the prediction.”

That should be taken up with DJ on GV where he is more than capable of making a fool of you yet again. Instead, you were humiliated and ran away like a coward who is now prancing around after the fight that you lost. Like the NVA in Vietnam, DJ is still on GV; but you, like the Americans, ain’t :D What more is there to say? Your pathetic bleating is embarrassing you further.

”Haha, DJ never admitted he supported separatism. Where did you get that from? He is basically arse-licking the Rajapakse regime for two reasons: (I) he hates the UNP, ever since JR made him apologize, (II) he will do anything to retain his position in the civil service. It’s unfortunate that DJ takes people like you for a ride. “

DJ has always claimed that he supported separatism until 1987, and not thereafter. If you have further questions, you should ask him instead of shouting “allaganing mawa” like the loser in a brawl after the victor has beaten him to a pulp and walked away whistling. As for what Agnos has to say, he at least has the balls to say it to DJ on GV and take his beating like a man :D

”Then again, DJ pretends to be Catholic but supports a fascist Sinahala-Buddhist regime, whereas you put your life on the line for the sake of Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism… now I see why you get along. One bends, the other inserts the plug!”

Lol I guess you can take the bigot to America, but you can’t make him American. When you’re capable of actually having a debate that isn’t based in race and religion, perhaps you’ll actually make some headway on these forums.

”Well, I must be on the higher end of idiots then”

Yes you certainly are high on the idiot scale lol.

”A simple question for you, Blacker: how many of your SLA buddies could afford even one night at the Hilton?”

As many as the US soldiers who can afford a room at the Hilton in NYC.

”But the trial does not even begin in Sri Lanka. : D. Without a trial, a conviction (whether for a sentence of 1 hr, 1 day, or 100 years) will not occur.”

But without a crime, and probable cause, there won’t be suspects; and without suspects there won’t be trial. Which is why you must start with the list of actual crimes.

”Not quite Blacker. Read and behold: ‘Authorised places of detention need not be published in the government gazette, a legal requirement under the previous emergency regulations. Detainees may now be held in the custody of any member of the police or armed forces, and ‘shall be deemed to be in lawful custody’ (ER17(3)). The power to authorise unpublished detention centres has trickled down from the Defence Secretary to the Inspector General of Police under the new regulations. The likelihood of abuses associated with secret detention, such as torture and extra-judicial killing, has increased. The regulations provide no separation of detainees and their investigators. Prisoners held in the custody of their interrogators, however, are most at risk of abuse.

Lol unfortunately you’re reading but not beholding, Prof Heshan. Nowhere in that does it say that authority to arrest or detain had been delegated. Only that custody could now be delegated. And there was never any intimation by me or anyone else on this forum that authority to arrest was enshrined with the DefSec or the IGP.

There’s no doubt that there are many criticisms of the PTA and ERs, some of them valid; but the fact remains that they are laws enacted by a democratic parliament. They are the law; and a military that follows these laws cannot be said to be acting with impunity.

”Looks like the legal profession agrees the PTA and ER are total failures. Those damn scholarly people!”

One lawyer is hardly the legal profession ;) and even he doesn’t say they are failures (failures at what though – being laws?) You’re also quoting a lawyer who is in turn selectively quoting the ERs to make a case. You need to link to the actual law and quote from it. For instance subsequent clauses say that a detainee must be handed over to the police within 24 hours if arrested by the military, etc.

”Except that even if the military follows the ER and PTA, it still uses the ER and PTA to break other laws. The consistency with which it successfully does this indicates that the military is above the law.”

You have been unable to show any example of the military breaking or circumventing a law (let’s say against murder, torture, rape) by evoking the ERs. In contrast, servicemen shown to have committed such crimes (like your Cpl Rajapakse) have been prosecuted and punished. So if you are unable to do so, how can you say that this is an indication? What indication?

”As usual, if you disagree, show me the statistics of convicted SLA.”

How can there be convicted servicemen if there are no crimes? List out the crimes and we’ll then see if there have been prosecutions and convictions in those cases. As I already told you, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a list of crimes against which to analyse the convictions (or rather lack of them).

”You’re not making any sense. All I’m saying is that if the law is not enforced when it comes to a particular group of people, then those people are above the law. You’re argument that the people announce themselves when breaking the law is just plain dumb. Criminals don’t announce themselves. Established criminals, however, have a good idea of what they can get away with, and how consistently. “

You would first need to have some sense yourself. Where are these examples of the law not being enforced against soldiers accused of criminal condu