Photo by Neil Hewat
The LTTE is well on their way to pissing off everyone on Earth. After their strategically brilliant ploy of assasinating the Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi, they’ve followed up in the last few years with a failed attack on the Pakistani envoy, and today by injuring the US and Italian ambassadors – firing mortars at their helicopter. But what I don’t get is the LTTE statement – ”’We are shocked at how the Sri Lankan state childishly exposed very high-level diplomats,” he said. ”Our people were not informed of the diplomatic movement…This is a criminal negligence on the part of the Sri Lankan military,” Ilanthirayan said.’ What whaaaat? It wasn’t our fault, you walked in front of our guns? I can get used to the physical attacks on buses and Colombo, but please stop bombing the shit out of common sense.I saw this first on Defence Net and read more at the New York Times. From that report:
U.S. Ambassador Robert Blake and his Italian counterpart Pio Mariani had just landed in the eastern city of Batticaloa when several mortars exploded near their aircraft, said Sri Lankan government minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, who was traveling with the diplomats.
He said the ambassadors both ”suffered slight injuries” but were ”fine” now. Seven Sri Lankan security personnel also were wounded, he said…
Samarasinghe’s spokesman described a close call, with people screaming and running for their lives.
The rebel Tamil Tigers said they were not aware the helicopters were carrying ambassadors and blamed the military for putting the diplomats in harm’s way. They said the ambassadors landed in an area where the army has launched attacks on Tamil Tigers and that rebel fighters had attacked the helicopters fearing further military assaults.
”I express our regret at this unfortunate incident,” said Rasiah Ilanthirayan, the Tamil Tiger spokesman.
That last bit is what gets me. Both sides are technically under Cease-Fire. Whether you knew or not you’re not supposed to be firing anything. Either call off the cease-fire or take your lumps. We’re in a nowhere zone where everyone’s afraid to ‘start’ the war by calling off the CFA, but it also means that you can’t complain if and when you fuck up. The LTTE fucked up simply by firing that mortar, and if the government makes a similar mistake I’d tell them to take their lumps as well.
What really gets me is the LTTE calling this an ‘unfortunate incident’. This is like the late Balasingham’s statement – “As far as that event (Rajiv Gandhi’s assasination) is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon the government of India and the people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective (Financial Express)”. Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy. Assasinating Rajiv was an assasination. The LTTE ordered and planned an assasination. It was a tragedy for India and the world, but for the LTTE it was a mission. In the same way, this attack on the US and Italian ambassadors wasn’t ‘an unfortunate incident’. Me dinging up my car is an unfortunate incident. Attacking people with deadly weapons and embedding shrapnel in their bodies is an attack. Choose violence if you want, but please don’t suss out on the words.
Part of the reason the LTTE is actually detrimental to any sort of Tamil state is that they are straighforward thugs. Thugs can get so far (the Mafia for example), but eventually they need to deal with modern political and financial systems. That’s why many mafiosos get busted for tax evasion. In adopting violence as a tactic the LTTE gains visible ‘results’ at the cost of control. Violence spreads, cascades, and incurs significant long term costs. The LTTE has shit all over the subcontinent, Canada and Europe and if they could carve Eelam it wouldn’t have many friends.
As a prime example, killing Rajiv Gandhi was stupid, and permanently pitted them against India. That was not wise. Even a government as hobbling as Sri Lanka doesn’t do anything so catastrophically stupid because it is deeper invested in the global rule-set than the LTTE (or North Korea, or Al Qaeda). There are checks and balances. We can’t behave like children because we have something to lose. The LTTE does behave like child. They are effectively children amongst adult nations, only children with guns. Literally.
You can say they’re fighting a war, and that’s fine, but choosing a violent path has these consequences. If you’re engaging in peaceful struggle, satyagraha if you will, you might fuck up on a press release or get some of your followers killed but you won’t kill the Indian PM or embed shrapnel in the US Ambassador. You can and will make mistakes, but you won’t make the catastrophic, dream-killing mistakes that a violent struggle does. It’s slower and frustrating, but it also holds the chance of not dooming Tamil aspirations the way the LTTE’s violent bumbling does. The path of violence has not worked. The LTTE is leading Tamil people away from Eelam for sure and, worse, away from the basic prosperity and security of the global community.
It IS tedious. Particularly since you seem determined to apologise for the LTTE regardless of their actions.
“How do you protect them when in the case they travel around in military copters and land in STF bases?”
There’s a ceasefire on, Aadhavan. The LTTE shouldn’t be firing at transport choppers. The only justification available to either side is that they are returning fire. In this case, the choppers hadn’t been firing on the Tigers. So the attack was unprovoked. In an unprovoked attack, I think the attacker should ensure that he knows who he’s firing at. If he doesn’t know, he shouldn’t be firing.
“So is opening hostilities militarily wrong as well? We’ll never have wars if it never happened. Oh, the East is where all the fighting is going on last time I checked. Also, the STF are supposed to be very involved.”
There’s nothing wrong with opening hostilities. But both sides are claiming that they wish to abide by the CFA, and that the only actions are reactions. If the choppers had fired on the Tigers and fire had been returned, it would be OK, and any civilians aboard would’ve been fair targets. But the choppers weren’t firing. They were attacked without provocation. The GoSL and the diplos weren’t expecting to be attacked. And that camp wasn’t an STF base. What ARE you talking aabout?
“I think the LTTE is justified in thinking that when there is a massive military operation going on in the East, civilians really don’t put um camps and live in the base and travel around with the military.”
You don’t really know much about the war here, do you, Aadhavan? There always have been civilians on military bases. But that’s beside the point. The attack was on transport helicopters, not gunships or attack aircraft.
“Yes, they can be there for valid reasons no doubt. However, that doesn’t mean that they are not taking a risk and that the other is obliged not to aim target at military compounds where citizens are present”
Of course there’s a risk. There’s a risk to civilians travelling in civilian buses. The LTTE claims roads are legit targets. As I already pointed out, in time of war, when attacking an operational enemy position, it is difficult to protect civilians in there, but during a ceasefire, when you are targeting transports, you have to take precautions. You have to be responsible with that fire.
Overlooked, the fire was at transport choppers, numb nuts. The choppers hadn’t fired on the LTTE. Mi-17 transports only carry door guns. So how exactly was it retaliatory, dickhead?
I have my own interpretation as to why this is getting tedious. So your grouch is that the CFA is on and you should be sure at who you fire at in ceasefire. The war is on in all but name, the assumption that military vehicles transport military material and military men is thus validly raised. Your flip flopping and raising the moral opinion v military opinion dichotomy and preferring the former only when the LTTE are the agressors is truly remarkable.
I’ve two questions for you.
1. Would the attack have been ‘not stupid’ if the CFA was repudiated? Does wisdom in these situations take account of ground realities?
2. What are the rules in the GC’s that you would change and what would you replace them with. Don’t say you’ll take out what’s not in consonance with reality and replace it with something better. Tell me , not necessarily in detail, what provisions you want to change.
there you go again david trying to deflect and obsfucate…
the retaliatory fire was on weber stadium gun positions which had been firing all week… you stupid cunt
“The war is on in all but name, the assumption that military vehicles transport military material and military men is thus validly raised”
The war ISN’T on in all but name, Aadhavan. If it was, we’d have seen the large scale operations of the past (by both sides). The fact is that both sides are paying lip service to the CFA. And as long as both sides claim to be respecting it, war rules don’t apply. CFA rules do.
“Your flip flopping and raising the moral opinion v military opinion dichotomy and preferring the former only when the LTTE are the agressors is truly remarkable.”
I can say the same for you, mate. Coming from the guy who attempted to justify both the CBSL and Dehiwela train attacks, while simultaenously condemning airstrikes, it is really a remarkable flip flop.
“Would the attack have been ‘not stupid’ if the CFA was repudiated?”
An attack on the US ambassador will always be stupid. The difference is that if there was no CFA in effect, therre’d be some justification.
“Tell me , not necessarily in detail, what provisions you want to change.”
How exactly can I do this without going into detail? Some sort of vague suggestion?
“the retaliatory fire was on weber stadium gun positions which had been firing all week… you stupid cunt”
You Stupid Cunt (I preferred Overlooked), the Tigers opened fire as the first choppers landed. If the fire was retaliatory on the Army gun positions, what were the Tigers doing all week, hiding behind the IDP’s sarees as usual? Why wait til choppers land to open fire?
“The war ISN’T on in all but name, Aadhavan. If it was, we’d have seen the large scale operations of the past (by both sides). The fact is that both sides are paying lip service to the CFA. And as long as both sides claim to be respecting it, war rules don’t apply. CFA rules do.”
The entire East has alomost being captured by the armed forces without the war is it Blacker. Who did it for them? CFA rules, yes, but war assumption also are raised.
“Coming from the guy who attempted to justify both the CBSL and Dehiwela train attacks, while simultaenously condemning airstrikes, it is really a remarkable flip flop.”
Ha ha. That’s the JVP line no, that from a guy shortlisted for the Graetien. Superb. You might recall that I was insisting in that debate on the applicability of the GC’s. I made the point that your the bombings by the LTTE may have been for strategic reasons, and thus equal in moral reprehensibility to air bombardments by the airforce. Then again, you may not recall. This comment of yours is either a reflection of malice or stupidity. I’ll be charitable and say it was the latter.
“An attack on the US ambassador will always be stupid.”
An attack on military copters is not stupid. Thus the US envoy travelling in a military copter is stupid.
“How exactly can I do this without going into detail? Some sort of vague suggestion?”
Go into the kind o detail that you think is appropriate. Don’t avoid the question. What do you want to change and what would you replace it with?
“The difference is that if there was no CFA in effect, therre’d be some justification.”
The war is going on in East and is going to spread to the north instigated by the army. There’s enough justification to fire at army camps, bases, military vehicles and the like.
Look guys. Can’t we just move along on the basis that both your penises are the same size, although David’s might be slightly lighter in complexion. This is banal, not insightful, and flogs the horse that was killed several months ago by the same guy that killed Bob.
Knowing both of you – albeit one better than the other – there is far more value that you can add to a discussion from your own varied perspectives without bickering like old ladies. This is unbecoming of too often rational, mostly intelligent people.
Ya, I think the whole question of who is to blame has got a bit tedious. I’m letting it go. Two points may be in order though.
1. What rules in the GC’s, specifically in relation to the protection of civilians in war do you think need to be changed. What do you replace it with. Please don’t avoid the question. I’d like to know.
2. Your gross and perverse mischaracterization of my position on the LTTE bombing that I happen to think are horrible, despicable acts of violence can be attributed either to stupidity or malice. I’ll be charitable and assume the former.
Aadhavan, there are many things that need to be changed in the GCs, some to do with civilians, some to do with POWs, plus many other issues. I don’t think I’m qualified to give a blueprint for those changes in a forum as this. In addition, there needs to be a practical way to enforce the GCs (or its successor), if it is to be relevant. As long as enforcement remains merely a political tool, the GCs (or any other rules) will be worse than useless.
I don’t really want to have to resort to the “you said, I said” route you seem to want to follow, but since you feel that name-calling is the best way to resolve a debate, I’ll respond.
In previous discussions you were unable to grasp the difference between a policy that targets civilians as a means to an end vs a policy that disregards civilian casualties to achieve an end. Therefore you were unable to diferrentiate between a bomb on a train that is aimed to kill civilians and an airstrike that is aimed at terrorists but also kills civilians. You ended up trying to justify those terrorist acts as being legit acts since they target the economy. How then can you say that you stand by the GCs when you are apologising for gross violations of it?
Well, Aadhavan, I was gonna let it go too, but since you have replaced articulation with name-calling, I’ll respond.
1. There are many shortcomings in the GCs, and protection of civilians is just one. There are others to do with POWs, definitions of targets, etc. I don’t feel qualified enough to go into a detailed debate of it on an online forum. However, one glaring shortfall is the inability of the UN (or any other body) to adequately enforce the GCs. This makes the latter worse than useless. Enforcement is merely a political tool. I have said this before, Aadhavan, so you could probably address your comment on maliciousness & stupidity to yourself, replacing the former with ‘selective amnesia’.
2. As you know, in previous discussions (http://www.indi.ca/2006/11/prabhakarans-speech/), Aadhavan, you were unable to grasp the difference between a policy that targets civilians to achieve an end (eg CBSL attack, Dehiwela train bomb) and one that callously disregards civilian deaths (eg: suicide bombings, airstrikes). This inability led you to try and justify terrorism by saying that it was a means to hit at a legit target (the economy). How then does this fall in with your vociferous insistence that the GCs are the be-all of warfare, when the people you are attempting to defend have demonstrated absolutely no regard for those same GCs?
Oops! Double post! Sorry.
1. Well at least one example of a rule that should be changed and what it could have been replaced with would have demonstrated that your dislike of the GC’s was based on substance and not on some vague idea that it is bad law.
2. I never justified the bombings. I said that there was no way in which the aerial bombing of schools for instance was different to the bombing of the Central Bank, and interpreted both as examples of callousness in the attitude towards civilian deaths. Thus, there was no way one was ‘terrorism’ and the other not. I said both actions were violative of the GC’s and thus wrong. You engaged this point. I stand by my point that your mischaracterization JVP style of my argument as an apology for LTTE atrocities is either a testament to your malice or stupidity. I hope it’s the latter.
Tsk, tsk. Still unable to argue without insults, Aadhavan? You disappoint me. Calling others malicious and/or stupid because you are unable to articulate a position and then remain consistent with it is juvenile, my friend. The fact that you still maintain that deliberately targeting civilians in order to kill them is the same as accidentally killing them, proves to me that your stance isn’t really about the GCs at all, but about how best to apologise for and justify terrorism. I know it’s fun to trot out cliches like “bombing a school” for their shock effect, but it shows that you’re more interested in scoring brownie points that honestly discussing the issues. When a school is used by terrorists it’s no longer just a school. We’ve discussed this all before, Aadhavan, I’ve even provided you with a link to help refresh your memory. Talking about the JVP or the Gratiaen Prize is a weak attempt to use bias against my argument when you have nothing too counter it with. I could stoop to point out that your argument is of LTTE style, but I won’t. You’re just spouting rhetoric to distract us from your lack of substance.
Still nothing about the GC’s Blacker? one rule that need to be changed and your alternative??
Re the LTTE bombings, you are free to call me an LTTE apologist(who’s doing the name calling) just because I argued that there is no rational distinction for the purposes of classifying an act as terrorism between the CBSL bombing or the aerial bombardment of a church or a refugee camp, (if that sounds better than ‘school’). And I am free to call that mischaracterization as being caused by malice or stupidity. You give me no other option.
I’ve already told you, Aadhavan. Forget changing the GCs. Can you tell me of a practical way to enforce the GCs. You’re asking me for changes to a set of laws that remain only on paper, that nobody follows. If you can’t enforce the laws you tout, why are you asking me to change ’em. I’m telling you they don’t work, make ’em work, or give me a set that does. Do you think the GCs work? I’ve seen war; they don’t work. You probably think they do because you know nothing about war. Can you show me a single war where the GCs have been followed? The onus is on you to provide effective laws (if you feel war needs them).
You can call a building occupied by Tigers, a church, a refugee camp, an orphanage, an animal welfare centre, or anything else you feel will tug the heart strings and twist the truth, but a Tiger-occupied building is a Tiger-occupied building. You can call me a JVPer, a right-winger, or anything else you want to, but if you have no counter argument, that’s all you have — futile insults. Do you really need any further clarification of the difference between delibrately targeting civilian women and children (as the LTTE does) and targeting armed terrorists (as the military does)? We’ve been through this before, Aadhavan. You didn’t make sense the first time (http://www.indi.ca/2006/11/prabhakarans-speech/), and nothing’s changed since then. Who’s being stupid here?
It is now time for David and Aadhavan to get a room. Thank you, come again.