Cluedo In The Lagoon


Fonseka posters from the campaign wars in Ampara by Perambara*

Beyond the ‘who said it’ drama is a ‘whodunnit’. What Sarath said was that Gotabaya ordered surrendering LTTErs killed. The government is spinning this politically as if Fonseka is a traitor. They are all discussing what was said, but not what happened. There were a bunch of dead people in the lagoon. The real murder mystery is who ordered the hit, and who’s trying to pin what on whom.

For a while I thought Fonseka was plain vindictive and dumb. Amidst all the controversy that’s kinda what it looked like. He hates Gota and he got exploited by the Leader. Indeed, it looked like Fonseka was getting hammered like a noob. But things are not always what they seem.

Beneath all the who said what is an actual event. LTTE leaders were killed, reportedly while they were trying to surrender. Jeyaraj was looking into it and he says they were killed by Army Special Forces while they were trying to surrender to the 58th Division.

This brings up the possibility that Fonseka had them killed and is trying to pin this on Gota. Which would be insanely winding and cunning, but who knows what happened those last days in the lagoon.

Either way, horrible press aside, Fonseka seems to have made some gains here. A lot of people think he’s a dumb-ass, but he’s also been well-received among Tamil voters in the north and gotten the support of the Tamil National Alliance (formerly a LTTE proxy). He may, in this cloud of smoke, have somehow inoculated himself against war crimes and pinned some more poop on Gotabaya.

Of course, it’s all very confusing, probably purposefully so, much like the prior drama with Fonseka and the US State Department. For all I know it was Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the candlestick.

*SRI LANKA, Ampara, January 5, 2010 – Tension erupted in Ampara over the removal of posters and banners supporting President Mahinda Rajapaksa overnight by supporters of Gen Sarath Fonseka. Fonseka was expected to address a rally in the town later this afternoon. Riot police was called in as a precaution, but clashes were reported in the morning. (Chandana Liynaarachchi/Perambara)

10 Comments

  1. Why does it have “general” on the posters when he is not a general anymore?

  2. Retired service personnel retain their title. Their military title is formally used instead of Mister or Mr.

  3. Whoever ordered to kill those terrorists, did the right thing. If he didn’t do it then, they would’ve never been killed…Agreed. SF has gained something from all this. I haven’t yet come across anybody who changed his/her mind against SF because of the comment he made.

  5. I thought it was anyone above NCO’s.

    Did a bit of reading and came across this:

    Why is Mark Phillips often given the title “Captain”? My understanding is that only Major and above carry their rank into civilian life.

    Lieutenants in the Army are referred to as Mr and styled Esq so there would be no point in carrying that title into civilian life. There is no absolute rule about continuing to use one’s military title but usage has it that cavalry officers working with horses (racing and equestrian sports) are often styled captain, as in the case of Mark Phillips. For other arms and corps, major and higher ranks would be the norm.

    However, carrying military rank forward into civilian life is much less prevalent these days, unless one continues to be in the public eye (eg, Colonel Bob Stewart). I don’t use my former rank, for instance in signing letters to The Times, unless it is relevant and many contemporaries take the same view.

    However, one does run into the snobbism of others. My late father-in-law, a retired TA lieutenant-colonel, was known in his Hampshire village as “Colonel” whereas a retired Regular Army full colonel of the Women’s Royal Army Corps was “Miss”, much to the amusement of both.

    Edward Green, Lichfield, Staffs

    Much like gongs and academic awards, this is mainly a matter of personal choice. Anyone who served as an officer in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces has the right to continue to use the rank into later life. The common thinking on the subject is that if you left as a mere second lieutenant you wouldn’t want to shout about it. Just as some would say, Joe Bloggs MA and others would not say, John Smith GCSE.

    Dean Temple, BSC (bronze swimming certificate), RA (Ramblers’ Association), BMA (bookmaker’s assistant)

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article4271817.ece

  7. Well, I just guessed its an election gimmick… he is not the general of the armed forces anymore, I would’ve thought EX GENERAL FONSEKA would have been more apt, but it doesn’t have that ring to it.

  9. Enlisted soldiers don’t use rank in civilian life, so “anyone above NCO” is incorrect. As you say, it’s probably snobbery, but I also understand that at one time in Britain, all regular officers, of field grade and above, automatically went into reserve status for a period after retirement/resignation, and therefore kept their ranks.

Comments are closed.