Australia endorses many compromised regimes around the world including the Hellenic Republic for domestic political, economic and strategic reasons. Human rights and foreign policy are topics that do not concern the average Australian until they are personally impacted by injustice. In this climate, the foreign policy establishment has almost free hands to do as it pleases without too much public backlash. Have a guess why Australia still does not have a Bill of Rights and who is opposing it?

I would welcome the new Sri Lankan ambassodor, as he is obviously an intelligent military man who contributed to his nations victory over the imported foreigners who wanted to divide his country. Whatever tactics he used, they were certainly effective, because his side won.

One wonders how long it will be before the "Tamils" imported into Australia do exactly the same thing as they did in Sri Lanka,demand their own "homeland", and begin terror bombing Australians in a bid for "freedom from Australian oppression."

If that scenario comes to pass, then the Australian people may find that playing dirty has its advantages when dealing with terrorists. Personally, I think that terrorising terrorists is a great idea.

I'm guessing that Lego is either Sinhalese or uninformed?

The Tamils had a legitimate right to seek a separate state in Sri Lanka. Given the proximity of the North of Sri Lanka to the South of India it seems very likely that the Tamils, who have been in Sri Lanka for over 2000 years, came to the Island first. The Tamils had a northern kingdom in Sri Lanka for over 2000 years. The cause of Tamil independence was right but the methods that were used were sometimes morally wrong.

The Tamils had legitimate grievances against the Sinhalese and they fought for their freedom. The way that the Sinhalese responded only encouraged Tamil military action. The type of violence that Lego endorses was not just carried out against militants, it was indiscriminately carried out against civilians. To be clear on the type of violence we are talking about, and which Lego appears to endorse, was rape, torture and murder. Is that what "terrorising the terrorists" means?

Does Lego really want Australian soldiers or police officers to commit those crimes? Does he want to live in a country where that happens regularly and where the state forces that commit those crimes face no opposition from the law?

The real question is why would Sri Lanka embarrass Australia by sending us an ambassador with a questionable past?

There are 70,000 Tamils in Australia. The bulk of them are gainfully employed. They are are academic high achievers. So they make good migrants. The Tamils seem very well integrated into the community so a lot of Lego's comments are just baseless nonsense.

Hi Mr Plug.

If the Tamils had a “legitimate right” to divide Sri Lanka on ethnic/ religious grounds, then every other foreign religious and ethnic group in Australia must have a “legitimate right” to do exactly the same thing to OUR country.

Multiculturalism has been an utter failure in every country cursed with significant minorities of people who have diametrically opposed value systems to the ruling majority. I find it amusing that your claim that the Tamils have a “legitimate” right to create their own nation state, would result in a monocultural country with the Tamils the top dogs. Would you then criticize any Sri Lankans living within the boundaries of this new Tamil state who took up arms for their own “liberation”? What applies for the goose, applies for the gander.

The Muslims in Australia might say that they have “legitimate grievances” against democratic rule in Australia, because we do not allow Sharia law. Would you condone them if they took up arms against your own country in their “legitimate” quest for “self determination.”?

When faced with a rebellion from a minority group which engages in terrorism against a host population, then your political options are limited. You either surrender, and allow your “multicultural” nation to divide into monocultural nations (thereby proving that multiculturalism is a stupid concept) or you fight.

If you fight, then your only options are to expel the troublesome minority, wipe them out, or terrorise them into submission. Which option would you prefer that Australia take when the troublesome minorities we are importing into Australia, who have no intention of divesting themselves of their religious or ethnic identities, begin to copy the Tamils of Sri Lanka?

The flaws in your logic Lego are astounding. Firstly, if a people have lived on a land for over 2000 years and they have a collective identity then they have some of the prerequisites for statehood.

Secondly, migrating to Australia does not give you the right to claim a separate state here. Its baffling that anybody could confuse the two things.

If you take a look at Sri Lanka it was the Sinhalese who started the war - not the other way around.

You've also endorsed "wiping out" the minority. That is criminal.

Hi David.

You seem to be implying that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka for 2000 yers, and that gives them a unique identity and a right to claim independence. I would say that if these people can not integrate with the majority into a collective identity after 2000 years of living side by side with them, then every culturally divided nation is doomed to civil war.

Why would Australia wish to emulate that?