The Forum > Article Comments > Sri Lanka guilty > Comments
Sri Lanka guilty : Comments
By Bruce Haigh, published 6/1/2014A tribunal of eleven eminent judges has unanimously found the Sri Lankan Government guilty of the crime of genocide against ethnic Tamil people.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 6 January 2014 2:02:31 PM
| |
Now ask the tribunal to judge if George Bush and Obama are guilty of the crimes of genocide against Iraq and Afghanistan people and the innocent people killed by drones in a lot of countries.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 6 January 2014 2:49:13 PM
| |
The Sri Lankan government is firmly entrenched within the Washington consensus - along with many other regimes with genocidal track records and mass human rights violations. The rulings of this tribunal will have about as much impact on the Sri Lankan government as a parking fine.
However, in the infinitesimally unlikely event that Sri Lankan politics were ever to move slightly to the left and took an independent stance on international relations, then the speed with which its government would be officially deemed a brutal, genocidal and dictatorial regime and slapped with a whole bunch of economic sanctions, blockades, humanitarian interventions, no-fly zones, regime changes, mysteriously well-funded 'people's revolutions' - the usual drill - is enough to make the head spin. Posted by Killarney, Monday, 6 January 2014 10:37:00 PM
| |
Thank you Jay of Melbourne... innocentocide is a good term. Davig G. I concur with your sentiments. The greatest innocentocidists of all time are the UK and its offspring, the USA. assisted by Australia. A few facts here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37306.htm
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 6:16:33 AM
| |
Bruce is on his favourite hobby horse, again!
<<A tribunal of eleven eminent judges has unanimously found the Sri Lankan Government guilty of the crime of genocide against ethnic Tamil people>> Yes, and I'd dare say if given half a chance the same body of eminent persons would make a similar finding against Oz --probably already has done so --it being scheduled to be revealed in an up coming John Pilger post! There are two inconvenient facts overlooked by Bruce 1)If you are genuinely seeking asylum, why would you by-pass Tamil Nadu in Southern India and sail to Oz? 2) Why at a time when the UN has seen fit to repatriate Tamils (from all over the world) to Sri Lanka are the usual suspects calling for Oz to open our doors and rubber stamp all illegal arrivees? Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 6:28:23 AM
| |
En guarde James O'Neill.
If the Sri Lankan government used "genocide" to win the civil war, how come all of the Tamils are not dead? Both Tamil terrorists and Sri Lankan government forces targeted each others civilian populations yet your crocodile tears over "genocide" are directed only towards the government of Sri Lanka. Do you really think that every racial, religious, and ethnic group within a multicultural country has a perfect right to use terrorism to create a separate monocultural state with themselves on top? If you do, then you have just given the perfect reason why multiculting any nation is utterly stupid, because it will eventually lead to civil war through population birth rate differentials and ethnic enclaves demanding self determination. It may have been morally wrong and unconstitutional for Abraham Lincoln to refuse to allow the rebel South of the USA to secede from the Union, but I think that most Americans today are glad that he did it. To achieve his goal of holding the USA together, Lincoln broke "Human Rights" by suspending habeas corpus. And when the South publicised that it was going to execute every captured black US soldier it had, Lincoln informed the South that for every black soldier the South executed, he would have a captured Southern soldier executed. The South backed down. Lincoln used the threat of retaliatory war crimes to prevent war crimes. When faced with an insurrection by a minority of people who use terrorism to get what they want, your options are very limited. You can just give up and let them have their way, which will only encourage other disaffected minorities to do the same thing. You can drive them out of your country. You can engage them in protracted civil war, which over time is going to see a lot more people killed than if you had gone in hard in the first place. You can kill the men, rape the women, and force the survivors to accept your religion, which seems to work for the Muslims. Which method do you think is best? Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 6:50:48 AM
|
Genocide is a bogus term, it's a word made up by a Jewish academic named Raphael Lemkin in support of the West's post 1945 WW2 narrative of a mythology so exceptional and so utterly out of character for human beings that a new concept was needed to describe it.
In fat David the Palestinian population has nearly tripled since 1948,there are twice as many Rwandans today as there were in 1995 and since 1963 the Sri Lankan Tamil population has also doubled.
It's funny how these "genocides" keep happening to populations with a sustained growth rate of around 2.5.
David Irving made up a useful word to describe "other losses" in war and civil strife "Innocenticide", the deaths of innocent people or genuine non combatants, that's what we're dealing with here, not the destruction of a people in whole or in part based on their perceived identity or some other group characteristic, that's never happened and never will, it's not how the world and human nature work.