[prog2djent]

They are probably right,

but,

when the rest of the world says "we hate America", its a giggle. If someone said "I hate pakistan", the reactions would be different.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by prog2djent)
They are probably right,

but,

when the rest of the world says "we hate America", its a giggle. If someone said "I hate pakistan", the reactions would be different.

No, it wouldn't. What planet are you living on? It's pretty easy to justify hatred for Pakistan.

And that would be incorrect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17337054

"As hopes grow in Sri Lanka that viable reserves of oil are about to be discovered in its seawaters, commentators are speculating about the intentions of India, China and Russia in prospecting for it."

"China factor Asantha Sirimanne, editor of Lanka Business Online, believes China is in general "very keen to get mineral rights" and may prefer to be assigned a block than to bid for one. He says Gazprom officials have met the Sri Lankan authorities both here and in Russia within the past nine months and believes that as close international allies of Sri Lanka both China and Russia will have "lots of leverage" if they are seriously seeking exploration rights."

"Recent Indian media reports suggested that India does not want countries other than itself and Sri Lanka to get involved in oil exploration in the Palk Strait between the two countries. But these have not been confirmed."

Where's American mentioned in all this? Oh look, it isn't.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No, it wouldn't. What planet are you living on? It's pretty easy to justify hatred for Pakistan.

And that would be incorrect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17337054

"As hopes grow in Sri Lanka that viable reserves of oil are about to be discovered in its seawaters, commentators are speculating about the intentions of India, China and Russia in prospecting for it."

"China factor Asantha Sirimanne, editor of Lanka Business Online, believes China is in general "very keen to get mineral rights" and may prefer to be assigned a block than to bid for one. He says Gazprom officials have met the Sri Lankan authorities both here and in Russia within the past nine months and believes that as close international allies of Sri Lanka both China and Russia will have "lots of leverage" if they are seriously seeking exploration rights."

"Recent Indian media reports suggested that India does not want countries other than itself and Sri Lanka to get involved in oil exploration in the Palk Strait between the two countries. But these have not been confirmed."

Where's American mentioned in all this? Oh look, it isn't.

But that raises another point, for the left and for much of the non-"westernised" world, America is the boogey man, criticise it to death, but leave china and russia out, or the atrocities commited by their own countries.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by prog2djent)
But that raises another point, for the left and for much of the non-"westernised" world, America is the boogey man, criticise it to death, but leave china and russia out, or the atrocities commited by their own countries.

Yes, exactly. People think America is the only bad country. Pretty much every country is bad. Russia and China aren't better. They didn't VETO the resolution because they were being humanitarian, they veto'd it because it was in their self-interest to do so just like the US does with Israel. International relations isn't simple., get rid of US's power and you think all the world's problems will go away? No another power will rise and take its pace as has been happening since the last thousands of year. Look at what China is doing in Africa. But, because they aren't "white countries" they can't possibly be neo-colonialist.

[Susanoo]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Was talking to a group of young men from Sri Lanka today, recently come over to work here. They say that they hate America because they have stirred up trouble between Sri Lanka military/government and the Tamil Tigers. They say that their country is fairly peaceful now, and that the Tigers have backed-off, but in the past America stuck their noses in and caused trouble for the people of Sri Lanka - the old divide and conquer tactic - and created disruption.

I asked why that was.

They said America want oil and resources.

Can anyone verify this?

Pretty much BS to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins...nkan_civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_civil_war

After researching, I wasn't surprised that the Tamils took up arms albeit performing many human rights violations(child soldiers,suicide bombings etc)

India were the ones who stuck there noses in, first helping the LTTE and then siding with the Sri Lankan government and ended up sending in a peace-keeping force. Turned out it wasn't much of a peace-keeping force as they themselves committed several human rights violations and the LTTE killed Rajiv Gandhi, their president at the time. Turned out to be the LTTE's biggest mistake as they lost the support of India.

And no way is it peaceful, the situation is returning to what is was before the civil war and wouldn't be surprised if the Tamils took up arms once again.

[Susanoo]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The people I spoke with were Singhalese. They like their own government, but hate America. They said that America came over and stirred-up trouble between the Tamils and the public. They seemed quite serious about it.

I think they are talking about the UN Human Rights Council vote, where America passed a resolution stating that Sri Lanka must take accountability for the civilians who died during the final days of the war by holding an investigation, which they should have done anyway if they have nothing to hide. And also reconcile with the Tamil community and improve their lives(most of the fighting took place in the north and east)

[Nightstar-27]

I didn't even realise America were involve, I thought it was more India, Russia and China. But then again America is clearly the cause of all the world's problems so they must have done something *sarcasm*

[Gowsheka.S]

(Original post by CheekiiMonkii)
Completely agree with you there




If you've seen it enough times, then you should know it's NOT biased.

Channel 4 shows FACTs... in case you don't know what that means...

Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

(Original post by CheekiiMonkii)
Completely agree with you there




If you've seen it enough times, then you should know it's NOT biased.

Channel 4 shows FACTs... in case you don't know what that means...

Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

I don't think channel 4 are biased at all, just because they stated the facts and proved that the SL government were found guilty

[Fg=GM1M2/r^2]

Well... i wouldnt really be surprised... Americas always sticking their noses in were theyr not wanted!

[CheekiiMonkii]

(Original post by Gowsheka.S)
I don't think channel 4 are biased at all, just because they stated the facts and proved that the SL government were found guilty

What exactly are you trying to say?.... Channel 4 are not biased when it comes to involving Sri Lanka.. that I'm sure x

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Was talking to a group of young men from Sri Lanka today, recently come over to work here. They say that they hate America because they have stirred up trouble between Sri Lanka military/government and the Tamil Tigers. They say that their country is fairly peaceful now, and that the Tigers have backed-off, but in the past America stuck their noses in and caused trouble for the people of Sri Lanka - the old divide and conquer tactic - and created disruption.

I asked why that was.

They said America want oil and resources.

Can anyone verify this?

You so just made all of that up. You didn't talk to anyone, did you? That's simply a tactic you use so you can say some ridiculous conspiracy and then insulate yourself from any criticism by saying you are merely the messenger.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You so just made all of that up. You didn't talk to anyone, did you? That's simply a tactic you use so you can say some ridiculous conspiracy and then insulate yourself from any criticism by saying you are merely the messenger.

This is Martyn, presumably the voices in his head told him.

[Gowsheka.S]

(Original post by CheekiiMonkii)
What exactly are you trying to say?.... Channel 4 are not biased when it comes to involving Sri Lanka.. that I'm sure x

yup thats what i meant i agree with you

[CheekiiMonkii]

(Original post by Gowsheka.S)
yup thats what i meant i agree with you

x

[patrickinator]

(Original post by Tizoxic)
Hello there.
I'm Sri Lankan. Neither Sinhalese nor Tamil, so call me unbiased, if you will. To be honest, the country has quietened down a fair amount what with the war being over, but there is lingering negativity in the form of post-war human rights violations investigations into "war crimes." I for one, while being completely in support of ample and adequate human rights for all (as clearly set out in the UN mandate on human rights), am personally dumbfounded as to what so called "war crimes" are. A war is a war. People kill each other. While there is nothing pleasant in the act itself, I don't see why it should be made worse by attempting to control the way wars are fought. Prevention of wars should be the top priority, not indirectly justifying wars by deeming certain ways of fighting them "acceptable."
Peace, and good day.

Lets get this straight. The government asked civilians to go to 'safe zones' but then bombed them to pieces. This is why.

[Tizoxic]

(Original post by patrickinator)
Lets get this straight. The government asked civilians to go to 'safe zones' but then bombed them to pieces. This is why.

Well, perhaps. I'm not here to blindly and "patriotically" justify every measure the Government took to win the war, however acceptable/unacceptable they are deemed to be. The point I'm trying to make is that we, as the citizens and future leaders of Sri Lanka should look forwards, not backwards; towards reconciliation, rehabilitation, rebuilding and development, not focussing on the specifics of the war.
On the other hand, it is my personal belief that "war crimes" are inevitable in a war that actually finishes, ie: doesn't go on ad infinitum. These may be considered inhumane, but in the long-run, it is evident that they do save more lives than they expend. The UN may consider these to be unnecessary, and as such may penalize and incriminate wrongdoers, which is perfectly reasonable with their logic. So while yes, the government of Sri Lanka may have committed war crimes, in order to win the war, they did win the war, and preemptively save (future) lives. On the other hand, it is also understandable that the UN may feel the need to investigate and take action. I think that it's wrong that the Government is trying to "hide" these, they should just openly admit them, explain their reasons, and show sufficient remorse to avoid severe consequences and plow onwards in the name of progress.

[CheekiiMonkii]

So according to you... it doesn't really matter that thousands of people were killed?... ...

"certain violations?"... like seriouslyy?? And "united and peaceful"? Pffff... as iff... what you are trying to say is "the number of KNOWN or PUBLIC killings have decreased"...

You, my friend, are taking the situation WAYY too lightly....

[CheekiiMonkii]

Well I dont have a foreign citizenship... so there is no need for me to rely on other countries... hence why my arguments are not biased...

Out of all that blabbery... the one thing i agree with is "i'm also not a fan of the present govt"...

[CheekiiMonkii]

Yep... I said "blabbery"...

No offence but I aint an essay person... I'd rather go straight to the point than do what you are doing...