Tamils setting themselves on fire. Is this what it takes to for the world to pay attention to the situation in Sri Lanka?
The UK-based family of a young Tamil man who set himself on fire in protest at the treatment of his countrymen in Sri Lanka has said they are proud of his actions.
Thousands of Tamils living in the UK and beyond are expected to attend the funeral on Saturday in Northolt, west London, of Murugathasan Varnakulasingham, 26, who travelled to Switzerland last month to kill himself in front of the United Nations building in Geneva.
Mr Varnakulasingham, a computing graduate who worked part-time in a supermarket, had attended demonstrations to protest against the Sri Lankan military's war against the Tamils, an ethnic minority who are fighting for their independence.
Thousands of people are have been killed, and thousands more displaced on the island since fighting escalated after 2005.
...
Mr Varnakulasingham's death appears to have inspired at least one other "copycat" suicide attempt in the UK - a man thought to be a Tamil who tried to set himself alight outside Downing Street last month.
Guess if you're not a Palestinian people just don't care. I'd be shocked if this story gets even 2 minutes of TV time.
Looks like its taken a fair bit of time for the BBC to pick up on this story seeing as it happened last month and there was another suicide in relation to the matter last month.
On why Tamil Tigers deserve independence but Tibetans/Taiwanese do not... obviously
Because the Tibetans do not have a strong case for independence. It has a history of being part of China, dating back to at least the Qing Dynasty. It is sparsely populated and weak internally, and it has few functioning institutions or strong politicians. There is little case for self-governance, it would be very weak by itself. The Tamils, on the other hand, have a case for independence because of their position as a significant minority in Sri Lanka, their traditional segregation, and their long and hard war for independence. If they can fight with internal institutions, they can win. The same goes for Tibet. If it were to show a significant will to fight and rebel against the Chinese, it might have a good case for independence through solidarity.
Taiwan has traditionally been part of China. The culture is quite similar. It is the outpost of the last remnants of the Chinese Nationalists. Granted, it has a stronger case for independence than both Tamils and Tibetans because of its well-functioning government and institutions.
Last edited by Liquidus Zeromus : 07-03-2009 at 14:15.
Because the Tibetans do not have a strong case for independence. It has a history of being part of China, dating back to at least the Qing Dynasty. It is sparsely populated and weak internally, and it has few functioning institutions or strong politicians. There is little case for self-governance, it would be very weak by itself. The Tamils, on the other hand, have a case for independence because of their position as a significant minority in Sri Lanka, their traditional segregation, and their long and hard war for independence. If they can fight with internal institutions, they can win. The same goes for Tibet. If it were to show a significant will to fight and rebel against the Chinese, it might have a good case for independence through solidarity.
Taiwan has traditionally been part of China. The culture is quite similar. It is the outpost of the last remnants of the Chinese Nationalists. Granted, it has a stronger case for independence than both Tamils and Tibetans because of its well-functioning government and institutions.
Before 1959, the present extent of the Tibet Autonomous Region (comprising Ü-Tsang and western Kham) was governed by the government of Tibet headed by the Dalai Lama. Other parts of historic Tibet (eastern Kham and Amdo) were not under the administration of the Tibetan government during the twentieth century; today they are distributed among the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan.
That's a pretty strong claim to independence I would argue. Not to mention that what you would consider a lack of solidarity is in essence nothing more than the fear of opression. Fists talk. Combine this with the lack of foreign media - a subsequent result of the Chinese government's regime.
The 'One China' policy is imperialistic. Hong Kong should have a referendum as well.
Sri Lanka, Burma, East Timor etc., don't even feature on the radar of most 'leftists' concerns . In fact, I'd be willing to bet the majority of the (pick and choose any of the following: ) anarchist, socialist, communist, pacifist, pro-Palestinian, progressive, environmentalist, collectivist, federalist, feminist population don't even know what's going on in these places. If they really gave a ****, things could change, but these people are just pathetic, self-conscious, pseudo-political posers who have an image to uphold.
A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
It's pretty convenient for Sri Lanka if news of the war doesn't break out. I'd say there definitely must be some kind of media blackout.
Why do you say that? Is there also a media blackout on the situation in Congo? Uganda? East Timor? Mexico?
Why did the British media give so much attention to Gaza but virtually ignore the synchronic Sri Lanka conflict, a humanitarian disaster that cost more than 10 times as many lives as in Gaza?
Why do you say that? Is there also a media blackout on the situation in Congo? Uganda? East Timor? Mexico?
Why did the British media give so much attention to Gaza but virtually ignore the synchronic Sri Lanka conflict, a humanitarian disaster that cost more than 10 times as many lives as in Gaza?
Do you want to back that up? Figures I saw on HRW said 2,000 dead in a 2 month period while approx. ~1000 in 23 days, in Gaza.
Do you want to back that up? Figures I saw on HRW said 2,000 dead in a 2 month period while approx. ~1000 in 23 days, in Gaza.
Unfortunately the nature of the conflict makes it difficult to produce accurate numbers. The Sri Lankan government sure isn't producing numbers that are even remotely realistic. Any evidence I post on here will just be dismissed by you as Tamil propaganda because the source is Tamil. That said, the UN puts the conflict's death toll at over 67,000.
I urge you to take in a variety of sources in researching the civilian death toll of the conflict. "Official" figures coming out of Sri Lanka are extremely misleading. But even completely unrealistic figures put the death toll much higher than Gaza. How fair is that?
I'm still shocked that there's still 247 coverage on Gaza and Palestinian protests when we hear stories like this (within the last day I may add):
Sri Lankan attacks kill 208 civilians within 72 hours
Debate events occurring around the world, relations between countries, or actions of any group or organization with an international focus
Tamil Self-Immolation
