Comments on: Why does self determination have to be bought with blood?

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:50:11 +0000

Re Thiru, cricket tours, point of clarification: “Put simply, those who went did so for the money. Some are honest, others less so. What is truly sad is the fate of those who were perhaps exploited more. While the English and Australian players escaped with fairly light punishments (John Emburey was twice banned for three years and both times returned to play for his country), the West Indians and Sri Lankans had a far more wretched time. Banned for life and socially ostracised, for some it destroyed their lives.” – Martin Williamson – executive editor of Cricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

I was not clear enough. The Aussies and the English players weren’t even banned properly and not socially held accountable. So does that mean those govts and the people supported apartheid? Your argument is non-sensical, and it falls to bits under logical scrutiny.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:07:44 +0000

Re Thiru: So what about all the other countries that had players going to SA (and ended up with the same result the SL players did – i.e. lifetime bans) – Were all of those govts supporting apartheid? Of course not. Mandela was thought of as a terrorist by the rest of the world?! That’s utter nonsense. Most countries demanded that Mandela be freed. “Apartheid told New Zealanders that Africans are comfortable and have human rights” – that’s a load of nonsense as well. If that were the case, why was SA banned from sport etc, and why were players who went there banned (here in NZ). Your argument is so flawed that it is not even internally consistent (without even bringing the truth of your claims into question). I have studied the history, and this is the unbiased peer reviewed history, of SL – tell me how many peer reviewed sources do you have for your so called “history”. I would venture none, since it appears most of it is imagined in your head, and the heads of others who share the same deluded view as you!

By: Thiru

Thiru — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:42:22 +0000

This is in response to Jason. As a New Zealander you indeed have no knowledge of the history of Srilanka. If you are going to defend the state terrorism of Srilanka, then I suggest you read its history of African slaves being brought there and they are still labourers as to this date. The International community applied full sanctions on Apartheid South Africa and that included the sports boycott. Srilanka had sanction busting teams that came to South Africa on rebel tours and used the national flag of Srilanka at these matches. The quest for the independence of Tamil Eelam has been since the state of Srilanka was formed 60 years ago, read the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution of 1976. It is a Tamil national struggle which all Tamils support. However LTTE is not supported by all Tamils as it is an organisation that pursues violence and its end is a blessing in disguise. Facts are on the side of the oppressed Tamils. The world viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and was banned by most countries because of the lies that apartheid had presented to the world. Today the UN and even New Zealanders celebrate Mandela as a man of peace and goodwill. Apartheid told New Zealanders that Africans are comfortable and have human rights and the media beleived it. What you experienced in SL from 1979 – 1994 isn’t the whole truth, only the one that is suffering and feels the pain knows.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:37:34 +0000

In response to Thiru. So by your logic NZ (they sent a rugby team to apartheid SA), the nations that make up the West Indies (there were rebel Cricket tours to SA from there), England, Australia and their people supported apartheid. This is clearly utter nonsense. All the Sri Lankan players that went on that tour were banned after the tour (how could they be banned before?) – there was no travel ban to South Africa. That’s how all the other rebel tours also went ahead. Why do you think the likes of B. Warnapura, M Goonatilake etc never played cricket again (even first class cricket?!?). There are no African slaves in Sri Lanka, that’s an utter lie – furthermore the word “Kaffir” isn’t even in the Lankan vocabulary, an etymological study easily shows this. It’s not an assumption that tamils are comfortable, they are comfortable – most independent polls show this among tamils living in the non war areas. So far you’ve made up a bunch of lies, its interesting that supporters of the LTTE always end up making up lies to further their cause, but of course this is required when facts don’t support your case. Facts usually aren’t on the side of the terrorists and its no different here. And why would I have a Sinhalese mentality? I am a New Zealander, I lived in all parts of SL from time to time between 1979 – 1994. I am speaking from first hand experience.

By: Thiru

Thiru — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:45:03 +0000

This is in response to Jason. Your response shows the Sinhala mentality of denial and racist attitude towards the Tamils. Sri Lanka supported Apartheid and it continues to support racist policies in their country. If the cricketers were banned the Srilankan governement would not have issued them passports and visas to visit Apartheid South Africa. The Sinhala people are comfortable in power therefore they assume that Tamils are comfortable and have human rights. This is far from the truth as they are blinded to the oppression they cause to the Tamils. The African slaves were brought to Srilanka by the Portuguese and live in Trincomlee( Tamil Eelam), and they up to this day are called “Kaffirs” This is the Sinhala mindset. The Srilankans are in denial therefore there is no peace. The world views the Sinhala as a people of sin. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa,the civil rights movement in USA were successful so too it will be in Srilanka. It was only after the collapse of apartheid did the National party and most whites realised the truth of their actions and apologised and today we have peace and the best country in the world in terms of race relations.

By: Rory Short

Rory Short — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:14:23 +0000

Human rights are the same for all people no matter to what race or culture they might belong. I know nothing of what has transpired in Srilanka but what I do know is all peole want to live in environments where their human rights are respected. Conflict is engendered when people experience the denial of their human rights no matter on what grounds this denial is done. This is because such denial can never be justified.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:01:18 +0000

This is in response to “Thiru” – prety much all of what you said is absolutely fabricated. Sri Lanka never supported the apartheid government. All the players who went on tours during the exile of SA were banned (just like players from the West Indies etc were banned for the same reason). Many cricketing nations had players going over and the reaction was generally to ban them. The tamils have no human rights? All tamils have the same human rights as everyone else. Some of the people considered the country’s greatest heros by all of Sri Lanka are tamil. Tamil people own 35% of the private land, even though they are only 18% of the population. The countries leading businesses are run by tamil people. Most tamil people want nothing to do with an Eelam, or a “tamil nation” as they are extrememly succesful and happy living among the rest of their countrymen!

And then he goes on about Africans being brought to SL as slaves, what?! That is total nonsense, and most people can’t even tell the difference between tamil and sinhala people, no one is darker than the other by race! And certainly there is no discrimination because of it!

Why do people speak this much nonsense?! To make up things like this is to degrade actual struggles by peoples of the world against things like apartheid in SA, civil rights movement in the USA etc.

By: presh

presh — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:47:52 +0000

This conflict is not as clear cut as many believe. My main concern is the lack of news that filters through from the IDP camps. Even the last offensive in May was marred with limited access to camps as shown on Backstory on CNN at the time. On the issue of a separate homeland, there comes a time when the world must accept that their ideal model of governance does not exist in places like Sri Lanka, why is it that Palestine is determined to rule their own land and Obama endorses this but the same does not apply for the Tamils?

By: Thiru

Thiru — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:10:32 +0000

Niki Moore has expressed the truth about SriLanka in an excellent way. The Tamil nation has a right to a free and independent Tamil Eelam. The Tamil’s have a right to human rights.

The racist Srilankan government has implemented the policy of state terrorism over decades and the world was silent. They supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa. When the Anti Apartheid struggle called for a sports boycott, Srilanka send in cricket rebel tours. Now their new alliances are dictatorships around the world such as Iran, Burma, Syria and China.

The racist Sinhala people discriminates against Tamils because Tamils are dark in complexion, are Christains and Hindus by faith and speak Tamil. There are Africans taken as slaves to Srilanka and they too are discriminated becasue they are dark skinned. The Africans are classified as “a derogatory word” that is banned in South Africa.

By: Blip

Blip — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:53:41 +0000

The Tamil Tigers WERE terrorists. Real ones. Not in inverted commas. And the only reason the Tamils and Sinhalese weren’t at each others’ throats 500 years ago is that their territories did not encroach and were mutually inaccessible.

“Colonialism” brought the technology to the hitherto-ignorant allowing roads to be built between the two, ending their mutual isolation.

Is road-building an example of bad, bad, evil colonialism?

The fact that “flash-crowds” can now gather instantly and gatecrash a party and cause havoc is due to mobile phones. Is mobile phone technology a bad, bad evil thing too?

Knee-jerk damnation of “colonialism” is brainless. Colonialism brought a massive basketful of benefits: infrastructure, literacy, medical science, education, technology,cultural exchange. All the anti-colonial whingers focus on are the unintended and unavoidable consequences of a system which brought a fisful of misery but a wagon-load of benefits.

Like democracy.

And in a democracy the minority must yield to the majority.

Tamils must yield to Sinhalese. End of story