Saturday, May 2, 2009

If..

Someone supports the LTTE then they support terrorism.

But, if someone wants Tamil Eelam, that doesn't actually mean they necessarily support the LTTE or terrorism.

There is a line.

Isn't there?

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

of course there is... I mean the TULF called for an Eelam but they never took up arms... :)

JP said...

I think the point is who needs tamil eelam. The people in Wanni, people in Wellawatta people in Tamilnadu or people in UK, Canada or Australia?

Isn't it like me saying, Wales should be a separate country?

Anonymous said...

Of course. The worst (non-violent) thing the LTTE has done is to discredit any move for autonomy (much less independence) by associating it so absolutely with violence. Non-violent Tamils spent three decades prior to the violence agitating peacefully. Other Tamils still do...but the LTTE has entirely obfuscated all of that to the point that certain people believe all the problems in Sri Lanka will be solved with the elimination of the LTTE.

DeeCee said...

Hm..It doesn't make them a terrorist. But must be hell trying to make a point without being immediately labelled.

Kalusudda said...

I think so too but all get thrown into the same basket! This is more like political bacon for politicians from UK to India with bunch of others in the middle. But it is so confusing, I just sat here for a minute thinking about those people in the Wanni!

urchin said...

that's an ancient question...
utmost utopia

Rhythmic Diaspora said...

Thanks for the answers so far. I should explain the reason for my question, which is that I've recently seen many commenters in different media making negative statements about people who want an Eelam, as if having a desire for it makes the person a terrorist.

I suppose it's about venn diagrams and the like.

It unnerves me to see that some are branding these people with the same mark as they do LTTE supporters.

JP - I think that, were you to say you wanted Wales to be a separate country, I'd find it a request worth listening to and considering, but, if you chose terrorism to try to make your point, then I'd have a very different reaction.

Kalusudda said...

I discovered something that Urchin (commenter above) insfired me to find and might shed some light;
“Can Sinhalese live in peace when minorities suffer?”Actually he also wrote a bit about it.
Reaching Out To Sinhalese

JP said...

Agree. As long as a claim is made on a civilised manner, a civilsed reaction, atleast listening is called for. That goes without saying. The point I was trying to make is , the voice that should be taken a hearing to is the voice of people who have the problem...

N said...

Like most have said people are entitled to their opinion...as long as tehy do not use violence to promote it. My main issue wtih the whole Eelam call is that at the end of the day it is a call for a monoethnic country, something that I find abhorrent.

Jack Point said...

Yes indeed, that is what democracy is all about.

People can advocate the secession of Scotland (as some do) or Wales as long as they follow the procedures of Parliamentary democracy.

I'm not sure what the Official Monster Raving Loony Party stands for but they presumably advocate something suitably loony.

David Blacker said...

I don't think there's anything wrong with violence. Or in fighting for something you want. I think the LTTE (and the other Tamil militant groups) were right to fight. Peaceful protest hadn't worked. As for terror -- the tactics of terrorism -- which define a terrorist -- lol, what did the SOE do in occupied France that wasn't terrorism, or the Soviet partisans, or Force Z, or the SAS?

I don't think there's anything wrong with terrorism -- it's a tactic that's fallen out of favour now (like nukes), but a guerrilla group can't fight a state without using terror. Of course, they shouldn't cry when the state responds in kind, as it inevitably will.

The problem isn't whether you use violence/terror; the problem is what do you use it for? Where does it take you? For the LTTE and the NE Tamils, it took them to defeat.

No, supporting terror doesn't make you a terrorist -- it makes you a supporter of terror. Wanting Eelam doesn't make you a terrorist. But how far do you go for that Eelam? Would the deaths of 70,000 have been worth it -- would those 70,000 agree?

What does sitting in Europe and calling for Eelam really make you?

Anonymous said...

N, where did you see that Eelam would be monoethnic?

The Vaddukoddai Resolution (adopted in 1976 by united Tamil political parties) sets out that the state will be secular and that Sinhala-speaking minorities will have the right to education and transaction in Sinhalese.

Once again the LTTE's initiatives are conflated with the wider Tamil independence movement.

A Virile Nagalingam said...

Isn't there a very economic rationale for opposing tamil autonomy? That connecting the capitalist class of all regions will increase wealth far more than creating competing sets of regulations, let alone price controls and other che-commie malarkey. The freer the movement of labor and capital the greater and more rapid the wealth creation?

David Blacker said...

Anon (9:08pm), regardless of the Vaddukoddai Resolution, the LTTE's ethnic cleansing of the Muslims of Jaffna proved in practice that Eelam would be monoethnic.

Jack Point said...

David, while violence has been around for as long as mankind has existed, perhaps it is something that we need to leave behind?

Gallicissa said...

I'd like to nominate LLD for the "SLOCWTP Award" in the 2009 Blogging Awards.

David Blacker said...

Yes, Jack, it should be, along with many other human traits. It just doesn't work that way.