Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

by Hellsangel Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:19 pm

What was he?

by bw Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:00 pm

ya? ra?

hello, welcome to the forum.

by Rekz Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:04 pm

6 votes for freedom fighter..ayoo

who are the other kayals here??

by Nila Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:36 am

I won't vote political vote-u unless I get my cut. What should I vote? What will I get?
Dhanks.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:58 am

Rekz wrote:6 votes for freedom fighter..ayoo

who are the other kayals here??

Looks like KV has some hidden terrorist friends.... must be MD. Rashmunullah, KV, for sure.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:40 am

Haha..Unkil, I feel flattered that I inspire so much terror in you. And I'm not even Muslim.

No, I didn't vote on this poll - it doesn't have an all of the above option.

by Maria S Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:05 am

I am not a hidden terrorist. I voted for freedom fighter *because as one Mr. Daruwala said it does not have "all of the above".

It was civil war..there was genocide..and there were no "good guys" - except for innocent people, so called collateral damage..on all sides, as in any civil war.

At least - Prabhakaran the fighter was courageous and died with his loved ones in battle. He was not like Osama and other fake warriors- who send other people's children to war..fled the battlefields and was a coward- eating junk food, watching American comedy programs, having babies, hiding in a mansion and having fun..while others died under his leadership- taking his orders.

by Hellsangel Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:09 am

Maria S wrote:I am not a hidden terrorist. I voted for freedom fighter *because as one Mr. Daruwala said it does not have "all of the above".

It was civil war..there was genocide..and there were no "good guys" - except for innocent people, so called collateral damage..on all sides, as in any civil war.

At least - Prabhakaran the fighter was courageous and died with his loved ones in battle. He was not like Osama and other fake warriors- who send other people's children to war..fled the battlefields and was a coward- eating junk food, watching American comedy programs, having babies, hiding in a mansion and having fun..while others died under his leadership- taking his orders.

I see.

by Maria S Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:15 am

*Wish you had the option in the poll for all of the above- anyone who has really read about his life knows- he was all of the above.

by bw Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:16 am

Maria S wrote:I am not a hidden terrorist. I voted for freedom fighter *because as one Mr. Daruwala said it does not have "all of the above".

It was civil war..there was genocide..and there were no "good guys" - except for innocent people, so called collateral damage..on all sides, as in any civil war.

At least - Prabhakaran the fighter was courageous and died with his loved ones in battle. He was not like Osama and other fake warriors- who send other people's children to war..fled the battlefields and was a coward- eating junk food, watching American comedy programs, having babies, hiding in a mansion and having fun..while others died under his leadership- taking his orders.

obama does the same, doesn't he? it is not like he is out there, fighting.

by southindian Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:21 am

I'm sure there are fans here for Hitler and Osama bin Laden, so I'm not surprised with current results.

People seeing Pirabakaran as freedom fighter may have a tear or two for Osama bin Laden as well.

I mean, Osama also had wives, innocent looking small children calling him daddy and would come running when he returned home. If Osama ever made a documentary of his family and life around kids, the VP lovers would have awarded Osama the Nobel peace price.

by southindian Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:23 am

bw wrote:
Maria S wrote:I am not a hidden terrorist. I voted for freedom fighter *because as one Mr. Daruwala said it does not have "all of the above".

It was civil war..there was genocide..and there were no "good guys" - except for innocent people, so called collateral damage..on all sides, as in any civil war.

At least - Prabhakaran the fighter was courageous and died with his loved ones in battle. He was not like Osama and other fake warriors- who send other people's children to war..fled the battlefields and was a coward- eating junk food, watching American comedy programs, having babies, hiding in a mansion and having fun..while others died under his leadership- taking his orders.

obama does the same, doesn't he? it is not like he is out there, fighting.

You got a point. "Just War" can be defined in many ways, depending on which side you are on.

Does anyone know how many innocent civilians Bush carpet bombed in Iraq? A few hundred thousands.

by Petrichor Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:26 am

bw wrote:
obama does the same, doesn't he? it is not like he is out there, fighting.

Suicide missions Vs. armed forces with logistical and tactical support
Ideological/Religious hatred Vs. Pacification, Control and Neutering
Megalomania Vs. Will of people
Caliphate Vs. Reluctant empire
Terrorism Vs. Self-defense
Destruction Vs. Nation-building
Misguided Vs. Educated
...
...
(pass me the kool-aid, will ya?)

by Maria S Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:30 am

Morally- anyone, including Pres. Obama who sends troops- other people's children (or drones) to kill other people's children/innocent people is a coward, imo.
Obviously one can debate "what is a justified" war- battle and what is not- and am sure..that will be an epic discussion.

On an another level- It is bizarre to compare a freely elected US President who is the most powerful commander in chief in the world- who wears a lot of hats/has many responsibilies..and with political power/clout..to an unelected - local leader in a Civil war with NO political power/authority- power to negotiate- when the *Govt* in that country is responsible for genocide.

Sri Lanka assaults civil society: Human Rights Watch
http://in.news.yahoo.com/sri-lanka-assaults-civil-society-human-rights-watch-090803729.html

If this day comes in the US- I will certainly re-think my views.

Have said what I wanted to on this and moving on.

by bw Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:33 am

atcg wrote:
bw wrote:
obama does the same, doesn't he? it is not like he is out there, fighting.

Suicide missions Vs. armed forces with logistical and tactical support
Ideological/Religious hatred Vs. Pacification, Control and Neutering
Megalomania Vs. Will of people
Caliphate Vs. Reluctant empire
Terrorism Vs. Self-defense
Destruction Vs. Nation-building
Misguided Vs. Educated
...
...
(pass me the kool-aid, will ya?)

how is obama braver based on the criteria listed by maria?

may i recommend something stronger than kool-aid to clear your head?

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:43 am

bw wrote:
Maria S wrote:I am not a hidden terrorist. I voted for freedom fighter *because as one Mr. Daruwala said it does not have "all of the above".

It was civil war..there was genocide..and there were no "good guys" - except for innocent people, so called collateral damage..on all sides, as in any civil war.

At least - Prabhakaran the fighter was courageous and died with his loved ones in battle. He was not like Osama and other fake warriors- who send other people's children to war..fled the battlefields and was a coward- eating junk food, watching American comedy programs, having babies, hiding in a mansion and having fun..while others died under his leadership- taking his orders.

obama does the same, doesn't he? it is not like he is out there, fighting.

Sure. Start a new poll abt Obama.

by Petrichor Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:46 am

Being courageous or suicidal does not make you right...In my limited understanding of the Sri Lankan case, with due disclaimers on the "manufacture of consent" and having been subjected to the generally accepted narrative, Sri Lankan government practiced/s systematic apartheid against Tamils and never attempted to equitably share power. Pirabhakaran countered with a strategy that was a dead-end, in literal sense. There were opportunities for diplomatic resolution that he did not take. His favoring violent means to achieve his ends and having no chips with which to bargain for his objectives, he was a doomed warrior. He believed in a cause which in its moderate form was a simple cry for human dignity for SL Tamils.

Osama's fault is more global in its impact - ideological and religious hatred for a large swathe of Western populations and employing means to terrorize those populations as levers for achieving his megalomaniacal goals including an islamic caliphate. He thought he had avoided the pitfalls that Pirabhakaran caved in - by fighting a hidden guerilla war.

Ultimately it boils down upending the world order and its current institutions to follow a policy of unilateral terrorism and violence. This is at once an admission that peaceable means for achieving change are not possible and a willingness to accept collateral damage. The world and its global leader Obama need not be expected to put up with it.

by Hellsangel Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:51 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
bw wrote:
Maria S wrote:I am not a hidden terrorist. I voted for freedom fighter *because as one Mr. Daruwala said it does not have "all of the above".

It was civil war..there was genocide..and there were no "good guys" - except for innocent people, so called collateral damage..on all sides, as in any civil war.

At least - Prabhakaran the fighter was courageous and died with his loved ones in battle. He was not like Osama and other fake warriors- who send other people's children to war..fled the battlefields and was a coward- eating junk food, watching American comedy programs, having babies, hiding in a mansion and having fun..while others died under his leadership- taking his orders.

obama does the same, doesn't he? it is not like he is out there, fighting.

Sure. Start a new poll abt Obama.

Mr. Drinkman, your sarcasm-meter is off today.

by southindian Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:53 am

atcg wrote:Being courageous or suicidal does not make you right...In my limited understanding of the Sri Lankan case, with due disclaimers on the "manufacture of consent" and having been subjected to the generally accepted narrative, Sri Lankan government practiced/s systematic apartheid against Tamils and never attempted to equitably share power. Pirabhakaran countered with a strategy that was a dead-end, in literal sense. There were opportunities for diplomatic resolution that he did not take. His favoring violent means to achieve his ends and having no chips with which to bargain for his objectives, he was a doomed warrior. He believed in a cause which in its moderate form was a simple cry for human dignity for SL Tamils.

Osama's fault is more global in its impact - ideological and religious hatred for a large swathe of Western populations and employing means to terrorize those populations as levers for achieving his megalomaniacal goals including an islamic caliphate. He thought he had avoided the pitfalls that Pirabhakaran caved in - by fighting a hidden guerilla war.

Ultimately it boils down upending the world order and its current institutions to follow a policy of unilateral terrorism and violence. This is at once an admission that peaceable means for achieving change are not possible and a willingness to accept collateral damage. The world and its global leader Obama need not be expected to put up with it.

Did you also mention, that Pirabhakaran systematically eliminated all other Tamil fighting groups and democratic Tamil parties in Sri Lanka? The man was no less than Hitler.

People have such short memories I tell you...

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:57 am

here are a few other differences -- the US forces are a defense force of a democratic country unlike osama's and pirabakaran's minions. nobody elected these gentlemen. further, the US defense forces are a voluntary force. commander commandeered children and forced them to fight. this is the one big reason why any claims of pirabakaran being a freedom fighter fall flat. he also turned on his own people. there is no way he can be considered anything other than a monster and a terrorist. a person has to be judged by his life's work, not just his beginning motivations.

by southindian Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:00 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here are a few other differences -- the US forces are a defense force of a democratic country unlike osama's and pirabakaran's minions. nobody elected these gentlemen. further, the US defense forces are a voluntary force. commander commandeered children and forced them to fight. this is the one big reason why any claims of pirabakaran being a freedom fighter fall flat. he also turned on his own people. there is no way he can be considered anything other than a monster and a terrorist. a person has to be judged by his life's work, not just his beginning motivations.

Nice. How could Maria miss this and the fact that pirabakaran killed his own people?

by Hellsangel Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:02 am

bw wrote:ya? ra?

hello, welcome to the forum.

When will ல and வ get here?

by bw Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:06 am

Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:ya? ra?

hello, welcome to the forum.

When will ல and வ get here?

when the going gets tough, the letters get going.

11-7. i predict more letters making their appearances.

psst, dear letterman, making your last login "unknown" does not hide you, ya know.

by Petrichor Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:21 am

Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:ya? ra?

hello, welcome to the forum.

When will ல and வ get here?

They are taking a cab as soon as ள gets off work.

by Hellsangel Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:53 am

atcg wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:ya? ra?

hello, welcome to the forum.

When will ல and வ get here?

They are taking a cab as soon as ள gets off work.

ள is always on duty.

by Idéfix Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:36 pm

Think about it this way. Command... err is more popular here than some regulars.

I voted "terrorist and monster", although if there was an "all of the above" option I would have picked that. As I see it, sure, he was fighting for his people's freedom, but that became incidental to what he was. Once he killed the leaders of other Tamil groups, and he held people as human shields, I viewed him as more of a terrorist and monster than a freedom fighter.

by Hellsangel Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:32 pm

panini press wrote:Think about it this way. Command... err is more popular here than some regulars.

I voted "terrorist and monster", although if there was an "all of the above" option I would have picked that. As I see it, sure, he was fighting for his people's freedom, but that became incidental to what he was. Once he killed the leaders of other Tamil groups, and he held people as human shields, I viewed him as more of a terrorist and monster than a freedom fighter.

No characters came to the rescue of the regulars.

by Ponniyin Selvan Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:08 am

Rekz wrote:6 votes for freedom fighter..ayoo

who are the other kayals here??

I voted for "freedom fighter".

by Ponniyin Selvan Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:13 am

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Rekz wrote:6 votes for freedom fighter..ayoo

who are the other kayals here??

I voted for "freedom fighter".

Even I'm surprised at 8 votes. I know KV, Maria and myself are open supporters but looks like there are five more.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:26 am

Ne recruiteees: ra, ya, Name removed by Admin, nandla registered on Jan 31.... Razz

4 ppl all of a sudden on the same date and Commander getting 4 extra votes mysteriously????

There is only one "child" on this site who does this kind of "game" and create a division among the Tamils (and Southies).

by Sponsored content

Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

What was Velupillai Pirabakaran?

Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..

Re: Velupillai Pirabakaran was a..