Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inSo it is good to protect Syrians and why not SriLankan Tamils?
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
So it is good to protect Syrians and why not SriLankan Tamils?
by FluteHolder Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:00 pm
SL.
1. No economic interest for US?
2. Race- Asians/Ppl of dark color does not matter to US/UN?
3. No Military importance to US?
1. No economic interest for US?
2. Race- Asians/Ppl of dark color does not matter to US/UN?
3. No Military importance to US?
FluteHolder- Posts : 2355
Join date : 2011-06-03
Re: So it is good to protect Syrians and why not SriLankan Tamils?
by confuzzled dude Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:06 am
Was SL run by an authoritarian regime? Did the Commander receive arms or support from the CIA? Was there any use of chemical weapons?
Others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods.
Others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods.
confuzzled dude- Posts : 10205
Join date : 2011-05-08
Re: So it is good to protect Syrians and why not SriLankan Tamils?
by Kayalvizhi Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:56 am
Flute,Actually US tried to help. US plan was to send a navy ship to the war area, evaculate senior LTTE lesaders numbering about 50, ask SL to give amnesty to others, then give large amounts of food and medicine to trapped people (similar to what US helicopters did for Kurds in 1990s). Commander of the Pacific fleet went to Colombo to inform them of the decicion and pave way for action. SL cannot stand up to US. They said you better talk to India. Within days India'S National sec advisor flies to Washington. We don not know the talks. No US action takes place.
Then US tells India let us both go to SL President and ask him to commit to political devolutrion after war ends in SL victory (do this before victory). India says we have to take China along. Of course China won;t and India knows it.
After the war, US was about to block World Bank funds to SL unless war crimes are accounted. India asks US sec of state Hillary Clinton not to. She would not commit. India tells SL if World Bank does not give 2 billion, India will. Seeing this US did not vote against SL in World Bank.
Then US tells India let us both go to SL President and ask him to commit to political devolutrion after war ends in SL victory (do this before victory). India says we have to take China along. Of course China won;t and India knows it.
After the war, US was about to block World Bank funds to SL unless war crimes are accounted. India asks US sec of state Hillary Clinton not to. She would not commit. India tells SL if World Bank does not give 2 billion, India will. Seeing this US did not vote against SL in World Bank.
Kayalvizhi- Posts : 3659
Join date : 2011-05-16
Sponsored content
Similar topics» Secularism has always been the last cloak of the political scoundrel; it now appears to be a good enough defence to protect oneself from the consequences of sexual misconduct too.
» What Aurangzeb did to protect Hindu temples (and protect non-Muslim religious leaders)
» Good news or Bad news? What do the brainwashed Tamils here think?
» Syrians congratulate Netanyahu
» Srilankan refugees in Rajahmundry?
» What Aurangzeb did to protect Hindu temples (and protect non-Muslim religious leaders)
» Good news or Bad news? What do the brainwashed Tamils here think?
» Syrians congratulate Netanyahu
» Srilankan refugees in Rajahmundry?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum