Icemansatriani

Welcome!

Hello, Icemansatriani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Please go through this before editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--Icemansatriani (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)== indentation ==

you

can

use

colons

for

indentation

: you

:: can

::: use

:::: colons

::::: for

:::::: indentation

Cheers Jasy jatere (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL, thank you very much jasy, I love you sense of humour. --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Settlers of Sri Lanka were the Veddahs not Dravidians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanniyala-Aetto

And they spoke an Aryan language not Telugu.

HumanFrailty (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hey Icemansatriani,

I made a request for comment on the Sinhalese people talk page. I would appreciate it if you could make a comment.

Many thanks, Wikinpg (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Click here for Sinhalese RfC

Debate

I'm sure there were casualties during the conflict between the gosl and the LTTE but not to the extent that the London Times claimed. Yeah, probably about 7,000 people died. But a certain amount of that was due to the LTTE using them as human shields.

So you admit to the 7000 conservative estimate, while most other groups including the UN put the number at 20,000, it doesn't matter, 7000 people is FAR too much. If it was the case that the LTTE were holding these people hostage, Sri Lanka has the responsibility to protect them, Whether its through agreeing to a ceasefire, or allowing the LTTE to surrender to the US like Norway tried to work out. Sri Lanka decision to pursue a military ending at the cost of 7000 lives (at least) is a war crime. --Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN denied the 20,000 figure. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Ban-Ki-moon-denies-UN-covered-up-death-toll-in-Lanka/articleshow/4606637.cms

They denied covering up the figure, but the figure itself they said was only an estimate, and could be wrong. But it is still a reasonable figure considering you have over 250,000 being bombed in a densely populated area, with lack and food and medicine as well. --Icemansatriani (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the satellite images you speak of? They don't prove anything to the effect of the culprit and is up to intepretation. 'Doctors reports' - doctors serving the LTTE? Amnesty International, HRW, Channel 4 news, the US and british parliaments are certainly biased when all they hear is you and others marching the streets screaming about genocide and concentration camps. There were no protests by the Sinhalese that attracted any attention and they were much isolated incidents. Anyway neither the U. S. nor the British parliament have any role in Sri Lanka and didn't witness anything that happened in Sri Lanka (neither did Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Channel 4 news).

If you live in Sri Lanka, you wouldn't have heard of the satelliate images leaked by the UN which showed shelling damage in the civilian safe zones. They government, which claimed it wasn't using heavy weapons or was shelling the civilian area, later said that they "will now stop using heavy weapons and shelling civilains", clearly proving they were lying. Both these suggest that the GoSL was shelling the civilian area. The Government later said the UN had "no right to take images on the safe zone", again a show of guilt. The doctors were working with the ICRC, ICRC outside of sri lanka, who were the ones who claimed the LTTE were using human shields were the same ones accusing the government of shelling the civilian areas, therefore there is was no proof or even reason to suggest they had anything to do with the LTTE. Your self serving bias is why you attribute all criticisms of the GoSL to "serving the LTTE", just as I had said before. Prove any of those groups you mentioned are bias? you can't because they aren't. All those groups have critized the LTTE, and they don't get their information from people protesting... you really sound like a 10 year old with that logic. Again, AI, HRW and channel 4 news all have people on the ground and they are reputable organisations unlike the GoSL. Channel 4 even got a person into the camps which revealed storys of rape and extortion by the sri lankan forces in the camps, leading your defence ministry to kick they out of the country. you may find it embarrassing what your troops do but the SLA have a history of rape, including over a 100 SLA peacekeeping soldiers raping children in haiti a few years ago. --Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A fringe theory certainly is your assertion that the Tamils were the first settlers of Sri Lanka. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again theres no evidence the sinhalese came first, aside from the onesided book written by buddhists for buddhists. There are evidence of dravidian cultures dating beyond 2500 years ago from when the sinhalese claim they arrived on the island.--Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The first inhabitants were Australoid people. Balangoda and such. I think the Sinhalese people evolved from these groups. Also, the Sinhalese culture is not similar to any other group in India and had a folk belief system before Buddhism. The Tamil Culture in Sri Lanka is very similar to that of South India and they only inhabit the regions close to India and the northern coasts. If the Sinhalese came after them why did they not go through the Tamils in the East or the West? And why did the Tamils not settle in the South? The settlement pattern suggests that the Sinhalese came first imo. Maybe, we could agree that they both settled at the same time? HumanFrailty (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't fight a guerrilla war without casualties; the LTTE triggered this new war when they shut off the water supply to the East. They triggered resentment in 1983 leading to the riots which effectively gave life to the war. And casualties from that riot was about 350 or 400 not 3000. The LTTE was a threat to the continual survial of the Sri Lankan state and was justifiable eliminated. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the LTTE returned to war because SriLanka entered the peace talks with bad faith, including turning down the LTTE ISGA proposal, which was a concession of the demand for a seperate state and a decision to have the tamil people vote their own people into a regional government. Second, The LTTE didn't start black july, racist sinhalese people did, there were many riots before 1983, are you trying to justify killing over 3000 innocent tamils and destroying 10,000's of homes and businesses because a group of tamils killed a few soldiers? does that make sense to you? or are you a racist? Third 300-400 is your governments attempt are lowering the amount dead, the international organisations and first hand accounts put the number much higher. Irrespective, GoSL complacency was the worst part of it, and it was the reason the LTTE gained so much support, because GoSL showed it didn't care about tamils, and in that year the president had even said that "he doesn't care abuot the tamils and he would starve them if it meant pleasing the sinhalese". --Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Black July was definitely bad I admit. It was a bad time in Sri Lankan history and JR should have done more to stop it. He did eventually send in troops to stop the rioters but that wasn't enough. Still the JR government is gone and it's a different government now that isn't as bad (despite fascist elements).

I respect the Tamils and don't hold an ill feelings towards them. I went to school with a lot of Tamil people and I never felt any feelings of difference with them. Most of my friends in school were Tamils and Muslims also. HumanFrailty (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if Rajapakse's government does (despite all evidence)care about the tamils, the current government has done very little to show it cares about tamils, including failing to appeal to the tamil diaspora by letting impartial journalists and human rights groups in to assure the well being of their families. --Icemansatriani (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain possibility for reconciliation now that the LTTE is eliminated; about 3,000 families will be settled on August 7 and more before August 31. The army will eventually play a less of a role in the North after hostilities fully end. A more liberal government will eventually be elected -- hey remember Sri Lanka has a democratic system. It only became so conservative to the length of fascism due to the ongoing conflict and the failure of more liberal ideas of ceasefire and negotiation. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The possibility for reconciliation has been serverly ruined by the GoSL, who killed at least 7000 tamils, and has lost the trust of the tamil people by keeping them in detention camps for this long, with reliable reports of 1400 weekly deaths, rapes, extortion, all of which are believable, especially considering that the majority of sinhalese, like you, have a grudge against the tamils, including arguing stupid irrelevant things like who came to the island first. IT doesn't matter, despite the evidence being in favour of tamils, it doesn't matter, the Tamils live in the north and east now and everything was fine. Facism is one thing, but the extreme violations of human rights including basic human rights of the people in the camp. More over, Sri Lanka shows no evidence that its planning to return these people to their homes, despite saying so. They've pushed back deadlines enough times already. And most of the damage is already done, 1400 dying weekly, young girls being impregnanted, the tamil families have lost most of their property and their lives, and the worst would probably be the seperation of families. You cannot put 300,000 people in these conditions because less that 50 of them maybe LTTE members. The fact is sri lanka has a bad history of kidnapping tamils and destroying families, over 2000 people (mostly tamils) have been kidnapped since 2003. Just watch this documentary http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4461610936009497424&ei=WR9xSqiPIIWKrQL4jIHRBQ&q=sri+lanka&hl=en . --Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge against the Tamils and neither does all of my family members and Sinhalese friends. We all discuss how reconciliation can be achieved now that the war is over. I am concerned about the internment camps and hope that they will be closed soon and the people released. I think they will be resettled after demining is completed. I don't think the 1400 a week estimate is correct; didn't London times make that? They are creating hysteria and I don't trust them. HumanFrailty (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1400 seems reasonable to me, there are around 300,000 people who've gone without proper food, water, medicine, freedom of movement for months, London times could not confirm these figures, but the estimates are reasonable when looking at the evidence, and Sri lanka continually fails to provide any reliable proof otherwise. --Icemansatriani (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that Red Cross reports http://www.redcross.lk/eh_news147.html http://www.redcross.lk/eh_news142.html suggest improving conditions in the North; Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International aren't allowed in Sri Lanka because of all the hostility they've demonstrated. Sri Lanka is being a bit fascist right now (which I don't like) and I support the UNP but they aren't as bad as you seek to imply. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The warcrimes have already been commited, they still are being committed, allegations of 1400 people dying regularly were released after those two reports. Improving conditions is good, but this is far less that what is needed, and it suggests more of an attempt to please the international community rather than actually resettle the people or treat them well. The Red cross have already been forced to scale down their activities. I'm glad to here you support the UNP, as do I. But they are as bad as I imply. Theres more to this struggle than you know. The root of the conflict lie both in sinhalese nationalism and buddhist extremist ideas that the island belong to Sinhala buddhists, and expectedly there have been many attacks on churches, hindu temples and mosques by sinhalese mobs as proof of this. Rajapakse himself was a former member of the JVP, and while he claims not to carry their idealogy, his actions are to the contrary, including the fact that he formed an alliance with the JVP and JHU to get into government.--Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rajapakse is not a good leader and has a dubious history; I want him to leave now that the war is over. It's such a shame he's gaining support for ending the war despite possible ill effects the end has brought to the North. I don't think he's being supported because the Sinhalese are racist it's just that they are sick of the LTTE and wanted the group to be defeated. There are certain extremist elements but that's a minority I believe. Hopefully Rajapaske will leave soon. HumanFrailty (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The war maybe over but it ended the wrong way, and it seems a cult of personality is forming around Rajapakse, but At least we agree he needs to leave. --Icemansatriani (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resettlement: http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2009/07/26/oostory.asp?sid=20090724_02&imid=IDP.jpg&dt=[July%2024%202009] http://www.isria.com/pages/28_July_2009_64.php HumanFrailty (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

like i said, theres no evidence they're going to do this. I've read that they've already made plans to give some of the land to sinhalese settlers, and considering how much these people have suffered, resettling them this late after all this suffering is the least they could do, and I doubt they'll do it anyways considering their current approach. --Icemansatriani (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They resettled some people in Mannar and I think settlements in Vavuniya will occur by August 4. There may be Sinhalese people settling in the North but don't consider this a negative thing. There were Sinhalese people there before the LTTE pushed them out. And if we live together we can form a better sense of community. Extremist elements are a minority I stress. HumanFrailty (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremists elements could be a minority, but they are a powerful minority. They can even influence moderates because the JHU has a religious appeal to them, and JVP have a socialist appeal. And it with all the armed paramilitary support these groups have, even intelligent moderate people fear to speak out. As a result the extremists views are more common. --Icemansatriani (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hello, Icemansatriani. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.