I must in turn conclude that you have a problem with English comprehension.

"Obama's quote goes on to note "What I am opposed to is a rash war… A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics". See http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/13/war-on-prin…"

You didn't provide an answer to critiques of your article (just as "anonymous" has not been able to defend his views against dayan and others), so I must conclude that you agree with us that this war is based on reason and principle.

According to Mangala Samaraweera more than 300 Sinhala Army soldiers died in this conflict and the Tamil rebels casualty figures seem worse than this. Tamils or Sinhalese they are all sons of our motherland Sri Lanka, and each life loss is a loss to Sri Lanka.

IntenseDebate was acquired earlier this year by Automatic, the makers of WordPress, and what you see here is a precursor to what may well become the standard comments system on hosted WordPress blog (i.e. wordpress.com).

I have been tweaking the settings of the new version 2.0 (beta) plugin of their comment moderation system for WordPress for a while. Coincidentally, this new system addresses every single one of the points you raised regarding security, online identity management, voting / popularity ratings and adds a few more features to boot.

Perhaps next time, before you pontificate, it may help to first ask what I'm doing to address any concerns you have and certainly point me to resources and ideas elsewhere on the web that I should take a look at to make this site better.

Coming to what Dayan and Punitam said, I honestly think a lot of people are upset over the current military campaign simply because their days of lecturing to the Sri Lankan people and trying to impose a solution, whilst wining and dining in five star hotels with foreign money flowing into their pockets might be coming to an end. Think about it; what are the ‘peace mongers’ going to do when there is no war? They will have to fold up their institutions and say good bye to their luxurious lifestyle. It’s really no different that the arms merchants who don’t want a war to end because then they would be out of a job.

I have never supported the idea of Eelam, or the means the LTTE has used to go about realising this idea. But we know that the idea came about by unaddressed and legitimate grievances. Insensitive policies, practices and statements of and by the incumbent regime suggest that though it may win the war against the LTTE it is unable to engender the vital, and far more vexed transformation in polity and society necessary to address root causes that gave rise to and inflamed violent extremism in Sri Lanka.

Dayan is convinced otherwise, and frankly, I hope I hope he’s right. Let’s bookmark this thread and revisit it say a year hence?

The other points I’ve addressed in my article. There are always grey areas, as the Bush administration discovered the hard way.

Sanjana

this is a war based on

reason –
1. a 6-12% of population cant ask for 1/3 of a landmass,
2. no one can on any given sunday can standup and say they want to create a seperate country for their people, cutting up a exisitng state.

principle –
1.if we give in to terrorist, then any one with a wepon will take over us.
2.on prinicple, terrorist should not be allowed to win?
3. right is right, and wrong is wrong, there are no grey areas.

why do you imply otherwise???

on your comment to dayan, are you trying to infer than this is a war based on passion and politics????

I am also concerned by the rhetoric of the Tamil diaspora funding the LTTE. I am sure they are right. But that is nothing comparable to the military spending of the State of Sri Lanka
177.1 billion Sri Lankan rupees proposed in 2009 from LKR 166.4 billion this year. This doesnt come to anything near that the diaspora can even dream of spending!! Surely any analysis of funding of war should be two sided!
jiva parthipan
http://www.jivajiva.com

Obama’s quote goes on to note “What I am opposed to is a rash war… A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics”. See http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/13/war-on-principles/

Sanjana

As for the artistes, everyone likes to ingratiate themselves with the rulers. But hey, in these trying times it’s the only way to make a living. Just ask Jackson Anthony: he even got a Presidential speech supporting Aba! The rest of them just want in on the gravy train.

Note to Dayan:I know it’s hard, but take a deep breath, gather up some courage, and pry off those Obama buttons. The election’s over. Time to live again.

Thank you for your comment which I have not posted because it is both irrelevant as a response to the original post and takes away from the interesting focus here on the interplay between war, culture and art. Further, points raised by you are essentially tired arguments and suggestions, addressed elsewhere on this site since its inception and on the web by others. Revealingly, for someone who cares so much about verifiable identity online, you have not once submitted a comment with a valid email address.

Now if we can all go back to artistes in the post? Thanks.

Sanjana

Anonymity online is a really interesting topic – thanks for bringing it up. Firstly, not everyone who uses a name in this forum (and others on the web) use their real name. I have in fact no way of ascertaining whether the names commentators use are true or false. Some choose to go with a false name, but through sustained engagement with content here, have created an ‘identity’ for themselves. Others I know keep changing their names, even when they post from the same IP. Some post certain comments under their real name and other comments under an assumed identity.

I’ve never prevented anyone from writing in under an assumed name for a range of reasons and also because anonymity is not the same as identity in online fora. Put another way, you can be anonymous, but still have an ‘identity’ and be contactable and open to dialogue. Salam Pax is a really good example of this.

Anonymous may, after a while, choose to engage with the comments here. I can’t force her / him to do it, though I always encourage all authors to do so. Part of the reason I set up Groundviews was precisely to encourage civil, progressive dialogue on tough, emotional, vexed issues.

I certainly encourage you to write in, but in a manner markedly different to the expression you employ in your short comment, since it is evident that you have not read or understood the content submission guidelines.

Sanjana

how does one like “annonymus” get to write a [edited out] article like this hiding under without a name. if you are allowing every tom, harry and the dick’s (likes above) to write [edited out], you should allow every person like me and the commentotors to start writing bigger articles than comments.

indian artisits showed their stuff, we did the same. so whats the big deal?