A final comment, Groundviews.

It would be best to accept readers’ responses as responses in continuing with these discussion boards. Some subjects are just not appropriate. That is my humble and educated view.
Try in your discourse to focus and appreciate the issues and retain a detached stance.

No, this is just wrong.

To me the answer is obvious, but it is a good question in that it compels all of us to confront and analyze the options and their consequences rather than gloss over unpleasant facts. Whether the UN/OCHA estimate of 50,000 in the conflict zone as on April 29 2009 is accurate is of little consequence. Would any of us react differently if that estimate was 25,000 or 75,000? Quibbling about the accuracy of the estimate could be an attempt to divert attention from the issues raised. In my view no massacre is ever justified; whether the killings are deliberately targeted or merely predictable “collateral damage” is irrelevant. Thus the other answers, “Yes, if that is what it takes” and even the more guarded “Maybe, if there are guarantees of a post-war political process on power-sharing” are both wrong.

Any assumption that any war pursued in such a manner as to end in an avoidable massacre of civilians could lead to reconciliation, end of terrorism and a just and durable political process on power sharing is not credible. Within a short period there have been enormous harm resulting from the war to hundreds of thousands of people and the deaths of thousands of them. This has already fouled up such prospects. It has also fired up the Tamil diaspora and deeply embittered the local Tamil population, virtually ensuring that acts of terrorism will continue unabated. The war has also resulted in massive social and economical hardships to almost everyone extensive casualties to those engaged in combat as well as many more throughout the island.

There is, of course a possibility of a solution imposed from outside – as in the case of the Indo-Lanka Accord July 29 1987. But that solution would not be through a democratic process, and may provoke the kind of hostility that the Indo-Lanka Agreement provoked. At best a cease fire could be pressed from outside, but any successful political process must originate and developed from within.

The range of responses to the question posed is interesting. Several of the answers (including express refusals to provide answers) reveal less about the issues raised than about the person responding. To date many outside the North and East have accepted such ill- consequences of the war as they are aware of in the belief that a satisfactory solution will soon emerge. There is wide spread ignorance of the magnitude of the cost of the war. When they discover more about the true costs of the war, and also that the expected benefits may not be forth coming, most of the population of all ethnic groups may turn against the war.

Finally, a word to Nandakumar; you have the right to hold and express your opinion; but in my opinion the division of this island into two sovereign states in neither desirable nor achievable. Even in the unlikely event of such division being imposed from outside, the separation will not survive. The North East state will not be viable. What would be desirable and, I believe, achievable in due course through non violence means, is regional autonomy or federalism, i.e. internal self-determination. There are wide array of viable models to choose from including India. Such a solution will preserve the integrity of Sri Lanka, will be fair to all ethnic groups and also have international support.

As I’ve noted earlier in the comments,

“This post intends to interrogate extremism. The numbers in the quote are really peripheral to the argument, which exists today, that to finish off the LTTE, collateral damage is not just unavoidable, it is even a prerequisite.”

Furthermore, The Underdog, Aadhavan, Lionel Bopage, Citizen, Casenut, Anandakumar, Robin, Ranjan, Malinda Seneviratne, Sam, Deame and Chaminda Weerawardhana to note just a few have all responded in detail to the poll in comments above – perhaps you should take issue with them individually or collectively.

Ref. David, I believe you confused CheeLanka, to whom I’ve responded above, with Groundviews.

Blustering on seems your forte. Kindly desist.

First, please do admit that this should not have been a ‘poll’. There are no polls on this cos it is a topic that deals with the grossly inhuman. There are no political extremist ideas in this. This would be cold-blooded murder and no polls are suitable on such notions. If you do not appreciate your boo-boo, am frankly disappointed and will not trouble to read you anymore.

Second, please refrain from commenting on David Blacker’s immaturity in person. I think the forum should restrict themselves to dealing with the immaturity of acts of Groundviews and not of people especially implying personal knowledge of participant. THankfully I do not know David but this is in bad taste as is your decision to put this sensational and inhuman notion to a POLL.

I have no doubt of your good intentions. Just admit that you appear to have been wrong in this case without blustering on.

“The Obama administration hopes to build a strong and lasting regional alliance, linking success in Afghanistan with security in Pakistan. Toward that end, the administration is encouraging Pakistan to confront — not make peace with — the Taliban and other militants.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8035204.stm

The Afghan president has repeatedly urged Western forces in Afghanistan to REDUCE the numbers of civilian casualties”

NOTICE how west not even reducing whiles expects us to have zero casulaties…

Reading through the some of the other comments one gets the feeling that some doth protest too much, especially considering their previous posts. The number 50,000 has left them naked and shamed.

So clearly 50,000 is an unacceptable number for most of your readers, but for many some non-zero number is acceptable. Is it 1? 10? 1000? And I would guess the number would be different based on the ethnicity of the people being killed. You have done well to make people face this inner demon.

I would have voted NO at 1 civilian death (which means I am absolutely against war). But what is your number?

Perhaps the Poll should read:
HOW MANY CIVILIANS MUST DIE PER DAY BEFORE WE DECLARE A HUMANITARIAN CEASEFIRE:
1. 10 PER DAY
2. 50 PER DAY
3. 100 PER DAY
4. MORE THAN 100

However, since this post has received more responses than the last 10 or so combined, obviously then the Author has accomplished what he was trying to achieve by posting such a controversial post.

If anyone answers yes to questions #1 and #3, then that is the equivalent to supporting state sponsored 1st degree murder and I would label it as state ‘genocide’ if in fact the entire NFZ is carpet bombed. This could never lead to peace, so it is a rhetorical question.

If anyone answers No, then I my interpretation of this is that the person either accepts that there will be collateral damage to civilians and want’s the war to go on till the LTTE leaders are captured OR that person does not approve of any collateral damage and hence wants an immediate ceasefire. So the NO includes people who support some or even a lot of collateral damage, maybe even 50,000.

I would definitely not vote #1 or #3, but I would not answer NO as well because that one is too open interpretation and I would not like answer it either.

Is there a NONE of THE ABOVE?

What would be your question for the next poll? Perhaps, how many more Sri Lankans should be killed for MR and Company to stay in power?

…but 50,000 lives you say? that seems like a steep number no? can i bargain for bit less?? how much is a life worth these days anyway…?? Do those people actually want to live in the first place… if only we could ask them what they want… but what do they have to live for… or even worth dying for?

Either way, i am willing to negotiate a resonable number, because none of my loved ones are involved, but 50,000 is a way too much… you’ll have to sweaten the deal. come on, make a reasonable offer!

I understand you have reservations about David. Fine. But the point of this post, and this website, is to interrogate broader issues. This process requires voices we don’t like and agree with.

For starters, what do you feel about the assertion in the original post if David does not capture your thoughts?

Even with his excellent command of English, multi-cultural background and exposure to the wider world of letters and culture, this ex-Army boy still can’t shake off his if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us (Dubya) mentality. Sadly, he is not alone.

And that’s really worry for all of us who crave for a peaceful tomorrow.

Here’s an effort to re-engage on more substantive issues. You say in one of your posts and with great merit,

“What makes this heroic last stand so tragic, however, is that it will achieve nothing. It signals the last breaths of the LTTE as a fighting force, and I cannot help but think what a waste of young lives… I’d like to think that the Tamils of the northeast would have one day had more use for their lives than their deaths. In the dying days of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler refused to allow Berlin to be evaccuated in the face of the approaching Soviets, stating that it was better for the Germanic people to perish rather than be diluted by lesser races. Looking at many of the comments by diaspora members on sites such as DBS Jeyaraj’s one gets the feeling that they feel the same way, that all is lost, and a cause is dead. But they forget that the LTTE is not the true cause, nor is it really Tamil Eelam. The cause is equality. Unfortunately, the LTTE became the cause it once took up, and in doing so has prevented that very cause from being achieved. It’s time to look for other ways. There’s nothing as tragic as dying for nothing.”

Comments here on the contrary suggest that if it is the Govt’s strategy that collateral is unavoidable, even necessary for victory as they define it, how we can be sure today that Army soldiers are also not tragically dying for nothing?

If there is no clear political will towards a *federal* constitution and power-sharing that is the result of this historic moment, as Anandasangaree has clearly called for in the media today, what guarantee do we have that Army soldiers have died for something meaningful? Why doesn’t the Govt release numbers of those killed by the LTTE in action? Is it that their death is too much to bear and reduces troop morale and public support for war, but that the death of Tamil civilians is not as consequential?

Care to engage and also with some of the other through provoking comments above by others?