Writing from a Tamil nationalist position which occasionally earned the LTTE monster’s ire, David Jeyaraj has provided the world with invaluable service over the years. He had considerable information on both the Tiger operations and behind the scene events in the Tamil north. I have utilized his articles on numerous occasions.[i] However,  in jumping to the defence of a family friend who has presented a “true story” of her engagement in the Tamil liberation struggle, Jeyaraj has recently provided one with a meandering exercise in obfuscation and deception: see his  “From Shenuka to Niromi: True Tale of a Tamil Tigress.”

Jeyaraj dazzles his readership by revealing that he knows her real identity in the course of presenting Tamil Tigress as a tale of Niromi-Shenuka’s disillusionment with the LTTE and her recovery of everyday life till she crafted her book as a “story of redemption” and a “classic immigrant success story.”[ii]

He then challenges those who have read the book as a literary forgery by depicting them as “conspiracy theorists.” Rather daintily he avoids naming these critics, namely, Ambalavanar, Roberts, and Sarvananthan, and proceeds to lump all three together in his review with casual disdain for the differences in argument. He dismisses the various charges as “unsubstantiated” and “unfair.”

Jeyaraj affirms that Niromi’s tale is entirely credible because it is a “memoir,” not an “auto-biography” (his words, his casting). In this assertion Tamil Tigress is a “mixed genre” – a book in “memoir format with the characteristics of a realist novel.”

The affirmation is a gigantic bluff. Any glance at the English Thesaurus[iii] or the Oxford English Dictionary would indicate that an “autobiography” and memoir” are synonyms, though a “memoir” has a wider compass in that it embraces biography. In its autobiographical form it may, however, focus on just one episode or event in one’s life (and thus, like autobiographies, on persons and events around one’s activities). Let me cite the OED (p. 905) in full:

Memoir 1 A historical account or biography written from personal knowledge or special sources; 2 an autobiography or written account of one’s memory of certain events or people. 3a an essay on a learned subject specially studied by the writer treatise. 3b the proceedings or transactions of a learned society.

Jeyaraj’s assertion that Niromi’s blunders are matters “of minor detail” and a sign of some “sloppiness” is built on this foundation, a colossal misreading of the category “memoir.” Thus, in claiming that my previous reviews do not amount to a credible challenge,[iv] Jeyaraj builds his critique on a conceptualization that is not merely erroneous, but also amounts to an act of deception (one that, significantly, seems to have taken the Tamil world by storm).

Besides, he sidesteps the critical bone of contention, a contextual statement of major significance in Tamil Tigress, which had aroused my doubts in the first instance and which has directed all my articles on the subject: namely, the claim by both Niromi and Allen & Unwin that the ambush which Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).

Let me provide a basic timeline for Niromi de Soyza’s pertinent biography:

1. In mid-1987 she joined the LTTE (aged 17)

2. The IPKF was in Jaffna from 29 July1987 to 1990.

3. Early October 1987 LTTE commences battle vs IPKF  and India.

4. Niromi resigns from the LTTE in 1988 (aged 18)

5. She arrives in Australia in 1990.

6. She presented her first version of her memoir in newspaper outlet in May 2009.

7. She collaborates with Allen & Unwin to present a book-length autobiography in 2011 (aged 42).

All accounts of Eelam War One agree that during the phase October 1987 to late 1989 the LTTE was pitted against the enormous contingents, sometimes amounting to over 100,000 personnel, of the IPKF. This error of central background fact, no “minor error” in any credible reading, informed my two overlapping articles:

A] “Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter” in my own web site http://thuppahi.wordpress.com on 21 August 2011;

B] “Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s Tamil Tigress, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?” which appeared initially in Groundviews on 31 August 2011.

The question marks in the titles indicate that my arguments were not full-proof in my own mind and that I was raising a probability for people to consider.

Subsequently, however, I discovered that Niromi de Soyza had presented her biographical journey in the 1980s as a short story of some nine pages in the Daily Telegraph in May 2009 as the LTTE army was on the verge of defeat. This tale was entitled: “Life as a female Tamil Tiger guerilla relived by one of first female soldiers.”[v]

This tale too is launched in melodramatic fashion by an account of de Soyza’s first battlefield skirmish: “At dawn that day, Indian soldiers had surrounded our hideout” she says in 2009 (emphasis mine). Later in this same account she notes that “fighting the Indian soldiers made no sense to me.” This realisation is presented as one factor inducing the decision to extricate herself from the commitment to fight for Tamil independence under the LTTE.

So, when she spelt out her biography in 2009 Niromi knew who her adversaries were in December 1987. In contrast, in the opening account in Tamil Tigress in 2011, the enemy are just “soldiers;” while the back cover explicitly proclaims that “two days before Christmas 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in a bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades (emphasis mine).” Again, when she was interviewed by Nikki Barrowclugh for the Good Weekend in July 2011, Niromi indicated once again that her unit spent “most of the time … running and hiding from government soldiers.”[vi]

In brief, the Indian presence has been obliterated in the critical opening lines and cover page in her book version of 2011 and interviews around it — even though their presence is noted on occasions at other points deeper in the book (pp. 162, 164, 168, 227, 264). We face a stark contrast which no amount of obfuscation can smother.

We thus have strong circumstantial proof of deception in 2011 as distinct from 2009. This leads to my suggestion that the fabrications in 2011 were directed by (a) the propaganda war that was peaking in late 2010/early 2011 and (b) the Western world’s sustained criticism of the Sri Lankan state in 2011 within a backdrop created by the disclosures in Killing Fields  and an UN panel report by so-called “experts.” Whether this deliberate shift in background emphasis was informed by the advice of the Tamil Tiger lobby in Sydney and the several Australians who are affiliated in various ways with them (Gordon Weiss[vii] Jake Lynch, Antony Lowenstein, Bruce Haigh, James Dowd in the Sydney-Canberra circuit for instance) is a further possibility that one has to keep in mind – for Allen & Unwin would have deployed reviewers and this process could have informed the adjustments that I have identified.

This new information and its implications were incorporated in my third article, entitled “Niromi de Soysa’s Path of Redemption with Deception? Or Both?” which I sent to several news outlets in Lanka and eventually inserted in my web site on 27 October 2011. Since the Lankan agencies did not print it, few readers have consulted this article; so this present essay is a re-iteration of its claims in the new context created by the articles on Tamil Tigress penned by Cooke and Jeyaraj.

I do not have problems with some of the motifs in Tamil Tigress that are praised by Cooke (2011) and Jeyaraj. It is the degree to which it is a true historical account in its central details that is at issue here. The critical issue remains the question who, in Niromi’s mind, the Tigers were fighting? The remarkable fact is that while the first skirmish of December 1987 was an encounter with Indian troops in her 2009 recollection, in both 2009 and 2011 she keeps insisting that the LTTE was fighting both Indian and government troops at ground level. “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too” she says in the Daily Telegraph account in 2009. This is a consistent aspect of her stories at both points, an aspect reiterated during interviews for radio and magazine.

Niromi de Soyza seems to have the theatrical ability to support her claims with vales of tears during some of her public presentations. At the “Missing Peace Exhibition” on 16th October 2011 organised by the Eltham Bookshop in Melbourne, her talk was interrupted by emotional tears of grief. I was not present, but Jeremy Liyanage, previously amenable to her moderate position, was quite disconcerted because he interpreted it as an act. I may not have accepted his reading; but when I made inquiries from my Scottish wife she reminded me of a Sri Lankan friend in the old days who could turn on the tears at will to persuade recalcitrant bureaucrats at the customs office.

So, we face a major puzzle. Virtually every Tamil resident in the northern and eastern reaches of the island would have known that the LTTE faced Indian troops in the period 1987 to 1989. The LTTE successfully resisted the might of over 100,000 Indian troops for over two years in a sturdy guerrilla campaign. Indian accounts leave one in no doubt that this resistance was based on popular support and a remarkable grassroots intelligence system which enabled the LTTE to track troop movements out of their camps and even heli-gunships on sorties.[viii] Note too that the camouflage uniforms of the IPKF and the turbans worn by the Sikh regiments who were part of the IPKF were distinct from those of the SL Army outfits. In such circumstances how could a Tiger fighter be unaware that those shooting at her platoon did not include SL army soldiers?

It is this huge error that led me to question the authenticity of Niromi’s alleged battlefield experience and her opening gambit of “Ambush.” In a scathing comment in GV, Vijayaraghavan Sakthivel, writing as a Tamil nationalist, has endorsed my reasoning in his own vocabulary by marking the red-hot political context of 2011 and sensationalist commercial imperatives as the stimulus for the twist inserted into the “major political detail” surrounding the late 1980s battlefield context. We can conjecture, therefore, that this fabrication was the work of author, advisors and/or publisher acting in concert.

Niromi de Soyza’s other accounts of warfare compound one’s astonishment. In 2009 she tells us that “during battles we had been trained to fire in the general direction of the enemy, not at individual targets, and I am not sure whether any of my bullets hit anyone.”[ix] Again, in 2011 she told Barrowclough that during her skirmishes as a guerrilla she may have shot at someone running, but “didn’t ever see a face… I would have frozen if I’d seen a face.”[x] It is no wonder that after he met her, the journalist Windsor concluded that the LTTE was an amateurish outfit. A few months later, in October 2011, she led Mark Furier to quote the Allen & Unwin book-blurb identifying “government soldiers” as the adversaries responsible for the “ambush” in the course of his interview-article for Serendib News (page 23).

Nowhere do Jeyaraj and Cooke address this shortcoming. Jeyaraj deploys his longwinded virtuosity to trail several red herrings and a range of smokescreens around this issue. Reports elsewhere indicate that he has shut out Ratnawalli’s direct questioning of his essay.[xi] In a personal communication Ambalavanar now informs me that his review article, published initially in Thesamnet.co.uk, was sent to Tamilweek (one of Jeyaraj’s websites), but rejected; while all Ambalavanar’s efforts to contact Jeyaraj were spurned. That, of course, is an editor’s prerogative; but it does suggest that Jeyaraj will not face up to such challenges in an open manner. Indeed, I now wonder if Jeyaraj has actually read the whole book (no page references are provided anywhere) and has been induced to spin his article after working the phone (this has always been his forte) and viewing Niromi’s interviews etc.

Jeyaraj also plays word-games with Niromi, Shenuka and Sharmila as part of his box of magic tricks. Can we not conclude that his essay is as much an act of deception as the Tamil Tigress book? We have now seen Jeyaraj the Illusionist.

Lapping it up

His magic worked. The overwhelming majority of cybernet comments within his own website, and several within GV, have bought his performance hook, line and sinker – though there were some notable exceptions (e. g. “PK,” “sambar” and “Offthecuff”). This line of reaction has now continued in juvenile manner in the new discussion around my Groundviews article. This type of outcome is itself cause for comment.

On both a priori grounds and the names/nom de plumes adopted by the bloggers we can conclude that most of the comments have been presented by Sri Lankan Tamils in various corners of the world,[xii] though there may be the odd Sinhalese among those inserting approval of the claims of Jeyaraj (and Cooke). Thus, we can move to the conclusion that the anguish these Tamils have suffered over the last forty years and the heightened emotions arising from the defeat of the LTTE in 2009 directed their reading of the Jeyaraj article. From cyber-world commentary at that time in 2009 and images of demonstrations in the West it seemed to me then that even Tamils who had reservations about the LTTE programme were agitated by the humiliating defeat of a renowned Tamil leader. The subsequent propaganda campaign on war crimes has probably stoked their nationalist sentiments yet further. In brief, then, “Tamilness” is the condition of being[xiii] that has sponsored such a favourable reading of the Jeyaraj article.

This could be a charitable reading of the widespread favour and fervour generated by Jeyaraj’s acts of obfuscation. Others might suggest that all those who lapped it up have displayed a lack of intelligence and discernment. Indeed, some of the comments seem incredibly juvenile and determined to kick that man Roberts, not the ‘football’ of data and argument. Since I am embedded in the debate it would be best if a person who is not Sri Lankan, that is, someone clinically dispassionate, dissects the commentary and tells us whether this reading of the comments is valid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


[i] See Roberts 2010 and Jeyaraj 2006, 2007 2008 and 2009 for illustrations.

[ii] Jeyaraj, 2011 “From Shenuka to Niromi: True tale of a Tamil Tigress,” http://dbsjeyaraj.com/ dbsj/archives/3160

[iii] Geddes & Grosset, English Thesaurus, 2006, p. 156. 

[iv] I speak here for myself because Ambalavanar and Sarvananthan can fend for themselves.

[vi] Nikki Barrowclough, “Tigress, interrupted,” Good Weekend, 9 July 2011, p. 28.

[vii] Note “Futura Book night – Gordon Weiss and Niromi de Soyza,” in http://www.facebook. com/event.php?eid=137919256296979 and the notice re Niromi’s “amazing autobiography” in the Weiss website (http://www.gordonweissauthor.com/links.html). Re Weiss’s dubious presentations, see Tekwani 2011 and Roberts 2011b.

[viii] John Taylor India’s Vietnam.” 2000.

[ix]  [De Soyza] in Daily Telegraph 2009.

[x] Nikki Barrowclough, “Tigress, interrupted,” Good Weekend, 9 July 2011, p. 28.

[xi] See http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/12/18/and-quietly-ignores-them-hoping-they-will-just-go-away/ AND http://ratnawalli.blogspot.com/2011/12/dbsjeyaraj-finds-some-fatal-slips-in.html.

xii It is not unknown for some writers to insert their own comments or induce acolytes to insert ra-raa praise blogs within their own articles; but that sort of activity is hard to demonstrate in any instance and I have no doubt that most comments in the Jeyaraj site as well as GV are genuine supporters of the Jeyaraj viewpoint.

xiii On “Tamilness” and “Sinhalaness,” see my essays in Fire and Storm (2011) as well as “The Sinhala Mindset” in http://thuppahi.wordpres.com

  • ken

    The Following three articles clearly show what Michael Robert’s claimed were false.

    1.) http://groundviews.org/2011/12/10/the-singer-might-change-but-the-song-remains-the-same-a-critical-look-at-roberts-and-sarvananthan-%E2%80%98outing%E2%80%99-niromi-de-soyza/

    2.) http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3160

    3,) http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3378

    After reading the book and the article I would like to give a new title as Clouds of deception and act of Jealous by Michael Robert

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Ken,

      Personally I am disillusioned with Mr DBS Jayaraj, who I held in high esteem, for his fearless critique of wrong doing, regardless of who was doing it, LTTE, Govt or anyone else.

      Quote from Prof Michael Robert
      “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).”
      Unquote

      Neither DBS Jayaraj nor God Himself can refute Michael Roberts without answering how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Agreement that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi being assaulted by a disillusioned Sri Lankan Naval Rating.

      Can you or DBSJ or ANYONE enlighten the GV readership how this miracle was performed?

      If that cannot be done, Niromi de Soyza was Lying and those who support her are shamelessly colluding in her deception, not withstanding their past reputations.

      • Rationalman

        OCC, so let me be clear.
        “Quote from Prof Michael Robert

        “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).”
        Niromi described the enemy forces as “government troops”.

        The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force”

        Perhaps the deficiency is with comprehending abilities of the man with the PHd than with the memories of a former LTTE cadre?

      • Hikz

        LOL, weak and pathetic. If these ‘government troops’ are actually supposed to be ‘Indian government troops’, I wonder who these ‘peacekeepers’ that she keeps referring to are. You know, the ones she claims to have been fighting in addition to the, er, Indian government troops .

      • Rationalman, since Prof Roberts quotes Niromi as referring to government troops and Indian troops separately in the same sentence, why do you feel the professor has miscomprehended? If she is referring indeed to the same entities, why use these two different titles? Also, have you ever seen IPKF troops referred to as “government troops” instead of “IPKF troops”, “Indian soldiers”, or “peacekeepers”? Don’t distort the issue by questioning the professor’s comprehension; if the above is a simple mistake on Niromi’s part it is easily clarified. However, as it stands it looks like a discrepancy, and Prof Roberts is perfectly justified in questioning it. Play the ball, not the man.

      • Off the Cuff

        Rationalman?

        You wrote “The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force” Perhaps the deficiency is with comprehending abilities of the man with the PHd than with the memories of a former LTTE cadre?

        In view of Niromi’s own explanation of “government troops” that is an imbecile attempt at whitewashing a Lie.

        Your dart about Prof Robert’s English ability is misplaced but it describes you to a T!

        Please refer to her Daily Telegraph account in 2009

        Self proclaiming Rationality does not make one Rational.

      • Rationalman

        Hi David, hope you had a nice Christmas with your family and all the best for the new year.

        I would be the first to admit that I have not read the whole book as it is still not available where I live. I did read Dr. Robert’s initial article and not knowing much about the man believed him and was outraged that anyone would try to make a fast buck out of the Ceylon Tamil tragedy. Later I started researching on my own and begin to doubt have some niggling doubts about the Roberts article.
        DBSJ’s articles on Niromi were nails in the coffin of Roberts’ veracity.

        You say that “Rationalman, since Prof Roberts quotes Niromi as referring to government troops and Indian troops separately in the same sentence, why do you feel the professor has miscomprehended?”

        True, I think he is referring to the following “It is not an Allen & Unwin mistake. When de Soyza was interviewed by Margaret Throsby, she remarks “when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the Tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces.””

        It was not in the beginning narrative about the firefight with the IPKF. According to Dr. Roberts, “The dramatic beginning via “The Ambush” is geared to the book’s market pitch. Both the back cover and the cyber-world notices advertising the book tell us that “two days before Christmas 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting the government forces that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades.”. I have read little bits and pieces of the book as it is still not available here, but I recall that in the beginning chapter, she clearly identifies the enemy as the IPKF

        So even Dr. Roberts does not claim that it was in the book. Or does he?

        Dr. Roberts started this controversy by writing very a un-Phd article, full of hyperbole. He started comparing Niromi with two women,Norma Khouri and Helen Demidenko who wrote books abut incidents where they not the people they said they were, they were not present during the incidents and the incidents being totally fictional. I have to be charitable and say that perhaps he did not understand the severity of the fraud committed by these women. I say this because he refers to Norma Khouri as Noumi Kouri. Unless he is referring to some other woman that I don’t know about in which case I apologize. Now we know that Niromi is not only real but actually was a LTTE cadre from first hand sources.

        This is probably the biggest case of an academic faux pas since, Hugh Trever Roper authenticated the Hitler Diaries for the Sunday Times of London in 1983. At least Trever Roper authenticated a diary of a man then dead 28 years.

        And now he pins his entire argument on the jacket cover and the press release? Pathetic.

        You have the knowhow and the contacts and I am pretty sure you would done your own research. I would be interested in your findings or opinion. (seriously!)

      • Rationalman

        Hikz, er…
        perhaps you should read the book instead of regurgitating Dr. Roberts?

      • Rationalman

        David, you say “Play the ball, not the man” And I agree with you on that.

        However when Dr. Roberts’ says “Jeyaraj affirms that Niromi’s tale is entirely credible because it is a “memoir,” not an “auto-biography” (his words, his casting). In this assertion Tamil Tigress is a “mixed genre” – a book in “memoir format with the characteristics of a realist novel.
        The affirmation is a gigantic bluff”…. and….Jeyaraj’s assertion that Niromi’s blunders are matters “of minor detail” and a sign of some “sloppiness” is built on this foundation, a colossal misreading of the category “memoir.”

        DBSJ is stating what is on the publisher’s website. (http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781742375182).
        “Tamil Tigress” IS classified as a “Memoirs”. So it is not DBSJ who is bluffing!

        DBSJ wrote two very lengthy articles on Niromi. And the only thing Dr. Roberts can find fault is the definition of “memoir” which even the publisher Allen and Unwin agree is the category that this book should belong too.

        Tsk Tsk, Dr. Roberts!

        And it is very difficult to take a man seriously when he says “but when I made inquiries from my Scottish wife she reminded me of a Sri Lankan friend in the old days who could turn on the tears at will to persuade recalcitrant bureaucrats at the customs office.”

        Seriously?

      • Rationalman

        Oops…. Correction “At least Trever Roper authenticated a diary of a man then dead 28 years” should read 38 years. Of course!

      • Rationalman

        OCC,

        Firstly getting so angry about this topic is not good for your heath. Take a deep breath.
        Secondly here is the Daily Telegraph article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/5283438/Life-as-a-female-Tamil-Tiger-guerilla-relived-by-one-of-first-female-soldiers.html

        I refer you to Para 3, 4th word. Its spelled i-n-d-i-a-n. Ask your friends. It stands for “indian”.

        There is one reference to the Sri Lankan armed forces….”The two-year war between the Tigers and the Indian forces came to an end in July 1989, with changes of government in both countries. But the fighting between the Tigers and Sri Lankan government forces continued.”

        Yes it did! Till 2009. If you dont believe me, use the “google”

        Glad to clear that up for you.

        As for “Self proclaiming Rationality does not make one Rational”, did you come up with that zinger, all by yourself? I am impressed!

      • Hikz

        I don’t think Dr Roberts quite had that covered, Rationalman, because frankly I doubt he ever expected anyone to come up with such a desperate ‘explanation’ for this obvious and recurring blunder.

      • Off the Cuff

        Rationalman

        Thanks for the url to Niromi’s Telegraph article. Unfortunately for you, Niromi herself destroys your attempted obfuscation.

        Extract from the Telegraph UK

        The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too. A few thousand youths suited only for guerrilla warfare, we were no match for the world’s second largest army. Fighting the Indians made no sense to me.

        I had joined the Tigers to make a stand against my country’s oppressive government, but now found myself at war with those who had come to maintain peace.
        End Extract

        She has clearly indicated who she refers to as “government” and who is referred to as “peacekeepers”.

        You should have taken more care in reading the Telegraph. BTW why do you think I am angry with you when your squirming is so entertaining?

        Here is another post from me for you to try your hand at obfuscation.
        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40144

      • Rationalman, happy new year to you too.

        The quote I was in fact referring to has been reposted above by OTC, where Niromi refers to government troops and peacekeepers in the same sentence, making it quite clear that she is referring to two separate entities. So I see no miscomprehension on Prof Roberts’ part in that context.

        The professor has critiqued Niromi’s book; DBSJ has then critiqued the critique. Therefore, there is no problem in Roberts refuting DBSJ now since he has been directly referred to. You, however, are attacking the professor without even having read the book in question! I admit I haven’t read it either, but I’ve not attempted to refute any of the critics comments, including DBSJ’s.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, in your post of December 31, 2011 • 11:37 pm
        you claim that “Allan and Unwin states,Quote
        A well-educated, middle-class seventeen-year-old, Niromi decided, in a fit of righteous anger and teenage idealism, to defend her rights and the lives of her friends and neighbours. Along with her lifelong friend, Ajanthi, she joined the Tamil Tigers and found herself part of a small platoon of young girls. In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army.Unquote”

        I gave given you the link from the Allen site which states (http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781742375182), “two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades””.

        There is no reference to the Sri Lankan Army in the direct quote from the website. Can you please link the quote to substantiate your claim?

        Or were you mistaken?

    • Rationalman

      David,
      All I understand the issue now has been reduced to this……

      Allen and UNwin on their site in the publicty blurb for the book have stated that “two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades”.”http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781742375182.

      And Niromi is lying … because ….. she has claimed that she was ambushed the government forces when in actual fact, the Sri Lankan Government Forces were confined to the barracks. And we know that she is lying because, elsewhere, like for example in the Telegraph article and in the radio interviews, she has differentiated between the Government forces who she clearly identifies as the armed forces of Sri Lanka and the IPKF.

      Here is my question to you, Dr. Roberts, OTC and anyone else who can supply me with an answer……

      Did Niromi in the opening chapter of the “Tamil Tigress” (which she is totally responsible for), ever identify the enemy in that December 23, 1987 skirmish as anything other than members of IPKF?

      Yes we know what is on the website (I have even provided the link). But does Niromi in her own voice (and as an author, you know what I mean), refer to the enemy in the December 23, 1987 skirmish as anything other than the members of the IPKF? All I want is a yes or no.

      Depending on the answer, I will be happy to discuss the matter further.

      Thanks

      • “Rational”man, here you go (yet again, since you seem unable to comprehend it the first few times): “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too,” — Niromi’s words in the Daily Telegraph. Clearly she is referring to the IPKF and some mysterious government force that is (according to you) neither the IPKF nor the SL Army. Are you still going to avoid substantiating your accusation of miscomprehension by asking silly questions?

      • Gamarala

        David,

        It appears to me that RationalMan does have a point here, even if some of his other contentions are questionable.

        Niromi’s statement in the telegraph (with full context) is:

        “So it came to pass. In September 1987, while other Tamil militant organisations engaged in the political process, Thileepan went on hunger-strike at the Nallur Hindu Temple near Jaffna in protest against certain aspects of the peace deal. Mass rallies were organised by pro-Tiger Tamils in Jaffna and also by Sinhala extremists in the south, both parties believing the IPKF’s intervention served only to assert India’s supremacy in the region. Fourteen days later, Thileepan died. The Tigers blamed the Indian government for his death, and for standing aside while Sinhalese forces violated the peace deal by arresting some prominent Tigers despite the amnesty provisions, and organising Sinhala settlement programmes in Tamil areas.

        The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too. A few thousand youths suited only for guerrilla warfare, we were no match for the world’s second largest army. Fighting the Indians made no sense to me.”

        In context, this is a fair enough statement. The fight was with the govt. initially, and now the Indians are involved too. So far so good I reckon. (Roberts on the other hand, has interpreted it more strictly – “she keeps insisting that the LTTE was fighting both Indian and government troops at ground level”). I see no reason to assume a “both” as Roberts has done. The latter sentence reaffirms this notion, because she says they were “no match for the world’s second largest army”, implying only the Indian forces.

        If the above cannot be presented as a contradiction, Rationalman’s question was, where had Niromi directly contradicted herself? I think his contention that the book blurb is not valid evidence – stands – because it was probably written by some publicist.

        If the Darusman panel can’t get the defence secretary’s name right, why would a publicist be able to distinguish between Indian and Sri Lankan government forces?

        Therefore, I think Rationalman’s request for direct evidence of Niromi contradicting herself, is fair enough.

      • Gamarala

        It also strikes me that Roberts’ suggestion that Niromi was unaware that the fighting in ’87 was primarily with peacekeepers – is rather feeble. Given the rest of the detail she already seems aware of (i.e. the existence of the peace-keeping forces, the exact chronology of Thileepan’s death etc. – at least according to the telegraph article), it seems mind boggling that she would be unaware of this major detail alone.

        And then I realize that this entire article revolves around that one word “government”. Does Roberts provide a more comprehensive and believable refutal elsewhere? The provided reference to another of his articles [1], appears to be invalid.

      • Rationalman

        Gamarala,
        thank you for taking the time to patiently explain the intricacies of this debate to David Blacker. I can only hope that this former member of the Sri Lankan Army is able to comprehend them.

      • Rationalman

        David,
        I hope you give Gamarala’s response to you a courteous reading. I know from past history that you viscerally respond to my posts, so at least give Gamarala a fair hearing. And you should know by now that I don’t get irritated by the same insults and snide remarks about my pseudonym so why do you persist? If you do have an original zinger once in a while, at least I would be honored that you had taken the time to think of something new.

        Now to your response…..

        I had asked you “Yes we know what is on the website (I have even provided the link). But does Niromi in her own voice (and as an author, you know what I mean), refer to the enemy in the December 23, 1987 skirmish as anything other than the members of the IPKF? All I want is a yes or no.”. A very precise question about the skirmish of Dec 23, 1987. Either you did not comprehend or you site stepped it. I am going to be charitable and assume that you did not understand the question so I will ask it again. Can I get a precise reply to a precise question?

        And I did read the Telegraph and here is the link. http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/?replytocom=40224#comment-40355.

        Yes Niromi has used the term “government troops” but she also has used the words “and”, “if” and “but”. What matters is the context in which these words were used. As a writer, I would have expected you to know that.

      • “Rational”man, I’d advise you not to try and paraphrase Gamarala’s comments. He has had to chip in because of your inability to articulate an argument nor really grasp the thread of a debate. So let him now do what you cannot do. Following him with your “Ooh yes, what do you have to say to that, David” comment just makes you look silly and childish.

        Gamarala, I disagree with you and agree with Prof Roberts. Despite the larger context that you have quoted, Niromi is quite clearly saying that the Tigers were fighting not just the SL Army now, but the IPKF as well (“The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”) You have inserted the word “initially” to suggest that her meaning is that the Tigers were once fighting the GoSL troops but now fighting the IPKF. The fact is she says very clearly that they were “fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” It’s self-evident, Gamarala, that her meaning is that the Tigers were fighting both parties. One has to jump through a lot of linguistic hoops and use a multitude of grammatical mirrors to arrive at your conclusion, and in literature of this level, such twisting is unnecessary. It is pretty clear. It seems very unlikely that an author writing for the average reader would bury such a deeply contradictory meaning in a plain sentence.

        I appreciate your boiling down “Rational”man’s irrational and long-winded rigmarole into a concise premise, but I had already understood his point. I just disagreed with it. “Rational”man, I hope you now have the self respect to understand what is being said to you and accept it as an adult without any more dodging and weaving to win some brownie points in the debate.

      • Also, Gamarala, I think you have misunderstood Prof Roberts’ about Niromi not knowing that the Tigers were fighting Indians. He has suggested that some might use this argument, but that it was a weak one and that the average Tiger would know exactly whom they were fighting. I can assure you this is Roberts’ meaning, because he emailed me to inquire whether such a thing could be possible, and I assured him that given the differences in weaponry and uniform between the IPKF and the SL Army, such a think was impossible. He has quoted me on that.

      • Gamarala

        Dear David and the Editors of GV,

        David, thanks for clarifying the context in which Roberts was using this argument. However, I am unable to gain a full grasp of Roberts’ argument without knowing the title of his original article. Unfortunately, the link to his original article, in the references section, is broken. (In fact, none of the referenced links work). Perhaps the GV editors can fix this?

        David,

        Sorry if I’m rehashing the same argument, but I still do not find it imperative to come to the conclusion that Niromi must have meant “both simultaneously”. In other words, the two of us are arguing about interpretations, and while I find your reasoning to be entirely plausible, I find the converse to be plausible too. i.e. It is possible to make a figurative interpretation of having 2 enemies to battle at the same time, as well as a very literal one of fighting both enemies in the battleground, at the same time. I just can’t see very convincing reasons for unambiguously privileging one over the other.

        For example, if you were to ask someone in general discussion – “did the Tigers fight both the Indian Armed Forces and the Sri Lankan Forces”, wouldn’t the answer instantly be – yes? Phrasing it as Niromi did, “we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”, seems to me, to be about the same. Does the mean simultaneously? Also possible.

        My point is, this sentence alone seems to be insufficient grounds to come to a strong conclusion. The very fact that the two of us are spending time debating about as trivial an issue as “interpretation”, which, as we both know is better left to pedants, bolsters the notion that more convincing evidence is needed.

      • Gamarala, between the three of them, Roberts, Ambalavar, and Sivananthan, have brought forward many issues that require clarification, not just this one statement. But for the record, Niromi’s sentence is, “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” If I am being pedantic, it is because I am forced to be so; but it is clear from the use of the words “now”, “not only”, and “too”. that Niromi is referring to the present that her character is in, and of the fighting against two different enemies simultaneously, and not some previous fight with these government troops. It is possible to say that no one knows Niromi’s true meaning, because we cannot read her mind, but we can read her writing, and the meaning of the sentence is clear.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        Prof Roberts article can be found here http://groundviews.org/2011/08/31/forbidden-fruits-niromi-de-soyzas-tamil-tigress-noumi-kouri-and-helen-demidenko/

        The main point that Prof Roberts stresses is the impossibility of fighting an Army that has been confined to Barracks by a Peace treaty between India and Sri Lanka. Yours is the first rational argument that I have read so far but I would agree with David about the interpretation of the sentence. We are not alone in coming to that conclusion as Alan and Unwin has also come to the same conclusion and names the Sri Lanka Army (I note your explanation about this too). Niromi has not contradicted nor has corrected what her Publisher states which shows that she agrees with it.

        This treaty was forced on Lanka by overt threats of a possible invasion by her powerful neighbour at a time when Prabhakaran was in imminent danger of capture and the end of the Civil war was in sight.

        The Peace Treaty came in to force on July 29, 1987

        Under the terms of the agreement, Colombo agreed to a devolution of power to the provinces, the Sri Lankan troops were to be withdrawn to their barracks in the north and the Tamil rebels were to surrender their arms. Failing to negotiate an end to the crisis with Sri Lanka, India announced on 2 June 1987 that it would send a convoy of unarmed ships to northern Sri Lanka to provide humanitarian assistance but this was intercepted by the Sri Lankan Navy and turned back . Following the failure of the naval mission, the decision was made by the Indian government to mount an airdrop of relief supplies in support of rebel forces over the besieged city of Jaffna. On 4 June 1987, in a blatant show of force, the Indian Air Force mounted Operation Poomalai in broad daylight. Faced with the possibility of an active Indian intervention and facing an increasingly war-weary population at home, the Sri Lankan President, J. R. Jayewardene, offered to hold talks with the Rajiv Gandhi government on future moves. The siege of Jaffna was soon lifted, followed by a round of negotiations that led to the signing of the Indo-Sri-Lankan accord on July 29, 1987 that brought a temporary truce. The terms of the truce specified that the Sri Lankan troops withdraw from the north and the Tamil rebels disarm, and saw the induction of the IPKF as a peace keeping force in Sri Lanka…….. In 1990, India withdrew the last of its forces from Sri Lanka, and fighting between the LTTE and the government resumed. (Wiki)

        From July / August 1987 to 1990 the SL Armed Forces were not actively involved in Armed Operations. Hence Prof Roberts can reasonably question how Niromi and her band of Terrorists were involved in an Armed ambush with the SL Forces at the tail end of December 1987 without risking an Armed conflict with the Govt of India, when the order confining them to barracks was in full force.

        Niromi is an English educated woman with a degree amongst other things in Law. She displays Fluency and a very good command of English in her Video interviews. A fact Prof Roberts has noted in commending her literary prowess.

        Was she speaking in parables when she wrote “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too”?

        Concluding his article Prof Roberts says

        All de Soyza has to do is to release the real names of Ajanthi and Muralie, both long dead (and thus reborn). Those with access to the lists of Tiger m?v?rar (heroes, ‘martyrs’) and their dates of death would tell us whether they existed in body and plane. Niromi de Soyza would then be vindicated.

        Other than haranguing Prof Roberts, has anyone done that yet?

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        I see it laughable to observe the quickness with which “Rationalman” has taken cover behind you by endorsing what you wrote. Apparently he has not comprehended the meaning behind the following statement of yours.

        Quote
        The fight was with the govt. initially, and now the Indians are involved too.
        Unquote

        You have in affect destroyed his “Rational” argument that Niromi’s use of the terms “government troops” and “peacekeepers” were a reference to the IPKF and IPKF only.

        Quote from “Rationalman’s” December 29, 2011 • 10:36 pm post

        Niromi described the enemy forces as “government troops”.
        The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force”
        Perhaps the deficiency is with comprehending abilities of the man with the PHd than with the memories of a former LTTE cadre?
        Unquote

        If anyone is deficient, it is certainly not Prof Roberts.

      • Rationalman

        David,

        “I had asked you “Yes we know what is on the website (I have even provided the link). But does Niromi in her own voice (and as an author, you know what I mean), refer to the enemy in the December 23, 1987 skirmish as anything other than the members of the IPKF? All I want is a yes or no.”. A very precise question about the skirmish of Dec 23, 1987. Either you did not comprehend or you site stepped it. I am going to be charitable and assume that you did not understand the question so I will ask it again. Can I get a precise reply to a precise question?”

        Please?

      • Rationalman

        David, you say…”Gamarala, I disagree with you and agree with Prof Roberts. Despite the larger context that you have quoted, Niromi is quite clearly saying that the Tigers were fighting not just the SL Army now, but the IPKF as well (“The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”) You have inserted the word “initially” to suggest that her meaning is that the Tigers were once fighting the GoSL troops but now fighting the IPKF. The fact is she says very clearly that they were “fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.””

        Here are series questions for you. Do you agree that on October 3, 1987, the Sri Lankan Navy captured Pulendran and his comrades when they were returning to Sri Lanka? Though the amnesty was in effect, they were captured as enemy combatants and brought to the Palaly Naval bases.

        If that was not an act of war against the LTTE, how would you describe it?

        Would the LTTE have been correct in considering capture of a senior leader and other LTTE combatants by the the members of Sri Lankan forces as an act of war?

        Can you assure that there were no other hostile engagements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas, between October 3, 2007 and Dec 23, 2007?

        Of course you can choose not to answer them!

      • Rationalman

        David,

        you say ” Gamarala, between the three of them, Roberts, Ambalavar, and Sivananthan, have brought forward many issues that require clarification, not just this one statement”.

        Can you gives us five of the “many” issues and perhaps someone could satisfy your inquiring mind?

        Thanks

      • “But does Niromi in her own voice (and as an author, you know what I mean), refer to the enemy in the December 23, 1987 skirmish as anything other than the members of the IPKF? All I want is a yes or no.””

        Ha ha however precise you may feel this question is, “Rational”man, it is an irrelevant one. The point isn’t whether Niromi mentioned the SL Army in reference to that particular incident. I have only referred to her words as quoted above regarding “government troops” and “peacekeepers”. This is the quote you yourself referred to when accusing Prof Roberts of incomprehension. So why are you now dodging that issue? First answer all the questions put to you, and then I will consider answering your own questions. Do you still insist that Niromi means the “government troops” and “peacekeepers” to be the same entity as The Daily Telegraph quotes her, or do you admit your error and accept that you have falsely accused the professor of incomprehension? Or have you now switched to the even more absurd claim that Niromi never said what the paper quotes her saying?

        When are you going to grow up and debate like an adult instead of a 10-year-old who doesn’t ever want to be proved wrong? 😀 You are an embarrassment.

        “If that was not an act of war against the LTTE, how would you describe it? Would the LTTE have been correct in considering capture of a senior leader and other LTTE combatants by the the members of Sri Lankan forces as an act of war?”

        An act of war would have been an unprovoked attack on members of the Tigers. This was an arrest. So, no, VP calling this an act of war was just an excuse. If he really considered it an act of war, why did he attack the IPKF and not the SL military which had made the arrest? And why did he then accept arms from Premadasa to fight the IPKF if he considered the GoSL to have committed a heinous act of war?

        A decade later, during the CFA, when the Tigers were in fact committing acts of war against the GoSL (assassinations, terrorism, and other CFA violations), the GoSL didn’t retaliate. Weren’t these far more severe actions than the arrest of a few terrorists without any physical harm?

        “Can you assure that there were no other hostile engagements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas, between October 3, 2007 and Dec 23, 2007?”

        Can you assure me that there were?

        “Of course you can choose not to answer them!”

        You mean, the way you choose not to answer difficult questions? 😀 No, I prefer to engage and resolve rather than running away and shouting impotently about one’s prowess from afar.

        “Can you gives us five of the “many” issues and perhaps someone could satisfy your inquiring mind?”

        You mean you haven’t read any of the articles written by this trio? And you’ve not read the book either? Oh dear. I must say your determination to never let reality get in the way of a good bullshit is remarkable.

      • Rationalman

        David,

        When I very kindly told you “Of course you can choose not to answer them!”, you replied “You mean, the way you choose not to answer difficult questions? No, I prefer to engage and resolve rather than running away and shouting impotently about one’s prowess from afar.”.,

        But you do the very same thing you accuse me of by weaseling out of my question with following reply ”Ha ha however precise you may feel this question is, “Rational”man, it is an irrelevant one.”.

        I like that little nonchalant “ha ha!” Ok, you refuse to answer it by defining your own rules on what is relevant or not!

        ————————————————————————————-
        Blacker says “You are an embarrassment”. Sorry to keep on embarrassing you with questions you cannot answer! .
        ———————————————

        “An act of war would have been an unprovoked attack on members of the Tigers. This was an arrest”.

        What is the difference between an arresting a senior military commander and capturing him. Especially when he was covered by blanket amnesty? Pray tell.
        ———————————————————————–
        “A decade later, during the CFA, when the Tigers were in fact committing acts of war against the GoSL (assassinations, terrorism, and other CFA violations), the GoSL didn’t retaliate. Weren’t these far more severe actions than the arrest of a few terrorists without any physical harm?”

        We can talk about what the GOSL did in the 1980 some other time. I am talking about the incident on October 3, 1987. The LTTE considered this hostile act by the armed forces of Sri Lanka on a senior commander a violation of the ceasefire and an act of war. That is one of the reasons they attacked the IPKF.

        ——————————————
        Regarding the Roberts, Ambalavannar, and the other guy I asked “Can you gives us five of the “many” issues and perhaps someone could satisfy your inquiring mind?”

        And you replied …”You mean you haven’t read any of the articles written by this trio? And you’ve not read the book either?”

        But, but, but you are the one who brought these worthies in to the discussion by asking on January 5, 2012 • 4:12 pm , “Gamarala, between the three of them, Roberts, Ambalavar, and Sivananthan, have brought forward many issues that require clarification, not just this one statement?”

        Didn’t you ask for clarification? How can one clarify the thoughts in your head, if we don’t know what they are?

        I have read the articles by these three worthies and read the post by Ken (December 31, 2011 • 1:31 am ) on this blog. Perhaps reading them would be a good start!

        —————————
        “And why did he then accept arms from Premadasa to fight the IPKF if he considered the GoSL to have committed a heinous act of war?”

        The same reason that Premadasa gave weapons to the LTTE who killed 23 soldiers on July 23, 1983.

        To get rid of the Indians!
        —————————————————————-

        When I asked you “Can you assure that there were no other hostile engagements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas, between October 3, 2007 and Dec 23, 2007?”

        Your reply was “Can you assure me that there were?”.

        Rationalman is not the one who is claiming that LTTE was not at war with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in the latter part of 1987, Blackler is. So shouldn’t Blacker provide the proof that there were no clashes between the SL Armed Forces and the LTTE? .

        ———————————————————————–

        And finally ““If he really considered it an act of war, why did he attack the IPKF and not the SL military which had made the arrest?”

        Because “Dear Henry, Dear Henry, Dear Henry , (in Blackler’s own words) “the SL Army was required by law to remain in camp while the IPKF maintained the peace”.

        Why listen to the Muppets when you are more amusing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfCQ-t7xY0)

      • Rationalman

        David,

        So lets cut to the chase…..Lets be Alexandrian and cut the lets cut to the chase….. knot!

        Here is OTC’s quote….

        “Dear Ken,
        Personally I am disillusioned with Mr DBS Jayaraj, who I held in high esteem, for his fearless critique of wrong doing, regardless of who was doing it, LTTE, Govt or anyone else.

        Quote from Prof Michael Robert
        “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).” Unquote
        Neither DBS Jayaraj nor God Himself can refute Michael Roberts without answering how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Agreement that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi being assaulted by a disillusioned Sri Lankan Naval Rating.”

        Here is the Daily Telegraph Article……
        7:00AM BST 08 May 2009
        December 23 1987 was a warm, clear day, and I was hiding under a lantana bush with eight of my comrades in a village north of Jaffna. With our rifles cocked and our cyanide capsules clenched between our teeth, we awaited the soldiers who had been scouring the area for us for several hours. Our orders were to empty our magazines into them before biting into the glass capsules we called ‘kuppies’ that hung on a thread around our necks. As a Tamil Tiger guerrilla, there was no honour in being caught alive.
        There had been 22 of us that morning – nine boys and 13 girls, aged between 15 and 26 (I was 17). Now, four of my comrades were missing, two were wounded. Ten were dead.
        At dawn that day, Indian soldiers had surrounded our hideout, an abandoned house in Urumpiraay, a village in Sri Lanka’s far north. As the war had intensified, our units were being squeezed out of Jaffna peninsula. We slept in different places each night: in open fields or houses taken by force.
        Our sentry had spotted the enemy soldiers beyond a distant line of trees to the south, and Muralie, our unit’s second in command, decided that we should flee north across an arterial road. The morning chill was still in the air and the dew dripped from banana leaves as we ran though fields and approached the road. As we attempted to cross it, we were ambushed from both sides in a barrage of automatic gunfire, grenades and mortars.
        ‘Get on the ground!’ Muralie commanded. ‘Fire and break through!’
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/5283438/Life-as-a-female-Tamil-Tiger-guerilla-relived-by-one-of-first-female-soldiers.html

        And here is my response.

        Rationalman
        December 29, 2011 • 10:36 pm
        OCC, so let me be clear.

        “Quote from Prof Michael Robert

        “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).”
        Niromi described the enemy forces as “government troops”.
        The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force”
        Perhaps the deficiency is with comprehending abilities of the man with the PHd than with the memories of a former LTTE cadre?

        Where does Dr. Roberts get the ““Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF)” from the Telegraph or any other piece of Niromi’s writing? .

        Where does Niromi say that the Decmber 1987 skirmish involved government troops in the Telegraph article? Can you show me?

        That is a very different thing than saying “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too. A few thousand youths suited only for guerrilla warfare, we were no match for the world’s second largest army. Fighting the Indians made no sense to me”.

      • “I like that little nonchalant “ha ha!” Ok, you refuse to answer it by defining your own rules on what is relevant or not!”

        I have assured you that I will answer all your questions (I have in fact answered most of them) once you have answered the ones first put to you. That is simple civility.

        “Blacker says “You are an embarrassment”. Sorry to keep on embarrassing you with questions you cannot answer! .”

        Looks like English lessons will have to regularly punctuate this debate before we can move on 😀 How can you embarrass me when it is you that is the embarrassment? For what you say to be true, I would have to somehow be responsible for your failings.

        “What is the difference between an arresting a senior military commander and capturing him. Especially when he was covered by blanket amnesty? Pray tell.”

        There was no blanket amnesty. The Accord required the SL Army and other ground forces to remain in their camps, and for the militants to hand over their weapons, while the IPKF maintained peace. The SL Navy and SLAF were not required to remain in harbour or airbase, and allowed to patrol SL’s territorial waters and airspace. The sea areas were contested ones, and arguably armed Tigers were in violation of the Accord simply for bearing arms and could be arrested. It was not the arrest that was the issue, but the refusal to hand over the perpetrators to the Indians. Similarly, if a Tiger had entered an SL Army base, he could have been arrested as he was violating the Accord. So the failure to hand over the Tigers was perhaps a violation, but more of an administrative one rather than the act of war you so ridiculously claim it to be.

        “I am talking about the incident on October 3, 1987. The LTTE considered this hostile act by the armed forces of Sri Lanka on a senior commander a violation of the ceasefire and an act of war. That is one of the reasons they attacked the IPKF.”

        Lol, so because the SL military committed an act of war, the Tigers attacked the IPKF who had committed NO act of war? Ha ha I see where you get the “Rational” part of your moniker, “Rational”man!

        “But, but, but you are the one who brought these worthies in to the discussion by asking on January 5, 2012 • 4:12 pm , “Gamarala, between the three of them, Roberts, Ambalavar, and Sivananthan, have brought forward many issues that require clarification, not just this one statement?” Didn’t you ask for clarification? How can one clarify the thoughts in your head, if we don’t know what they are?”

        B…b…bub bub but where, “R…R…Rational”man, have I asked for clarification? It is Roberts, Ambalavar, and the guy who’s name you can’t even remember who have asked for clarification, not me. So you don’t need to read my mind, you just need to read the articles.

        “I have read the articles by these three worthies and read the post by Ken (December 31, 2011 • 1:31 am ) on this blog. Perhaps reading them would be a good start!”

        How is it then after reading all those articles (as you claim) you are unaware of any issues other than the discrepancy in the Daily Telegraph interview? Have all four articles been written on that one discrepancy? Has DBSJ written three blog posts defending one discrepancy?

        “The same reason that Premadasa gave weapons to the LTTE who killed 23 soldiers on July 23, 1983. To get rid of the Indians!”

        But why would VP want to get rid of the Indians if it was the GoSL that had committed an act of war against him? Is your reading of history of the school that when A attacks you, you in turn attack B? 😀

        “When I asked you “Can you assure that there were no other hostile engagements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas, between October 3, 2007 and Dec 23, 2007?” Your reply was “Can you assure me that there were?”. Rationalman is not the one who is claiming that LTTE was not at war with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in the latter part of 1987, Blackler is. So shouldn’t Blacker provide the proof that there were no clashes between the SL Armed Forces and the LTTE? .”

        How can I prove something hasn’t happened? Shouldn’t You who claim that SL Armed Forces and the Tigers were at war, prove that such acts of war had taken place? 😀 you aren’t very good at thinking things through, are you, “Rational”man?

        “Because “Dear Henry, Dear Henry, Dear Henry , (in Blackler’s own words) “the SL Army was required by law to remain in camp while the IPKF maintained the peace”.”

        But the SL Navy wasn’t so required. Even if it was so required, can you explain the “rationality” of attacking Peter for Paul’s violation? 😀

        “Why listen to the Muppets when you are more amusing.”

        I suggest you switch off the Muppet Show and pick up a book and educate yourself. Right now, you sound like one of the Muppets yourself 😀

      • Rationalman

        Re your response of January 6, 2012 • 1:07 pm
        I would like you to think about it again.
        And if you still stand by them, I will be happy to respond!

      • Rationalman, I don’t know about you, but I stand by all my comments. I wouldn’t post them if I didn’t. So instead of stalling for time, you should respond. If you can 😉

      • Rationalman

        See my post of January 10, 2012 • 1:07 am

      • Why all this haphazard posting all over the thread, Rationalman? I have read the mentioned comment, but I can find no sign of you substantiating your claims there either.

  • Agnos

    “From cyber-world commentary at that time in 2009 and images of demonstrations in the West it seemed to me then that even Tamils who had reservations about the LTTE programme were agitated by the humiliating defeat of a renowned Tamil leader.”

    Mr. Roberts, 

    As I said in a previous posting in response to Sarvananthan’s lies, once you start lying on the matter of the number of civilians trapped in the Vanni during the war, you have no compunction in continuing to lie even more. Being the liar that you are, you cannot tell the obvious fact that even those who had “reservations” about the LTTE were outraged by the world’s acquiescence in the mass slaughter of thousands of innocents in the Vanni by the GoSL, not by the “humiliating defeat” of Velupillai Pirapaharan; and they were rightly outraged that people like you removed your cloak of academic neutrality and showed your true face by rushing to justify it with your lies.  

    It is that—the ghosts of thousands of innocent civilians and the consequences of your lies—that will follow you to your grave…not some inaccuracies in an autobiography and DBS Jeyaraj’s portrayal of its author.  In the big scheme of things, your outrageous lies during the war have marked you as someone utterly lacking the credibility or legitimacy to even review a book concerning SL Tamil issues, however many inaccuracies such a book may have.

    • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

      Hi Agnos, shouldn’t that read ‘Professor Roberts’…rather than ‘Mr Roberts…’?

    • Off the Cuff

      If you think Niromi was not lying, can you provide an answer to the question posed in the post at the link below before you accuse Prof Roberts of lying?

      http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40013

      • Rationalman

        OCC,

        “Can you or DBSJ or ANYONE enlighten the GV readership as to how the Tamil Tigress performed the miracle of fighting Sri Lankan Soldiers while they were confined to barracks by the Indo Lanka agreement?”

        Did she say “Sri Lankan” soldiers? And have you forgotten the incident that provoked the LTTE Indian army conflict?

        “The incident that marked the turning point of Indo-LTTE relationship occurred in early October. On 4 October 1988, the Sri Lankan Navy captured an LTTE boat off Point Pedro with seventeen Tigers, including some high-profile leaders of the movement, onboard.[12] The Colombo govt alleged the boat was involved in smuggling arms across the Palk Straits and on the grounds denied immunity to these captured Tiger rebels.[12] The LTTE denied this claiming the rebels movement were in accordance with the truce, being in the process of transferring documents for shifting the Tigers Headquarters from Madras to Jaffna. The Sinhalese government intended to bring a number of the rebels captured, including Pulendran, Kumarappa and others, to trial in Colombo for allegedly masterminding the massacre of a hundred and fifty civilians.[12] The Tigers, who were at the time still in negotiation with the Indian authorities, appealed for enforcement of protection by the IPKF. The rebels were at this time in IPKF custody at Palali Airbase pending transfer to Sinhalese authorities. Although the Indian authorities insist that they had explained the possible repercussions[11] of such an action on the fragile truce and exerted considerable pressure on the Sinhalese authorities to desist from proceeding,[12] ultimately the IPKF withdrew allowing the Sri Lankan forces to proceed with transferring the captured rebels to Colombo. The detainees however, attempted mass suicide by swallowing cyanide- a common LTTE practice when faced imminent capture” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Jaffna_University

        The Sri Lankan army may have not had the guts to fight the LTTE directly and hid behind Aunty IPKF’s skirts but they were creating havoc on the fringes.

      • Come, come, “Rational”man. Don’t you know your history? Guts had nothing to do with the Indo-Lanka Accord. The SL Army had thrashed the Tigers during Op Liberation(the advance from Vadamarachchi), and VP was on the verge of capture when the Indians intervened. No fighting was foreseen after the Accord; the SL Army was required by law to remain in camp while the IPKF maintained the peace. Fighting broke out when the Tigers attacked the IPKF. It’s unfortunate that out of ignorance or malice, you’re rewriting history to placate your prejudices.

      • Off the Cuff

        Rational Man,

        David has given you a Very good History lesson.

        If not for Indian Intervention, Prabhakaran would have been caught and tried decades ago. Many Tamil, Moslem, Sinhala, Burgher, Malay and other civilian lives would have been saved in the process. There would not have been a Nanthikadal where your fearless Sun God died a cowards death, instead of biting in to his Cyanide Capsule that he had around his neck, to mislead the gullible.

        But we were not discussing who had Guts and who did not have them.

        We were discussing Niromi and her concocted fantasies.

        I have replied your attempted obfuscations in defence of a Liar at this link. http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40096

      • Rationalman

        David, you say “It’s unfortunate that out of ignorance or malice, you’re rewriting history to placate your prejudices.”

        I was expressing my opinion that the Sri Lankan Armed Forces were in their barracks while the Indians were fighting for them. I would urge you to read “Assignment Colombo”, by JN Dixit (Konark Publishers, 1998) especially Chapter The Sabotage begins” pages 208-211. He describes in detail how Lalith Athulathmudali singly handedly undercut JRJ and unwittingly aided by the supremely tone deaf Commander of the IPKF, Gen. Harkiat Singh caused the deaths of Pulendran and his comrades and thereby destroyed the ceasefire. Of course they were able aided by the intransigent Prahabkan and that trigger happy dunderhead of the commander of the Indian Army K. S Sunderji, who at another time nearly started a war with Pakistan with his “Operation Brasstacks”.

        That was my opinion based on the facts listed above. Your have a different opinion. Shall we agree to disagree about the Sri Lankan Armed forces and Aunty India’s skirts?

        Except for opinion, is there anything incorrect in my previous post?

      • Rationalman

        OCC,
        That is your opinion and you are entitled to it! Happy now?

      • Rationalman

        OCC,

        You say…”You ask “Did she say “Sri Lankan” soldiers?””. Yes she did.”

        OK, will you show me please, spelt S-R-I L-A-N-K-A-N?

        As the lead character in the old American TV show “Dragnet” used to say “Just the facts, ma’am”.

        Thanks.

      • Off the Cuff
      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        I am still waiting for the word spelled S-R-I L-A-N-K-A-N to describe her enemies in Niromi’s description of the PARTICULAR skrimish at the beginning of the book.

        Once you give me the link, perhaps I could respond?
        Thanks

      • “I was expressing my opinion that the Sri Lankan Armed Forces were in their barracks while the Indians were fighting for them.”

        Opinions are like rectums, “Rational”man; everybody has one. That doesn’t mean they are all worthy of publicity. I repeat, the IPKF came to keep the peace, not to fight. They came on the orders of their political leaders, and the SL Army was confined to barracks, also on the orders of its own political leaders. You sound like a typical schoolyard bully who shouts “coward, coward!” at anyone who refuses to brawl. You and your parents ran away from SL once upon a time; were you cowards too? History is not a cowboy comic, “Rational”man, so try and show some maturity when discussing it. The SL Armed Forces were unhappy with JRJ’s decision, but followed their government’s orders as any disciplined military must. Or are you suggesting they should have mutinied? If anyone was cowardly, it would be JRJ, but even that is untrue; he did what he thought was best for the country at the time, rightly or wrongly when faced with a vastly stronger, belligerent neighbour.

        Simply pointing the finger at Athulathmudali over one incident is equally juvenile. If VP and the Tigers were truly interested in peace, they would have weathered that incident. In reality, VP had expected the Indians to install him in power, and was simply waiting for an excuse to return to war as he always has. That was why he never handed over his weapons as the other militant groups did. During the CFA, the GoSL weathered provocation after provocation, attack after attack by the Tigers, never reacting and falling into VP’s trap. That is political leadership for you, “Rational”man; not the macho Chuck Norris posturing you seem to think is the way to analyse history.

      • Rationalman

        David, I agree with you when you say “Opinions are like rectums, “Rational”man; everybody has one. That doesn’t mean they are all worthy of publicity.”

        If you will permit me, I also would like add that rightly or wrongly opinions are formed by the aroma of their environment and in a free society people should be confident enough release them among their neighbors without fear or favor.

        I think we have in the past and am sure we can and will discuss about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces elsewhere in the future. But I would like to focus on the accusations leveled at Niromi.

        On a personal note, as you were a member of the SL Armed Forces, I will apologize to you personally as it was never my intent to cast aspersions on your character.

      • I too would like to keep the discussion to Niromi and Prof Roberts’ review; which begs the question as to why you brought up the SL military in relation to the Accord, especially since you now wish to do a volte face.

      • Rationalman

        David, you ask “I too would like to keep the discussion to Niromi and Prof Roberts’ review; which begs the question as to why you brought up the SL military in relation to the Accord, especially since you now wish to do a volte face.”

        A fair question. We are discussing the Sri Lankan Armed forces because Dr. Roberts’ assumption that Niromi had claimed she was fighting the Sri Lankan Army when they were confined to the barracks.

        I made an error in not making myself more clearly especially when discussing the issue with you. I meant that we could discuss the conduct of the Sri Lankan Armed forces sometime in the future and I apologized to you because I didn’t want you to think that I thought any less of you. I know that you are going to say that you xxxxxxxxx what I think of you, which probably is true.

        And let me save you the effort of insulting me.

        The Rationalman is irrational! The Rationalman is confused! And the Rationalman is (pic your chose of words)

        I am chastised.

        Happy now?

      • “Rational”man, much as you would like (once more) to give the impression that this debate is a personal one, and that somehow your inane comments have the ability to upset or offend me personally because I am a former soldier, let me assure you now (and hopefully once and for all) that you should harbour no such concerns about my delicate skin. The only thing that offends me is that a fellow member of my generation should be so woefully ignorant of the recent history of our country.

      • Rationalman

        David, I am relieved that your soldiering experience in the Sri Lankan Army had made you strong and that I have no power to hurt your feelings.

        Now if only I can persuade you to answer a couple of my very direct questions. Please, will you at least try?

      • Once more, “Rational”man, your English comprehension fails you. If not, you would have understood that it is not my experiences that make your words ineffectual, but the lack of substance in your words.

      • Rationalman

        Oh David,
        Cant you appreciate that I am complimenting you for being a very strong chap and how relived I am about how you are impervious to my remarks?

        Even when I am being overtly nice and appreciative you get all irritable and touchy.

        If you had ever said anything as nice as “Rationalman,, I am relieved that your Boy Scouting with the 42nd Colombo has made you strong and that I have no power to hurt your feelings” I would have been moved to tears.

        Even though you say “Once more, “Rational”man, your English comprehension fails you. If not, you would have understood that it is not my experiences that make your words ineffectual, but the lack of substance in your words”, like Pavlov’s subjects reacting to the bell, you always take hours of your valuable time to respond to me.

        I am touched.

      • “Cant you appreciate that I am complimenting you for being a very strong chap and how relived I am about how you are impervious to my remarks?”

        Why should I appreciate an inaccuracy? As I’ve already told you, if you will only spend a fraction of the time you waste on silly comments such as the above educating yourself on history and current affairs, you will not have to resort to impotent sarcasm at the tail end of every debate we have, once your so-called arguments have all been demolished.

        “Even when I am being overtly nice and appreciative you get all irritable and touchy.”

        I assure you that your perception of my emotional state is as inaccurate as your perception of history.

        “If you had ever said anything as nice as “Rationalman,, I am relieved that your Boy Scouting with the 42nd Colombo has made you strong and that I have no power to hurt your feelings” I would have been moved to tears.”

        If only the 42nd had been able to instill in you the abilities necessary for intelligent debate, neither strength nor tears would be necessary.

        “like Pavlov’s subjects reacting to the bell, you always take hours of your valuable time to respond to me.”

        Perhaps you should then stop ringing bells and instead think about what you are typing. That is the best way to spend anyone’s valuable time.

      • Rationalman

        And I like you too! 🙂

  • Rohan

    “Whether this deliberate shift in background emphasis was informed by the advice of the Tamil Tiger lobby in Sydney and the several Australians who are affiliated in various ways with them”

    Ha! Roberts managed to raise enough doubts in the inds of the reader whether Niromi was mixing things us – but, he did not attempt to state whether he thinks Niromi made the whole story up, whether she was a member of the LTTE, whether she was in the front line, and so on.

    Personally, I think she was in the LTTE and was among the first female soldiers.

    Roberts should know, if he is in the know, that the LTTE supporters do not like Niromi or Weiss because they hate any reference – no matter very minute – against LTTE. Both of these writers have recorded their views and keep emphasising them in all of their public appearances.

    • Off the Cuff

      Rohan,

      Why are you sidestepping the main question as to How Niromi alias Tamil Tigress fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Agreement that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi being assaulted by a disillusioned Naval Rating?

      Can you provide a logical explanation as to how this Miracle was performed?

      • Rationalman

        OCC, since you seem to be obsessed the question of the “government troops” , perhaps I can explain and hope the good Professor Michael would take notice. It is unfortunate that the the man with the PHD has become a pedant, at least in the case of Niromi.

        1987, the LTTE was at war with the Sri Lankan Government. The IPKF came as peacekeepers and soon after with the helpful machinations of the Sri Lankan Government turned on the LTTE. And the Sri Lankan armed forces may have been confined to the barracks, but the state of hostility existed been them an the LTTE.

        And here is something that probably you and the good Prof from far away Australia would not understand. The IPKF was seen by many tamils as doing the dirty work of the Sri Lankan Government, which they were. (perhaps you and the man with the Phd should read “Assignment Colombo by JN Dixit).

        So for a young LTTE cadre to describe the IPKF as government forces would not be unusual as the considered the Indians as an extension of the SRi Lankan Government.

        Its tough to understand this subtleties from an armchair in Colombo or Melbourne or Sydney or wherever.

      • Really, “Rational”man? What were these “machinations” you speak of? I don’t know where you get your facts from, but the actual fact is that the IPKF was welcomed as liberators by the NE Tamils. It was only once the Tigers attacked the IPKF and sparked brutal retaliations did the Tamil view of the Indians sour. Try not to rewrite history for your convenience.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You ask “Did she say “Sri Lankan” soldiers?”

        Yes she did.
        She uses the word “government” to refer to the Sri Lankan Govt when she talks or writes of the Lankan Civil War and not the Indian or Australian or British or US or French governments etc,.

        Niromi the Tamil Tigress says in her Daily Telegraph account in 2009

        “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too”

        If you can understand English, there are TWO entities referred to by Niromi

        1. Government Troops
        2. Peacekeepers

        Could you please tell us who these TWO entities are without being irrational?

        Now the to ask you again the question you are trying so hard to side step

        Neither DBS Jayaraj nor God Himself can refute Michael Roberts without answering how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Agreement that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi being assaulted by a disillusioned Naval Rating.

        Can you or DBSJ or ANYONE enlighten the GV readership how this miracle was performed?

        Sadly, you have failed to give a Rational answer so far.

      • Rationalman

        David, I have written elsewhere on this thread about the machinations or as JN Dixit the Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka in 1987 calls it “Sabotage” in his book Assignment Colombo, Chapter called the Sabotage Begins Pages 208-2011″

      • Rationalman

        OCC,

        You say…”You ask “Did she say “Sri Lankan” soldiers?””. Yes she did.”

        OK, will you show me please, spelt S-R-I L-A-N-K-A-N?

        As the lead character in the old American TV show “Dragnet” used to say “Just the facts, ma’am”.

        Thanks.

        Oh and one more question.. “Neither DBS Jayaraj nor God Himself can refute Michael Roberts without answering how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Agreement that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi being assaulted by a disillusioned Naval Rating”.

        Where and when does she claim that she fought the S-R-I L-A-N-K-A-N soldiers when they were supposed to be confined in the barracks.

        Thanks again.

        Eagerly awaiting your precise reply.

      • Off the Cuff
      • I have indeed read Dixit’s account, but I hardly think that the Machiavellian ambassador of the country that sponsored Tamil separatism in SL is really someone worthy of reference when it comes to so-called SL “machinations”. There was certainly dissent in the GoSL over the terms of the Accord, but there was no such machinations to engineer war between the Tigers and India. What was the point of that? The quicker peace and stability could be established, the quicker the IPKF would leave. It was only when it became clear that India was unable or unwilling to fully defeat the Tigers, and that their presence would be a lengthy one, that Premadasa decided to convince them to leave by helping the Tigers inflict prohibitive casualties on a country already disillusioned with its overseas adventure.

      • Rationalman

        David, you say…..

        ………………”I have indeed read Dixit’s account, but I hardly think that the Machiavellian ambassador of the country that sponsored Tamil separatism in SL is really someone worthy of reference when it comes to so-called SL “machinations”.”

        As you know, Annexure 1 of Dixit’s book is a two page handwritten personal letter on official stationary written by the Hon Gamini Dissanyake and his wife Srima, praising and thanking Mr. Dixit. Mr. Dissanayake, the man who “brought” Test Cricket to Sri Lanka, the father of two politicians, of them, a minister in the present Government would say such nice things to a such a Machiavellian man? Do you think Mr. Dissanayake or his wife were dupes?

        ………”There was certainly dissent in the GoSL over the terms of the Accord, but there was no such machinations to engineer war between the Tigers and India. What was the point of that? The quicker peace and stability could be established, the quicker the IPKF would leave”.

        If the IPKF had been allowed to perform it’s mission in peace, under the Indo Sri Lankan accord of July 29, 1987,
        a) The north and east would have been combined into one administrative unit (article 2.1 and 2.2)
        b) There would have been a referendum before Dec 31, 1988 in East (article 2.3) for the people to decide if the East was going to merge with the North. (a simple majority would have sufficed. Article 2.6
        c). Provincial council elections before the end of December 31, 1987.

        Basically Sri Lanka would have become a Federal State. It was too much for the Sinhala chauvinists and people like Authulathmudali and his ilk wanted to destroy the accord.

        And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match. But Lalith and co provided the gasoline.

        If there had not been a conflict between the LTTE and the IPKF, Sri Lanka would have looked very different that it looks today. The moment, the LTTE took on the IPKF and later assassinated Rajiv in Tamil Nadu, NaandiKadal became inevitable.

        So if anything, Lalith planted the seeds for the end at Naandikadal. I dont think many people give him credit for that.

        What a great pity, or is it?

      • “Do you think Mr. Dissanayake or his wife were dupes?”

        Far greater people than Mr & Mrs Dissanayake have been duped by India, so I see nothing noteworthy there.

        “If the IPKF had been allowed to perform it’s mission in peace, under the Indo Sri Lankan accord of July 29, 1987,”

        If anyone prevented the IPKF from performing its mission, it was the Tigers.

        “a) The north and east would have been combined into one administrative unit (article 2.1 and 2.2)”

        The Indo-Lanka Accord didn’t stipulate the combining of the two provinces. All that was stipulated was that a referendum be held on the matter. JRJ waived the referendum combined the North & East into one administrative unit. So he went beyond the stipulations of the Accord.

        “b) There would have been a referendum before Dec 31, 1988 in East (article 2.3) for the people to decide if the East was going to merge with the North. (a simple majority would have sufficed. Article 2.6”

        As already explained to you, the East was merged with the North without a referendum. So if anyone is to complain, it should be those who were not allowed to vote against the merging.

        “c). Provincial council elections before the end of December 31, 1987.”

        This is probably the only one of your three points that have even a semblance of accuracy, and since by then war had broken out once more between India and the Tigers, JRJ was within his rights to wait until India had kept its part of the Accord (namely, establishing peace in the NE) before calling for elections.

        “Basically Sri Lanka would have become a Federal State. It was too much for the Sinhala chauvinists and people like Authulathmudali and his ilk wanted to destroy the accord.”

        How would any of the above have created a federal state without a change in the constitution of SL? PCs do not allow individual provinces to have any of the administrative or governing bodies that would enable them to legally function as federal states.

        “And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match. But Lalith and co provided the gasoline.”

        Beyond establishing that VP was an idiot, you have been unable to provide any proof of these so-called machinations of yours.

        “If there had not been a conflict between the LTTE and the IPKF, Sri Lanka would have looked very different that it looks today. The moment, the LTTE took on the IPKF and later assassinated Rajiv in Tamil Nadu, NaandiKadal became inevitable.”

        Not at all. Nothing was inevitable. The Tigers had many opportunities to change the course of history to a peaceful solution; under Premadasa’s, CBK’s, and finally Ranil’s governments. They always chose war instead.

        “So if anything, Lalith planted the seeds for the end at Naandikadal. I dont think many people give him credit for that.”

        I have asked you for proof of the above; but you have provided none. Repetition of nonsense doesn’t make it reality.

        “What a great pity, or is it?”

        The great pity is that you, and many Tamils like you, are clueless about SL’s recent history, and prefer to blame the result on some “original sin” committed decades ago that made Hell inevitable. The reality is that there was free choice always available, and every time the wrong choice was made. Until you understand the past, you will never change the future. And that, “Rational”man, is truly a pity.

      • Rationalman

        “Do you think Mr. Dissanayake or his wife were dupes?”

        Far greater people than Mr & Mrs Dissanayake have been duped by India, so I see nothing noteworthy there.

        “a) The north and east would have been combined into one administrative unit (article 2.1 and 2.2)”

        The Indo-Lanka Accord didn’t stipulate the combining of the two provinces. All that was stipulated was that a referendum be held on the matter. JRJ waived the referendum combined the North & East into one administrative unit. So he went beyond the stipulations of the Accord.

        “b) There would have been a referendum before Dec 31, 1988 in East (article 2.3) for the people to decide if the East was going to merge with the North. (a simple majority would have sufficed. Article 2.6?

        As already explained to you, the East was merged with the North without a referendum. So if anyone is to complain, it should be those who were not allowed to vote against the merging.

        “c). Provincial council elections before the end of December 31, 1987.”

        This is probably the only one of your three points that have even a semblance of accuracy, and since by then war had broken out once more between India and the Tigers, JRJ was within his rights to wait until India had kept its part of the Accord (namely, establishing peace in the NE) before calling for elections.

        “Basically Sri Lanka would have become a Federal State. It was too much for the Sinhala chauvinists and people like Authulathmudali and his ilk wanted to destroy the accord.”

        How would any of the above have created a federal state without a change in the constitution of SL? PCs do not allow individual provinces to have any of the administrative or governing bodies that would enable them to legally function as federal states.

        “And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match. But Lalith and co provided the gasoline.”

        Beyond establishing that VP was an idiot, you have been unable to provide any proof of these so-called machinations of yours.

        “If there had not been a conflict between the LTTE and the IPKF, Sri Lanka would have looked very different that it looks today. The moment, the LTTE took on the IPKF and later assassinated Rajiv in Tamil Nadu, NaandiKadal became inevitable.”

        Not at all. Nothing was inevitable. The Tigers had many opportunities to change the course of history to a peaceful solution; under Premadasa’s, CBK’s, and finally Ranil’s governments. They always chose war instead.

        “So if anything, Lalith planted the seeds for the end at Naandikadal. I dont think many people give him credit for that.”

        I have asked you for proof of the above; but you have provided none. Repetition of nonsense doesn’t make it reality.

        “What a great pity, or is it?”

        The great pity is that you, and many Tamils like you, are clueless about SL’s recent history, and prefer to blame the result on some “original sin” committed decades ago that made Hell inevitable. The reality is that there was free choice always available, and every time the wrong choice was made. Until you understand the past, you will never change the future. And that, “Rational”man, is truly a pity.

        David, I am really saddened by your response. you have fallen well below your usual standards. I know you will be back in full form the next time.

        ______________________
        You ask..”How would any of the above have created a federal state without a change in the constitution of SL? PCs do not allow individual provinces to have any of the administrative or governing bodies that would enable them to legally function as federal states”.

        Firstly I said “Basically Sri Lanka would have become a Federal State”.
        Not a Federal state, but in effect a Federal state. The key word being “basically”. The North and East would have been combined in to a single unit after the referendum, (JR’s waiver was an administrative action, it did not have the force of either the constitution or legal treaties. What was waived could have been unwaived. If the referendum had been held, it would have had the legitimacy because the exercising of the franchise by people of the Eastern Province.

        Now we can argue that they may not have had the power of the State either in the United States or India but they would have had some power as the combined provincial council of the North and East. The new unit would have had international legitimacy after the referendum as well. If it was so innocuous, why was there and why is now strong opposition to the 13th Amendment? Are you implying that the majority Sinhalese are insane for opposing such a harmless change to the constitution?
        ___________________________________

        You say..”This is probably the only one of your three points that have even a semblance of accuracy, and since by then war had broken out once more between India and the Tigers, JRJ was within his rights to wait until India had kept its part of the Accord (namely, establishing peace in the NE) before calling for elections.”

        Thank you for agreeing with me that beginning of the war between the LTTE and the IPKF helped the cause of the chauvinists by postponing the elections.
        ————————————–

        I stated that “If the IPKF had been allowed to perform it’s mission in peace, under the Indo Sri Lankan accord of July 29, 1987,”

        And you replied “If anyone prevented the IPKF from performing its mission, it was the Tigers.”

        Isnt that what I implied when I said elsewhere ““And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match”.

        What else did you think I meant when I said, Prabha lit the match? He was having fun with fireworks?
        ———————————————————
        ““If there had not been a conflict between the LTTE and the IPKF, Sri Lanka would have looked very different that it looks today. The moment, the LTTE took on the IPKF and later assassinated Rajiv in Tamil Nadu, NaandiKadal became inevitable.”

        Not at all. Nothing was inevitable. The Tigers had many opportunities to change the course of history to a peaceful solution; under Premadasa’s, CBK’s, and finally Ranil’s governments. They always chose war instead.”

        Ok, let me clarify it for you….. It was as inevitable as when the defeat of The third Reich when Hitler launched “Operation Barbarossa” or the defeat of Japan when it bombed Pearl Harbor.

        Or are you telling me that the Sinhalese people would have stood and watched as Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, became the Chief Minster of the Northern and Eastern Provincial Council and conducted business of running the new combined administrative unit.

        Really?
        —————————————————–

        As for your opinion that Gamini and Sriman Dissanayake and better people than them had been duped by India, while other people like yourself knew better, I can do nothing other than congratulate you on the high esteem you have of your wisdom.

        ————————

        As for “The great pity is that you, and many Tamils like you, are clueless about SL’s recent history, and prefer to blame the result on some “original sin” committed decades ago that made Hell inevitable” all I can say is that I like you too!

      • Rationalman

        David,
        I am really saddened by your response. you have fallen well below your usual standards. I know you will be back in full form the next time.

        ______________________
        You ask..”How would any of the above have created a federal state without a change in the constitution of SL? PCs do not allow individual provinces to have any of the administrative or governing bodies that would enable them to legally function as federal states”.

        Firstly I said “Basically Sri Lanka would have become a Federal State”.
        Not a Federal state, but in effect a Federal state. The key word being “basically”. The North and East would have been combined in to a single unit after the referendum, (JR’s waiver was an administrative action, it did not have the force of either the constitution or legal treaties. What was waived could have been unwaived. If the referendum had been held, it would have had the legitimacy because the exercising of the franchise by people of the Eastern Province.

        Now we can argue that they may not have had the power of the State either in the United States or India but they would have had some power as the combined provincial council of the North and East. The new unit would have had international legitimacy after the referendum as well. If it was so innocuous, why was there and why is now strong opposition to the 13th Amendment? Are you implying that the majority Sinhalese are insane for opposing such a harmless change to the constitution?
        ___________________________________

        You say..”This is probably the only one of your three points that have even a semblance of accuracy, and since by then war had broken out once more between India and the Tigers, JRJ was within his rights to wait until India had kept its part of the Accord (namely, establishing peace in the NE) before calling for elections.”

        Thank you for agreeing with me that beginning of the war between the LTTE and the IPKF helped the cause of the chauvinists by postponing the elections.
        ————————————–

        I stated that “If the IPKF had been allowed to perform it’s mission in peace, under the Indo Sri Lankan accord of July 29, 1987,”

        And you replied “If anyone prevented the IPKF from performing its mission, it was the Tigers.”

        Isnt that what I implied when I said elsewhere ““And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match”.

        What else did you think I meant when I said, Prabha lit the match? He was having fun with fireworks?
        ———————————————————
        ““If there had not been a conflict between the LTTE and the IPKF, Sri Lanka would have looked very different that it looks today. The moment, the LTTE took on the IPKF and later assassinated Rajiv in Tamil Nadu, NaandiKadal became inevitable.”

        Not at all. Nothing was inevitable. The Tigers had many opportunities to change the course of history to a peaceful solution; under Premadasa’s, CBK’s, and finally Ranil’s governments. They always chose war instead.”

        Ok, let me clarify it for you….. It was as inevitable as when the defeat of The third Reich when Hitler launched “Operation Barbarossa” or the defeat of Japan when it bombed Pearl Harbor.

        Or are you telling me that the Sinhalese people would have stood and watched as Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, became the Chief Minster of the Northern and Eastern Provincial Council and conducted business of running the new combined administrative unit.

        Really?
        —————————————————–

        As for your opinion that Gamini and Sriman Dissanayake and better people than them had been duped by India, while other people like yourself knew better, I can do nothing other than congratulate you on the high esteem you have of your wisdom.

        ————————

        As for “The great pity is that you, and many Tamils like you, are clueless about SL’s recent history, and prefer to blame the result on some “original sin” committed decades ago that made Hell inevitable” all I can say is that I like you too!

      • “I am really saddened by your response. you have fallen well below your usual standards. I know you will be back in full form the next time.”

        Cheer up, man; I tailor my responses according to the level of your argument. As I told you once before, when you raise your game, I will respond appropriately 😉

        “Firstly I said “Basically Sri Lanka would have become a Federal State”.Not a Federal state, but in effect a Federal state. The key word being “basically”. The North and East would have been combined in to a single unit after the referendum, (JR’s waiver was an administrative action, it did not have the force of either the constitution or legal treaties. What was waived could have been unwaived. If the referendum had been held, it would have had the legitimacy because the exercising of the franchise by people of the Eastern Province.”

        But merging of the NE would not have made the province a federal state, “basically”, “in effect”, or any other way. All it would have been was a larger province than the others. It still would not have given the NEPC any of the powers necessary for it to steer its own course. Constitutionalising the merger would not have given the province federation; just permanence as a single administrative area.

        “Now we can argue that they may not have had the power of the State either in the United States or India but they would have had some power as the combined provincial council of the North and East.”

        We certainly can argue that, and it would be a legitimate argument. Their power would have been no greater than that of any other province, and still nowhere near federation. So to say that it would be “basically” a federal state is untrue. Perhaps you do not understand what federalism is. If so, you are joined in that misunderstanding by many in the Sinhalese far right.

        “The new unit would have had international legitimacy after the referendum as well.”

        If by “legitimacy”, you mean the NE would have the status of a nation, no, it would have had no such international legitimacy. It would remain a province of the unitary state of SL, and recognised as such. Even if SL became a federal republic, individual states would not be able to have dealings with foreign powers (your so-called “legitimacy”), except in a very few local economic and development areas. Foreign relations would still come under the federal government. So I repeat, it seems you don’t really understand what federalism means to even claim that the NE would “in effect” be federated.

        “If it was so innocuous, why was there and why is now strong opposition to the 13th Amendment? Are you implying that the majority Sinhalese are insane for opposing such a harmless change to the constitution?”

        Many innocuous things are looked at askance by the stupid and prejudiced, many of whom, like you, don’t understand what constitutes federalism, the steps needed to achieve federalism, and the failsafes that prevent a unilateral move towards it.

        “Thank you for agreeing with me that beginning of the war between the LTTE and the IPKF helped the cause of the chauvinists by postponing the elections.”

        Is that what you meant? 😀 I was under the impression that you had written what you meant; that JRJ had disobeyed the Accord by not holding PC elections. Since the chauvinists were opposed to the merging of the NE, how did JRJ’s executive merging of them help the chauvinist cause? As for PC elections, how was the military control the Tigers eventually established over many areas of the NE helping the chauvinist cause?

        “Isnt that what I implied when I said elsewhere ““And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match”.”

        Your implication is that VP was an innocent pawn of Athulathmudali and others, and it was the latter’s machinations that scuttled the Accord. I completely disagree. VP retained his military capability and returned to war at a moment of his choosing. If at all, he used the so-called “machinations” as an excuse.

        “What else did you think I meant when I said, Prabha lit the match? He was having fun with fireworks?”

        Perhaps you should ask yourself what you meant, since you have already claimed that it was Athulathmudali who scuppered the Accord.

        “Ok, let me clarify it for you….. It was as inevitable as when the defeat of The third Reich when Hitler launched “Operation Barbarossa” or the defeat of Japan when it bombed Pearl Harbor.’

        And let me clarify it for you: there was no such inevitability. As I already said, the Tigers had many opportunities to not return to war; yet they always did. At any of those moments, if the Tigers had chosen the path of diplomacy and politics, there would have been no Nandikadal for VP. If there was a moment after which defeat was inevitable, it was Maavil Aru, or perhaps even the boycotting of the presidential elections that brought Mahinda to power.

        “Or are you telling me that the Sinhalese people would have stood and watched as Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, became the Chief Minster of the Northern and Eastern Provincial Council and conducted business of running the new combined administrative unit.”

        We don’t know if he would have been chief minister immediately. He might very well have allowed Anton Balasingham to be chief minister. We do not even know if the Tigers would have won the PC elections. Many ifs.

        “As for your opinion that Gamini and Sriman Dissanayake and better people than them had been duped by India, while other people like yourself knew better, I can do nothing other than congratulate you on the high esteem you have of your wisdom.”

        If Gamini Dissanayake had survived, who can say what his opinion of India and Dixit would be today. Our own wisdom is merely hindsight; but even hindsight can be less than accurate if one has no faculties of analysis; a trait I urge you to cultivate so that you will have to rely less on impotent sarcasm.

      • Rationalman

        David, you say “If Gamini Dissanayake had survived, who can say what his opinion of India and Dixit would be today.”

        Good Point. However the Srima Dissanayake, other signatory to the Dixit letter is still among us and she could say what her opinion of India and Dixit today.

        Perhaps you could ask the former UNP Presidential candidate about her feelings today about India and Mr. Dixit?

        I will restrain myself from making snide remarks about conducting seance with the spirit of the late Mr. Dissanayke as it would be inappropriate. Self control while difficult to practice is good for the soul. I strongly recommend it to one and all.

      • “Perhaps you could ask the former UNP Presidential candidate about her feelings today about India and Mr. Dixit?”

        Since it was you that brought up the Dissanayakes for reference, I suggest you ask her yourself.

        “I will restrain myself from making snide remarks about conducting seance with the spirit of the late Mr. Dissanayke as it would be inappropriate. Self control while difficult to practice is good for the soul. I strongly recommend it to one and all.”

        Since you have already stated what you claim to be restraining yourself from saying, you should understand that hypocrisy is as damaging to the soul as a lack of self-control. Good luck with the soul part.

      • Rationalman

        David,

        It started when I said “”As you know, Annexure 1 of Dixit’s book is a two page handwritten personal letter on official stationary written by the Hon Gamini Dissanyake and his wife Srima, praising and thanking Mr. Dixit. Mr. Dissanayake, the man who “brought” Test Cricket to Sri Lanka, the father of two politicians, of them, a minister in the present Government would say such nice things to a such a Machiavellian man? Do you think Mr. Dissanayake or his wife were dupes?

        You said ” Far greater people than Mr & Mrs Dissanayake have been duped by India, so I see nothing noteworthy there.”

        I replied “As for your opinion that Gamini and Sriman Dissanayake and better people than them had been duped by India, while other people like yourself knew better, I can do nothing other than congratulate you on the high esteem you have of your wisdom”.

        You said “If Gamini Dissanayake had survived, who can say what his opinion of India and Dixit would be today.”.

        So asked you…“”Perhaps you could ask the former UNP Presidential candidate about her feelings today about India and Mr. Dixit?”

        And you reply “Since it was you that brought up the Dissanayakes for reference, I suggest you ask her yourself.

        I don’t think I need to as I am going by their handwritten and published letter to Dixit. You are the one who is disputing my references by claiming “If Gamini Dissanayake had survived, who can say what his opinion of India and Dixit would be today.”

        Since you are disputing me, shouldn’t you backup your assertion?

      • Ah looks like your English lessons have to start early today, “Rational”man. Where have I disputed what your 20-year-old letter says? I merely told you that far better people than the Dissanayakes have been duped by India. Have I said that Srimani would disagree with your letter today? Have I even said that Gamini would disavow the letter today? I have just opined that if Gamini were alive today, his opinion may not be the same as that which he had in the ’80s. Perhaps you believe that opinions do not change in 20 years, and you are free to have such an opinion. If you wish to make that opinion fact, you need to verify it with Mrs Dissanayake. Personally, I couldn’t care less what her opinion is of Dixit, India, or anything else. I only addressed the matter because you seemed to think that a 20-year-old letter from the Dissanayakes is all the reference needed of Dixit’s character.

      • Rationalman

        David, thank you for the kind offer to start your english lessons. I will be happy to consider it once I know your academic and teaching credentials!

        In your opinion, “Far greater people than Mr & Mrs Dissanayake have been duped by India, so I see nothing noteworthy there.”. You also contemplated “If Gamini Dissanayake had survived, who can say what his opinion of India and Dixit would be today”.

        And now you weasel out with this ….”Personally, I couldn’t care less what her opinion is of Dixit, India, or anything else. I only addressed the matter because you seemed to think that a 20-year-old letter from the Dissanayakes is all the reference needed of Dixit’s character.”

        If you had said today, “Personally, I couldn’t care less what her opinion is of Dixit, India, or anything else” which is a fair statement in the beginning, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But you dismissed the Dissanyakes for being gullible and when pressed “wondered aloud what Mr. Dissanyake” would have been thinking if he had been alive.

        But Mrs. Dissanayake, his wife and confidant is still alive. Don’t you owe as a mark of respect to couple who had done so much for the country, to find out if her opinion of Mr. Dixit and India has changed after 25 years after dismissing her and her late husband as gullible?

      • “In your opinion, “Far greater people than Mr & Mrs Dissanayake have been duped by India, so I see nothing noteworthy there.”. You also contemplated “If Gamini Dissanayake had survived, who can say what his opinion of India and Dixit would be today”.And now you weasel out with this ….”Personally, I couldn’t care less what her opinion is of Dixit, India, or anything else. I only addressed the matter because you seemed to think that a 20-year-old letter from the Dissanayakes is all the reference needed of Dixit’s character.””

        How is not caring about the opinion of someone who was duped “weaseling”, “Rational”man?

        “If you had said today, “Personally, I couldn’t care less what her opinion is of Dixit, India, or anything else” which is a fair statement in the beginning, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But you dismissed the Dissanyakes for being gullible and when pressed “wondered aloud what Mr. Dissanyake” would have been thinking if he had been alive.”

        How is it that you needed me to spell out my lack of interest in the Dissanayake opinion, when I had already stated that I thought they had been duped? Why do you need things explained to you in single syllable words?

        “But Mrs. Dissanayake, his wife and confidant is still alive. Don’t you owe as a mark of respect to couple who had done so much for the country, to find out if her opinion of Mr. Dixit and India has changed after 25 years after dismissing her and her late husband as gullible?”

        Firstly, you presume that your respect for the Dissanayakes is shared by me. Secondly, since I have dismissed their original opinion on Dixit, why would I be interested in their current opinion? If their opinions are so valued by you (and clearly they are, since you have used them to justify your own opinion of Dixit), shouldn’t you satisfy your own curiosity rather than asking me to do it for you?

        Finally, have you exhausted all arguments to the point that you are now left with debating who should speak to Mrs Dissanayake? 😀

      • Rationalman

        David,

        “Firstly, you presume that your respect for the Dissanayakes is shared by me. Secondly, since I have dismissed their original opinion on Dixit, why would I be interested in their current opinion?”

        How is not caring about the opinion of someone who was duped “weaseling”, “Rational”man?

        Of course you can dismiss the Dissanayakes as gullible. For a neutral observer to evaluate your dismissal of the Dissanayakes as dupes, shouldn’t they be privy to your thought process on this subject?

        a) on what factual basis do you dismiss them?
        b) What are you national security credentials?

        Please feel free to add anything else.

        Or is it just your gut feeling, in which case you don’t have to give any reason.

        Thanks

      • “Of course you can dismiss the Dissanayakes as gullible. For a neutral observer to evaluate your dismissal of the Dissanayakes as dupes, shouldn’t they be privy to your thought process on this subject?”

        I didn’t say that the Dissanayakes were gullible. I said they were duped. Now before you ask me what the difference is, let me explain to you in simple words that you can digest. Being fooled or duped can come about from not being aware of all the facts at the time, and not necessarily from having a gullible character. Now who is this neutral observer to whom I must submit my thought process; and why would I care what any observer thinks?

      • Rationalman

        OK let me rephrase my comments…….

        a) on what factual basis do you dismiss them as “being duped”?
        b) What are you national security credentials?
        Please feel free to add anything else.
        Or is it just your gut feeling, in which case you don’t have to give any reason.
        Thanks

      • I asserted that the Dissanayakes were duped in response to your claim that their letter to Dixit somehow substantiated your opinion of the latter being an objective commentator on SL affairs. The fact is that India’s tampering with the Sinhalese/Tamil conflict actually exacerbated the situation and contributed to the instability and bloodshed. I suggest you read Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka by Rohan Gunaratna, which is a good counterpoint to Dixit. Issues like continued arming and training of the Tigers and other Tamil militants while the Accord was in place, arming and raising the Tamil National Alliance, instigating UDI, etc, are good examples of the Machiavellian India that Dixit represented.

        What have my national security credentials to do with it? What such credentials do you have?

      • Rationalman

        Finally, we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the Rohan Gunaratna reference. Now if you could just link or cut and past the parts where he agrees with you that Gamini Dissanayke was duped.
        Thanks

      • “Finally, we are getting somewhere.”

        I highly doubt that. You’ve never gotten anywhere i your arguments, so why expect anything more at this juncture?

        “Thanks for the Rohan Gunaratna reference. Now if you could just link or cut and past the parts where he agrees with you that Gamini Dissanayke was duped.”

        Where did I claim that Gunaratna agreed with me about the Dissanayakes? 😀

      • Rationalman

        David,

        Where did I claim that Gunaratna agreed with me about the Dissanayakes?

        Then why did you mention Rohan Gunaratne? Can you point to one person who has publicly stated that the Dissanayakes’ were duped?

      • I have explained already why I brought up Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka. Why don’t you reread the comment instead of asking me to explain it again to you just so that you will have something to say in a comment now that you have abandoned even your pathetic arguments.

        Why do I need to show anyone else’s opinion of the Dissanayakes? Unlike you, I am able to analyse and formulate an opinion and not simply regurgitate someone else’s. You quoted Dixit to suggest that it was the GoSL’s fault that the Accord failed to bring peace; I dismissed Dixit as Machiavellian and lacking in objectivity; you then quoted the Dissanayakes in defence of Dixit; I then opined that the Dissanayakes, like many in the SL establishment, had been duped by India. It is widely accepted today that India destabilised SL throughout the ’80s as part of a similar policy against all its neighbours during a time when India was a closed market and building its economy. Do read and educate yourself.

      • Rationalman

        So you cannot find anyone of importance who agrees in writing with you that Gamini Disanayake was duped?

        Thats OK!

      • I didn’t say I couldn’t. Why don’t you reread my previous two comments to understand what I actually said. While you’re about it, could you explain what any of this has to do with Niromi’s inaccurate claim to having fought the SL military?

  • David Saminathan

    A well crafted article by Roberts exposing the deception of DBS Jeyaraj. DBS Jeyaraj unlike Iqbal Athas is a loose canon.That is why Athas is well sought by journals like Jane’s defence weekly whereas DBSJ is a homemade hero editor of his own Tamilweek where he plays the North Korean Dictator. There are numerous factual mistakes spread all around DBSJ articles. Even when indicated he never corrected his faulty facts and never acknowledged. Following is a comment that DBSJ allowed in his first Part article on Niromy. How Niromi deliberately fabricates is pointed. The whole book is a fabrication.
    ” PK says:
    December 11, 2011 at 10:05 am
    “Niromi” claims her mother founded the Mothers Front in 1988 during the occupation of IPKF (p. 299). You know as well as I do, who founded the Mothers Front in 1984 when Sri Lankan army made mass arrests of young men in VVT and Karaveddy areas.
    This factual error cannot be classified as “blunders and errors of minor details”. Author cannot be forgiven for making such false claims. Exaggerating her own experiences or making false claims about her experiences is one thing. Cooking up stories claiming that her mother founded Mothers Front in 1988 is not a responsible act by an author of a book. When such false statements are made one begins to doubt many incidents in the book.

    DBSJ RESPONDS:

    The late Gamini Navaratne who edited “Saturday Review” at one time related an interesting anecdote to Ajith Samaranayake and myself about how he (Gamini) was responsible for getting the Mothers Front started. Gamini said that despite many attempts the Mothers were not getting their act together and squabbling with each other. So Gamini said he wrote a news item that a procession –demonstration by the Mothers carrying broomsticks will take place on a particular date. Thereafter the Mothers had no choice other than to stage the demo (without broomsticks) and this was the Mothers front baptism of fire. It was so interesting Ajith wrote about it.If I find it I think I will post it.

    Reply to this comment “

    • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

      Curioser and curioser. If my late-middle-aged memory serves me right, the Mothers’ Front was founded neither in 1988 nor in 1984. It was earlier, and I happened to be in Jaffna at the time. I believe the first demonstrations were as early as 1982, certainly pre- July ’83, and there was competition between the EPRLF-inspired manifestation and the more mainstream ‘nationalist’ one. I recall meeting Shanthi Satchithanandan on that visit, and that she was one of those involved in the organisation of the front and an event.

  • Nag A. Nanthi

    I think the case Roberts makes is very weak, though he continues with his spirited attempt at it. Suppose in her manuscript she wrote: “…Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting Indian government forces in a bloody civil war…” and an editor deleted the word “Indian” without knowing the significance, everything would be fine, wouldn’t it?

    • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

      Nag, aren’t you being a little naughty, or Niromi-ish, by ignoring the following passages in Mike’s critique? They show that it isn’t a simple matter of inadvertantly dropping a single word.

      “…Again, when she was interviewed by Nikki Barrowclugh for the Good Weekend in July 2011, Niromi indicated once again that her unit spent “most of the time … running and hiding from government soldiers.”[vi]

      …The remarkable fact is that while the first skirmish of December 1987 was an encounter with Indian troops in her 2009 recollection, in both 2009 and 2011 she keeps insisting that the LTTE was fighting both Indian and government troops at ground level. “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too” she says in the Daily Telegraph account in 2009. This is a consistent aspect of her stories at both points, an aspect reiterated during interviews for radio and magazine…

      …A few months later, in October 2011, she led Mark Furier to quote the Allen & Unwin book-blurb identifying “government soldiers” as the adversaries responsible for the “ambush” in the course of his interview-article for Serendib News (page 23).

    • Nag A. Nanthi

      Hon. Ambassador,

      With respect, neither naughty nor “Niromi-ish!”

      My impression is Barrowclugh’s and Furier’s interview quotes cannot be taken as independent ways of discovering pieces of evidence that point to Niromi’s confusion / untruthfulness. The book is already published (containing what I presume to be a key word missing on the back cover and inconsistencies here and there). When journalists who interview someone file their report, “cut and paste” is common, and errors have a habit of propagating. Journalists are normally not writing to standards appropriate for defending against such scholarly scrutiny. They just want to get a story out (quick and sensational, if possible). So, the fine points we have in our minds about “government soldier” should necessarily always mean “Sri Lankan government soldier”, and that the Hanumans should have been explicitly described as Indian, could have easily escaped these two journalists.

      When one accumulates pieces of evidence, them being independent is important. You might know the case of Sally Clark, imprisoned in the UK for murder of her two children – cot death. She was found guilty because the courts were told something like this: the chance of one child dying in its cot is one in thousand, the chance of a second one dying is also one in thousand (picking a round number for convenience). Therefore it follows that the chance of two children dying is 1/1000 times 1/1000 = one in a million, which is so small that the mother must have killed them. This is plain nonsense, because the two deaths are not necessarily independent for us to multiply the chances in this way. There might well be a common cause, yet to be determined (nowadays, we think there could be a genetic factor.)

      Roberts appears to me to fall into a similar trap in the way he gathers and interprets evidence. His track record is not particularly good on this front. Remember, recently he surveyed three people (Nadesan, Narendran and Sarvananthan) to find out how many civilians were killed in the Wanni, but failed to caution us that the information (or mis-information) available to these three could be highly correlated.

      Back to the Tigress, I do not know the truth and have no specific reason to write in support of the author. But we Tamils have been through rather bad times over the last 30 years or so during which we have seen that on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence one can be charged of being a traitor or a chicken thief, and in both cases tied to a lamp post and shot; or could be sent on a one way journey to the Fourth Floor and on to Boosa/Panagoda.

      Hence I am keen that Roberts exercises a bit of caution before making accusations.

      I have now placed an order for the book 🙂

      • Ken

        Well said Nag A. Nanthi

      • SR- TD

        Nag A. Nanthi

        Actually the time you have spent writing about the cot death incident could have been better spent in looking at the evidence in the article. Sure it’s dispersed and not arranged neatly one after the other for easy perusal but still it’s all there clearly set down. (Even some of thecomments here line up the evidence nicely). I suppose you really didn’t havemuch time to spare as you wanted to get back to the cot death topic. So!! the chronology,

        1) In 2009 even before the book is published Niromi says in her telegraph piece; “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaranhad predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

        Reflect (if it is not too much of a distraction from your cot death interests) that someone alert and smart and knowledgeable could have outed Niromi in 2009 (or quietly corrected and halted her before she irrevocably slid into an ever widening spiral of deception).

        2) 2011- The book is published. The Indian soldiers,which figured prominently (with their I word adjective well to the fore) in the 2009 telegraph short story appear sans adjective in the first chapter of the book. In the first chapter, Indian soldiers have become soldiers. To find the (I) word readers have to dig deep into the book.

        Also reflect ( if you can bear to spare any thoughts away from cot deaths) that SL Government soldiers/Indian Governments soldiers overlap that you are painstakingly trying to create simply did not/do not exist in reality. Nobody called the IPKF, Indian Government Soldiers. The adjective Government was only used for SL soldiers. If you have any doubts refer to (1) to Niromi’s own words.

        3) 2011 July 9th Nikki Barrowclough does her interview. Now Nikki is far from the clueless journo who is barreling ahead to print a story bulldozing finer distinctions to the ground. She is well informed. She knows about the IPKF. Nikki writes in that interview about the LTTE, “At one stage, the LTTE controlled almost one-third of Sri Lanka’s territory. It also fought the Indian army, when Indian soldiers occupying north-eastern Sri Lanka as part of an Indo-Sri Lanka peace accord reportedly committed human rights atrocities, including rape, while trying to disarm the guerillas between 1987 and 1990.” And yet she has no alternative but to write what Niromi tells her. Which is;

        “…two decades since former rebel put down her gun and fled the violence she’d become a part of, unable to deal any longer with the brutality of her fellow Tigers or the viciousness of the Sri Lankan armed forces.”

        The Sri Lankan armed forces you see? Where is that fine distinction only visible to scholarly eyes? A kid not long out of the cot could spot the difference. (Oh I know what the next ‘bright arguement’ is going to be; since the IPKF was fighting in SL on behalf of the SL Government [on paper] the IPKF is technically the Sri Lankan armed forces and the difference between them is only of a scholarly distinction. Oh why didn’t I die a cot death earlier on..I could have been spared all this )

        And also;

        “She maintains that while she was involved in some combat, the very nature of guerilla warfare meant that most of her time with the Tigers was spent running and hiding from government soldiers.”

        4) Just two weeks after the Nikki interview, on 21 July 2011 Niromi walks into the Throsby interview and you can hear the following in Niromi’s own dulcet tones (between 18.45 and 19.02) ;

        “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”

        So there rests the case. As un pretty a tale as any cot death you will agree. A mega scale scam the exposure of which could have been prevented if some well informed people had been put around the author by the publishers.

        Can I also tell you something very kindly? Do try to read the whole article before sitting down to comment. Agreed Roberts is a very convoluted writer sometimes but try to read the entire thing. Don’t stop halfway and run crying ‘Eureka!’. But I see that even in the good ambassador’s comment the most important part you have missed; the Telegraph part, which makes me wonder perhaps if it’s not a case of willful selective blindness? A small tip if I may; in http://tinyurl.com/cz7tr9a the whole case is laid out in an easier to grasp format.

      • Rationalman

        SR-TD,

        If I may respectfully respond to your reply to Nag A. Nanthi

        #1 About the apparent discrepancies between the two statements…..
        (here is DBSJ’s explanation http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3160)
        “After about a year of working as an activist in the Student and Women outfits both friends decided to join the LTTE formally and obtain military training. What influenced them in this was “Operation Liberation” launched by the Sri Lankan armed forces to regain control of areas in the Vadamaratchy region in Jaffna.

        Upon being accepted as military trainees both girls quit studies and went to a camp in Thenmaratchy region for arms training.They were given the option of choosing their nom de guerres. Ajanthi chose her mother’s name Nirmala while”Sharmila” chose Shenuka.Unfortunately most of her comrades mispronounced the name as “Saenuhaa””.

        In plan English, she joined the LTTE as a civilian volunteer a year before she became a formal member combatant/trainee. You may not believe DBSJ’s narrative, but if it is true (and I know it must be a bitter pill to swallow) , you have to accept that Niromi’s statements are not contradictory or may be not!

        #2:
        “The Indian soldiers,which figured prominently (with their I word adjective well to the fore) in the 2009 telegraph short story appear sans adjective in the first chapter of the book. In the first chapter, Indian soldiers have become soldiers. To find the (I) word readers have to dig deep into the book”.

        Perhaps in a short article, one has to make identities sooner than in a book? Did she ever call the enemies in that particular skirmish, Sri Lankan anywhere in the book? Sounds like it must have been a strain for you to dig deeper in to the book. Would you like Niromi to draw pictures of men with guns wearing the Indian tri-color to indicate that they were actually indian?

        #3:“…two decades since former rebel put down her gun and fled the violence she’d become a part of, unable to deal any longer with the brutality of her fellow Tigers or the viciousness of the Sri Lankan armed forces.”

        Niromi left Sri Lanka in 1990 March. She did not drop from the Srk when the Indians landed. She had been in Jaffna since 1977. She would have seen the viciousness of the Sri Lankan Army from 1977 to 1987. And the Indians started pulling back in late 1989 and completed by March 1990. So there is nothing contradictory in her statement.

        I enjoyed your hilarious zinger…. “Oh why didn’t I die a cot death earlier on..I could have been spared all this. Cot death is such a funny topic isn’t it?

        #4. See #1

        I eagerly clicked on the link that you provided. And was so, so disappointed to see the rehashing of the same old, same old by Darshanie Ratnawalli. I urge you to arm yourself with new points so you can be taken seriously!

        And one more thing…. Congratulations. I have never seen cot death humor used in such a devastating manner. I bet you will have even the parents of dead infants rolling in the aisles! Do you have any good Nandikadal jokes?

  • luxmy

    Michael Roberts,

    The country needs you. NOW.

    Talk about LLRC, its recommendations and how they can be implemented as quickly and durably as possible.

    Other discussions (eg Niromi, Jeyaraj, ….) can and must wait.

    • Ranjo

      I met the author a couple of times in functions, and I can say that her interlect is appreciable. If sh were to do a fake fiction, she wouldn’t have left this many holes for the beginners to pick. I thought most of the things in the book were from her memory. When I say MOST, I agree that some exaggerations cannot be denied.

      The repeated question by Off The Cuff, “Can you or DBSJ or ANYONE enlighten the GV readership as to how the Tamil Tigress performed the miracle of fighting Sri Lankan Soldiers while they were confined to barracks by the Indo Lanka agreement?” with a qualifier that “That is the Main Issue”.

      As I see, the efforts of Michael Roberts and Muttukrishna Sarvananthan are nothing more than amateurish.

  • Fourier

    I just read Mr DBS Jeyaraj’s write-up, with “Una Paloma Blanca” playing in the background…

    http://tinyurl.com/cyh5gh4

    So now we know what Niromi(?) looks like, her class, religion, age; what books she read, what music she listened to, what musical instruments she played, what sports, animals and films she liked, her GCE(O’) Level results, and how she used to stroke and pat her hair while cycling, wearing a red and black tie.

    Still we or Niromi(?) know who she is, or whom she was fighting against in December 1987?

    Do we have an injunction preventing us from naming her? If not, will GV take an undertaking that they will publish her name if we provide it?

    • Lindsay

      Allow me to express my astonishment.

      All the comments supporting Niromi talks about; a) The entire human emotional range- jealousy, guilt etc. b) The LLRC report, the civilian death toll, the situation in Azerbaijan (no one has yet but it’s only a matter of time)

      But everyone shies away from the real issue like it’s radio active.
      Can a can a tiger fighter who fought between 87-88 say in 2009
      “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”
      (The 2009 Telegraph piece)
      And then again in 2011
      “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”
      (2011 Throsby interview)

      The answer is a loud no. I think these are genuine slips born of genuine ignorance born of never having fought during the IPKF period. And the tragedy is Niromi did not have anyone around her who could at least have given her the correct books to read and thus stopped her from making such a revealing faux pas.

      The following can be either slips made due to true ignorance or market oriented deceptions done with the collusion of publishers;

      “She cries for reasons as complex and tragic as the conflict itself, even though it has been more than two decades since the former rebel put down her gun and fled the violence she’d become a part of, unable to deal any longer with the brutality of her fellow Tigers or the viciousness of the Sri Lankan armed forces.”
      Nikki Barrowclough Interview account (2011)

      “…most of her time with the Tigers was spent running and hiding from government soldiers.”
      -Nikki Barrowclough Interview account (2011-)

      “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”
      -Blurb of the ‘greatest book written in Aus by a SL author’

      And if anyone is still silly enough to believe that the ‘IPKF’ is/was/can be called ‘government forces’ Niromi herself demolishes that ridiculous argument with terminology used in her telegraph account.

      The question is when she talks about the last Elam War in front of audiences will there be anyone smart enough in the audience to ask “Ma’am, how can you talk about a war you were never even present for, when you don’t know the most important thing about your alleged ‘own personal war’?”

  • HD

    Prof. Roberts lost the plot by jumping on Arun Ambalavanar’s wagon and questioning whether Niromi was ever in the LTTE. From Jeyaraj’s article and some of the comments it has been conclusively proven that she was in fact in the LTTE for a short period of time. Who she fought is a different story because that is not the initial question raised by Prof Roberts and Arun Ambalavanar.
    I will relate an incident that happened in Washington DC in 1990 prior to Operation Desert Storm (Gulf war I). The Human Rights Caucus had a televised hearing. At the hearing a young lady who had just fled Kuwait gave a testimony. According to her she was a volunteer in a hospital and saw an Iraqi solder come remove babies from incubators and left them to die on the floor. She saw about 300 babies die like that. This testimony was used over and over by the Bush (Senior) Administration to sell the war to the American public. Later it transpired that the young lady was none other than Kuwati ambassador’s daughter. The whole show was stage managed by a PR firm hired by Kuwati government. For more details see http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

    Niromi’s book is all part of a game. But neither Prof Roberts nor “off the cuff” will get a chance to set the rules of the game. So move on Prof. Roberts.

    • BCP

      Hey HD

      I will tell you what the game is. It’s this game of making comments without reading the relevant articles. For example HD hears on the grapevine that the first ever article by Michael Roberts never questioned the memoir’s authenticity based on Niromi’s statements about which army she fought. He takes it as Gospel and dashes off a comment…..never knowing that even in the very first article published in Groundviews http://groundviews.org/2011/08/31/forbidden-fruits-niromi-de-soyzas-tamil-tigress-noumi-kouri-and-helen-demidenko/ Roberts bases his case on Niromi’s ignorance on which army she fought. Under the subheading, Market Pitch, Fundamental Error, he calls the book blurb’s claim that Niromi was fighting Government Forces a fundamental error. Then he goes on to say that it is not an Allen and Unwin mistake because in her Throsby interview Niromi says “when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the Tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces.”. Then Roberts says “Such profound ignorance suggests that she was not in Sri Lanka then and that her tale is a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.”

      Then in his third GV article (http://groundviews.org/2011/12/22/niromi-2009-versus-niromi-tigress-2011/) Roberts introduces Niromi’s Telegraph piece and shows that Niromi’s ignorance about which army she fought is consistent and enduring (ignorance that stands the test of time from 2009 to 2011!). Then he quotes from the Nikki Barrowclough interview to show the persistent presence of government forces in Niromi’s fighting experiences. So you see from the first Michael Roberts has taken a different track from Arun Ambalavanar (who concentrated mainly on ‘ethnographic errors’- Roberts’ words).

      Your saying that “From Jeyaraj’s article and some of the comments it has been conclusively proven that she was in fact in the LTTE for a short period of time” is part of the game too. Fact is Jeyaraj’s articles or his comments do not prove anything…at all. A person who was in the LTTE during the IPKF period will never say the LTTE fought both the SL and Indian armies. A person who was ever in the LTTE will never try to drag the SL forces into the IPKF picture because they would know it would never wash. The period is too well documented by two countries. Tin Tin, Enyd Blyton, etc. cannot hide that basic, stark truth. And most of all HD the fact that Jeyaraj or his commenters never say a single word about Niromi’s ignorance about the absence of the Government Forces from the battlefield stick out like a sore thumb and compromise their entire market promotional exercise. So the game my dear HD is …trying to drown out these basic truths in a dance of words.

      • Ken

        Hi BCP,

        I would say most of the people who comment in this focus even did not touch the master peice.which is Niromi’s book.

    • Off the Cuff

      HD,

      You say “Niromi’s book is all part of a game”

      The Game of HOODWINKING?

      You say “But neither Prof Roberts nor “off the cuff” will get a chance to set the rules of the game. ”

      I doubt whether Prof Roberts is interested in games of that nature, I certainly am not.

      However I am interested in the Truth. I believe Prof Roberts is too.

      The question is are you?

  • andy

    It looks like Michael Roberts is paid by the GOSL to make anti LTTE propaganda. He seems to have done the job initially but after DBJ’s article on this issue continuing to defend his initial stand by splitting hair criticism on DBJ is really stupid. He has to accept the facts gracefully and back off form his stand.

    • Off the Cuff

      Andy,

      Can you or DBSJ or ANYONE enlighten the GV readership as to how the Tamil Tigress performed the miracle of fighting Sri Lankan Soldiers while they were confined to barracks by the Indo Lanka agreement?

      That is the Main Issue.

      Belittling it wont cover up Niromi’s Achilles Heel.

      • andy

        Hi Off the Cuff,
        my hunch is she never fought SL army during the IPKF presence. Either she must have involved in minor roll in engaging the SL army prior to IPKF time or actually engage with IPKF and did not want to mention it for other reasons. Either way Michael Roberts was trying to discredit the Author and her whole story and again criticize DBSJ for letting his readers know the facts about the author.

      • Off the Cuff

        Andy,

        You wrote “my hunch is she never fought SL army during the IPKF presence”

        Why is it only a Hunch when it is a fact that the Lankan forces were confined to Barracks during the time in question?
        Are you afraid to call a spade a spade?
        Why the obfuscation?

        Niromi was caught out in a Lie come right out and say so.

        You wrote “Either way Michael Roberts was trying to discredit the Author and her whole story and again criticize DBSJ for letting his readers know the facts about the author”

        You are wrong.
        Niromi and DBSJ discredited themselves.
        Prof Roberts only pointed it out.

        Niromi’s declared objective was to create public sympathy for illegal Tamil immigrants to Australia. This explains the anger of those rushing to defend a proven Liar. That anger is directed at Prof Roberts who was instrumental in the Public Exposure of the lies and anyone who supports him.

        But non can answer how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress, fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Peace Agreement.

      • Rationalman

        OCC, you say “But non can answer how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress, fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Peace Agreement”.

        But, but but….. how can anyone expected to answer if they cannot find Niromi’s claim that she fought “the Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Peace Agreement””

        Does she refer to an incident that we seem to have missed. Please quote the page/pages about the incident/s from the book so that someone could respond to you.

        Please?

      • Off the Cuff

        You wrote “Does she refer to an incident that we seem to have missed”

        No I don’t think you have missed it but you certainly is trying desperately to obfuscate Niromi’s attempt at supplanting the SLA in to an ambush they were never involved or could ever get involved in due to the Peace Accord which confined the SLA to Barracks that Delhi imposed on Lanka after the Parippu drop that saved the “Sun God” from certain capture in 1987.

        Had he been captured then, 23 years before he died as a Coward at Nanthikadal, several thousands of innocent, Tamil, Indian, Sinhalese, Moslem, Burgher, Malay and other lives and Billions worth assets would have been saved.

        Your obfuscation is understandable as Niromi’s declared intention is to provide favourable propaganda for the Illegal Tamil Immigrants that are attempting to enter Australia. Niromi’s attempt at deceiving the Australian Public is now getting undermined due mainly to her deception that has been exposed.

        A bitter pill for you to stomach I suppose.

        You may find this post of interest.

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40144

    • jacko

      here we go again… the famous pro-LTTE mud slinging… accusing anyone who criticises them of being on the payroll of the GOSL. laughable!

  • C.S.R.Perera

    please read the book Women fighters of liberation tigers by adel balasigham. you can access this via sangam.org, november 2011 edition. in that book, there is a chapter called ‘fighting the indian army; october 1987 – 1990’ . in which she describes how the first women cader was killed by the IPKF. This is followed by the following sentences.
    ” The igenious methods of resistance by the LTTE effectively slowed down the advance of the indian troops.In the heavy clashes that tookplace at Kopay and Urumparai seven women fighters were killed.”

  • Rationalman

    Micheal, you say

    “I may not have accepted his reading; but when I made inquiries from my Scottish wife she reminded me of a Sri Lankan friend in the old days who could turn on the tears at will to persuade recalcitrant bureaucrats at the customs office.”

    So according to your white Scottish wife, just because one brown woman can turn on tears at will, all other brown women can as well?

    Aren’t we being a little racist here? Is that the best you can do disprove Niromi?

    • SR- TD

      Wrong on all counts rationalman

      1) Not only in Roberts’ comprehension but also in universal human understanding Government Forces (appearing in a book about Sri Lanka) conveys SL Government Forces. Example- “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”- The 2009 Telegraph short story by Niromi.

      2) “Did she say “Sri Lankan” soldiers?” you ask with endearing bafflement and innocence. Yes of course dear she did. Sorry to burst your bubble. –

      “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”- 2009 Telegraph short story.

      “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”- 2011 Throsby interview

      “She cries for reasons as complex and tragic as the conflict itself, even though it has been more than two decades since the former rebel put down her gun and fled the violence she’d become a part of, unable to deal any longer with the brutality of her fellow Tigers or the viciousness of the Sri Lankan armed forces.”- in 2011 as told to Nikki Barrowclough.

      And it is those above statements (and ordinary lay people’s linguistic understanding)not any specialist interpretations by PhDs that illuminate and expose the following statements.

      “She maintains that while she was involved in some combat, the very nature of guerilla warfare meant that most of her time with the Tigers was spent running and hiding from government soldiers.”- As told to Nikki

      “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”- blurb

      3) The Sri Lankan army may have not had the guts to fight the LTTE directly and hid behind Aunty IPKF’s skirts but they were creating havoc on the fringes.

      Well not really but nice try though. I especially like your naughtiness in changing the date of the quoted Wikipedia account. The incident it refers to happened in 1987 Oct not 1988 Oct. Here’s the Chronology

      1)1987 July IPKF arrives and greeted with rapture by the people of North
      2) 15 Sep 1987 Thileepan starts fast
      3) 26 Sep 1987 he dies
      4) Early October 1987 a boat with 17 tigers is apprehended by SL Navy (the Navy’s right to patrol SL borders had not been /could not be restricted by the peace accord. SL government wants them in Colombo. The IPKF is ordered by India to let the SL army take charge of these prisoners. It’s a film moment. The tarmac. The SL army representatives walking forward fully surrounded by IPKF. The prisoners take cyanide on the tarmac.
      5) That becomes the catalyst for the LTTE to decide finally to fight the IPKF. ‘The LTTE to fight the IPKF’ memorize that now. 1 to 4 happens before ‘the war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted’

      But in 2009, Niromi writes “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” Thus irrevocably telling the world she was never ‘been there done that’. In 2011 the 42 year old Niromi tells Throsby “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces” again confirming two years later that she had never ‘been there done that’.

      When the Tigers chose to fight in 1987 October, they chose to fight the IPKF because the north and east was absolutely and clearly under the IPKF. Let alone creating havoc in the fringes the SL forces could not even locate a training camp in the region.

      The IPKF could send the SL forces packing in their own country during this period –interview with IPKF General John Taylor

      Q- The Americans and Israelis were providing active assistance in Lanka. How did you react when you reached there?

      A-There was no American assistance. Israeli assistance was for the Sri Lankan special force. Their training camp was on the edge of Batticaloa district, my soldiers had discovered it. And I straight away took up the matter, if they don’t leave in 24 hours, my soldiers will deal with them. And in 24 hours they left the place lock, stock and barrel, both Israeli trainers and Sri Lankans. – http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/29lanka.htm

      4) So for a young LTTE cadre to describe the IPKF as government forces would not be unusual as the considered the Indians as an extension of the SRi Lankan Government.
      Well not so. All we know is that in 2009 a 40 year old Niromi(claiming to have been a young cadre) made a distinction quite clearly between the IPKF and the Government troops; “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

      And that same Niromi two years later published a book that declared on its blurb ; “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”

      Which is how we know that this particular 40 something was never in the LTTE. As a sideline, hypothetical question would a real young cadre at this time call the IPKF government soldiers? No. Because no matter who did whose dirty work the IPKF and the SL forces never merged their identities in anyone’s mind. You only have to read the vast body of contemporary writings by Tamils both in Tamil and English (contemporary Tamil newspapers- have a look see specially the rape accounts and the UTHR accounts in English, the Broken Palmyra anyone? )

      • Rationalman

        TD-SD,

        firstly I am relived that I have not been zinged by your razor sharp wit though I miss your cot death humor. I think I have responded to you elsewhere.

        As I stated in that post and I see in this post as well, you are merely rehashing the same old same old points.

        I have responded to to 1, 2 in earlier response to you.

        As for #3,4 I have quoted else where from High Commissioner JN Dixit’s book “Assignment Colombo” Chapter called Sabotage begins” page 208-211.
        You say “The IPKF is ordered by India to let the SL army take charge of these prisoners”. No it was not. I suggest you read what happened. Gen Harikat Singh, the IPKF commander did this without the permission of India and was relived of his command soon after. (A friendly bit of advice.I suggest that in the future, it would be a good idea for you to check the information from the sources before making sweeping declarations or making mental “films”. Would make others take you more seriously).

        #5: And you say “And that same Niromi two years later published a book that declared on its blurb ; “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”.

        And the key word being “blurb”. I assume that you know what “blurb” is?

        #2 again And you state with touching endearment: ““Did she say “Sri Lankan” soldiers?” you ask with endearing bafflement and innocence. Yes of course dear she did. Sorry to burst your bubble”. –

        Then I am going ask you as I asked your fellow traveller, show me, please, please, please?

        The words S-R-I L-A-N-K-A-N soldiers? Please?

        Here is a challenge to stimulate your mighty intellect.

        DBSJ has two written lengthy articles on Niromi with a lot of facts.
        http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3160
        http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/6893

        Feel free to combine with OCC and others to find factual errors in the articles.

        I challenge you! I promise you that if you can find significant errors, I will join the Michael Roberts, SR-TD and OCC bandwagon.

      • Off the Cuff
    • Rationalman

      OTC,

      I don’t think you really understood my challenge. I specifically gave you the links to articles by DBSj and asked you and your fellow travelers to find factual errors in the articles..

      I will be happy to give the links to DBSJ’s reports again.

      http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3160
      http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/6893

      And yesterday, DBSJ published the third installment..
      http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/6971

      Your lengthy response does not refer to any of the material mentioned in the articles. All you are doing is repeating the same old arguments based on Dr. Roberts’ pieces.

      So how can you claim that you met the challenge? To meet the challenge if you choose (and it is your choice) you will have to a) Read the reports and b) point out the factual errors. I hope I have made it clear this time.

  • Agnos

    OTC, et al.,

    Do you have a serious reading comprehension problem?
    I am not here to defend anything about the book–I haven’t read it and I don’t know the lady who authored it.

    But my point is that Roberts lacks the credibility to even raise such questions. I simply dismiss what he says with only a cursory look because of his past lies.

    If you are a supporter of the current SL regime, the same applies to you. After all, the regime is the master of lies. They murdered/disappeared several people, including Lasantha Wickrematunge and Prof. Ravindranath, the VC of Eastern University . They repeated the fiction of zero civilian casualties. They lied that there were only 70,000 civilians in the Vanni. They denied that their LRRP personnel were killing civilians along with the LTTE in the Vanni.
    Any alleged inaccuracies, possibly even some fibs, in the book pale into insignificance compared to the enormity of the lies that the regime and its supporters (including DJ and you) have been spreading.

    Those who get worked up over anything in the book should turn their focus back to the enormity of their own lies.

    Many Jews attacked the late Professor, Edward Said, for alleged fibs in his personal story about Palestine; and they probably had reason to do so, but whatever the fibs, until his death, he remained a respected academic supporting the cause of Palestinians because what he said was largely true and resonated with a large number of people from different ethnic groups. I think Tamil Tigress resonates the same way, despite any possible fibs, and the usual suspects can’t stomach it.

    • Agnos ta Jayaway waa! 😀

    • Off the Cuff

      Agnos,

      You claimed “I am not here to defend anything about the book–I haven’t read it and I don’t know the lady who authored it”

      Had you not written the following, your stand would be legitimate. But you did write the following.

      …… not some inaccuracies in an autobiography and DBS Jeyaraj’s portrayal of its author. In the big scheme of things, your outrageous lies during the war have marked you as someone utterly lacking the credibility or legitimacy to even review a book concerning SL Tamil issues, however many inaccuracies such a book may have.

      The emphasised text is a defence of Niromi’s Lies and DBSJ’s obfuscations.

      Prof. Roberts has interpreted the English that Niromi wrote and pointed to obfuscations by DBSJ. He need not prove what he refers to as they are already in print authored by Niromi and DBSJ and you nor anyone else, can contest those.

      Hence even if you call Prof Roberts a liar referring to the past (proven or otherwise), attempting to say that he is not qualified to expose glaring and obvious attempts at hoodwinking the world is childish to say the least.

      Hence this statement of yours, which I reproduce below, reflects on your inability to think objectively and is more a censure of yourself than of Prof Roberts who you are bent on vilifying. You wrote “I simply dismiss what he says with only a cursory look because of his past lies”

      You wrote “If you are a supporter of the current SL regime, the same applies to you”

      I do not support any regime but I do support my country. Hope you are able to understand the difference.

      BTW we are discussing Niromi and DBSJ’s defence of her. Are you able to do that without diversionary tactics that prove you cannot defend either Niromi’s Lies or DBSJ’s obfuscations?

      What you need to do is prove that Prof Robert’s Interpretation of Niromi’s and DBSJ’s writing is at fault. For that you need to be able to comprehend English.

      You and your cheering squad have failed dismally in that task.

  • KISHAN PERERA

    If Niromi was disillusioned with the Sri Lankan State and joined the LTTE and was later disillusioned with the LTTE and moved to Australia. If she was then disillusioned by the Australian Governments approach to the arrival of boat people. Which prompted her to write a book which in turn has caused some disillusionment to her readers. It is quite possible, that due to all this disillusionment she forgot who she was fighting. Three Cheers for DBS for sticking by his friends! Three cheers to Prof Michael Roberts for insisting on the accuracy of facts presented!

    • Ken

      Kishan,

      It was nicely said by Nag A. Nanthi in the comment
      that the case Prof Michael Roberts makes is very weak, though he continues with his spirited attempt at it. Suppose in her manuscript she wrote: “…Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting Indian government forces in a bloody civil war…” and an editor deleted the word “Indian” without knowing the significance, everything would be fine, wouldn’t it? “

    • KISHAN PERERA

      I agree with Ken editorial mistakes are indeed possible. Shenuka/Niromi is inviting trouble with this “half in the bag” approach of writing a memoir about herself and not saying who she is. There is no halfway-house when one embarks on venture such as this. She must see the sensitiveness of the subject, especially with thousands of Tamil tigresses out there who are not cashing in on their past experiences. If her intention was to put a human face on a tigress. Her unwillingness to clear up inconsistencies is having the opposite effect.

  • S.Yogarajan

    Following are very strong arguments Arun Ambalavanar made in his review of the Tamil Tigress.
    ” 1.It has been made known that when a group of Tigers, including Pulendran and Kumarappa were detained in Palaly, it was Mahathaya and Anton Balasingham who visited them and secretly handed them fresh cyanide capsules. But in this book Niromi’s “boyfriend”, Roshan is supposed to have performed the task. Then Niromi discusses and analyses as to whether it was a case of forced suicide by Prabhakaran. Such discussions and scenarios are impossible in the LTTE and can only have been written to appeal to an international readership.
    2.Niromi’s encounters and meetings with Tiger supremo Prabhakaran strike as singularly false. There is no account for Prabhakaran staying on after the failed aerial raid by the IPKF on the Jaffna University. Yet, insists that Prabhakaran and his entourage continued their sharp shooting exercise on the premises (Pg. 180).
    3.The assertion that in mid-1987 Prabhakaran (on a visit to Niromi’s training base) invited female cadres to join as ‘black tigers’ (suicide bombers) and introduced one of his bodyguards as a black tiger, lacks conviction. It seems unlikely as Tigers were yet to test their female combat units in actual battle-field during the period. As a conservative, Prabhakaran had no high opinion of women’s combative abilities then.
    4.Prabhakaran personally delivering money to Niromi to purchase female Tiger clothes in a low security house soon after the war started with the IPKF is extremely doubtful and even laughable (Pg. 167). Prabahakaran was an excellent manager who efficiently delegated tasks to proper departments. It is inconceivable to think that he would do something as described when his security was at great risk.
    5.Prabhakaran was known for his reticence. He was indeed conscious of his weak male voice. His oratory skills were known to be poor and he very rarely gave speeches. Niromi however constructs Prabhakaran opposite to this, as one who visited the new recruits and trainees regularly and often talked at length of his intentions, and expressed his anger.”

    from
    http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/08/21/book-review-20/

    Why D.B.S.Jeyaraj answered or tackled none of these? This clearly proves that the Magic enabler of Niromi Mr. Jeyaraj hasn’t read the book yet. Jeyaraj you still have time to read the book and make an honourable exit before things get worser for you.
    Niromi has nothing to lose. you have everything to lose Mr Jeyaraj.
    Yogarajan

    • Ken

      S.Yogarajan,

      Did you read the comments posted by by Shaun under the very same article where Arun Ambalavanar’s article is false. other questions raised by you can only be answered by the Party involved for example whetehr Niromi met Pirabaharan, can be answered by Niromi or Pirabaharan. Here is reply to Arun Ambalavanar..

      ……
      I am writing in response to the review by Arun Ambalavanar on ” Tamil Tigress” written by Niromi De Soyza, published by the Sri Lanka Guardian recently.

      I had some reservation about the book ‘Tamil Tigress’ written by Niromi De Soyza so I watched the video published by Allen and Unwin Australia on Youtube about the book and I later purchased online to read the book. It is beautifully written and gives a clear understanding of the issues with a high degree of integrity. I realized I had wrongly judged the book by its cover.

      It is one of the books published by a former child soldier who is reformed and who contributes back to the country from which she migrated to Australia, and to the voiceless people back in Sri Lanka.

      In the review, Arun Ambalavanar made the comments below, trying to convince the readers the book is fake. Since I lived in the war torn area, in the contemporary period of the author, I can visualise and follow the journey with the author.

      Arun writes:
      “She writes about the murder of St. John’s principal “Anandarajan” (Pg. 39-40). His real name is Anandarajah. For foreigners, this may appear a minor mistake but the difference in Jaffna is of much significance and no local would commit such a mistake.”

      The principal name is C.E. Anandarajan. What the author of the book mentioned is correct. I visited Sri Lanka recently and the new office building is named as “C.E. Anandarajan’s block”.

      Arun writes:
      “Author and her friend were sent to the frontline watch-post around Jaffna fort. (pages 94-105)”

      I disagree with Arun. The soldiers were sent to the front line prior to the proper training. I have friends and relatives who were in the old park Road LTTE Training Camp, sent to Jaffna fort, Sentries in the front line. They were given cyanide capsules (in case the Army captured them) and firearms to give them confidence even though they were not trained to use them.

      Arun writes:
      “She writes TELO and PLOTE were ‘banned’ at the same time (Pg. 48-49). Actually TELO was banned in 1986 April and PLOTE months later.”

      Yes, TELO, a paramilitary organization, was banned in 1986 and a couple of months later PLOTE and other Armed groups were banned. Later, members of EROS were given the option to join with LTTE or get into to the normal life.

      Arun writes:
      “The very first paragraph of the very first chapter of the book opens thus: “The air was sweetly pungent with the smell of ripening bananas and palmyrah fruit.” She experienced this in 1987, two days before Christmas. Palmyrah fruit is available in Jaffna only in the Tamil venil kalam (Summer: June-July). Not in December which is the rainy season.”

      I was in Jaffna in December 2010. During that period, I noticed the smell of the banana in my mother’s garden and palmarah fruit smell from the neighbour’s garden.

      Arun writes:
      “Niromi de Soyza characterises herself and a few of her Tiger friends as ‘enlightened’ and critical of the Tigers’ policies and practices at times when they were still members of the LTTE.

      Yes, some of my friends were critical but they were unable to speak openly; they shared among like minded friends within the organization and later they left the LTTE.
      Arun writes:
      “The most used popular swear words in Jaffna…”

      …and then lists down the words. I presume the author’s intention was to not list down the swear words used in Jaffna.

      Oh I wasted my time to respond to the reviewer. I really wasted it.

      I stopped for a while to find out about Arun’s background, who is a self claimed poet, and finally found him from a social network.

      Arun Ambalavanar has the following claims about him in facebook:

      Job Title –tea boy
      Research and Analysis Wing
      Tea Boy · Feb 2001 to May 2009 · Delhi, India

      Graduate School
      Col.Karuna Military Academy,Kiran, Batticaloa
      Kopalasamy Mahendrarajah Institute of political Philosophy,VVT,Jaffna

      I clearly understand why he writes the review in such a critical way of the author without any analysis of the book. The school he says he graduated from is a rogue school. He has a very biased opinion.

      We have been brought up over 30 years not to ask questions against the organization or authorities or were expected to get permission before we ask questions! We have to accept our mistakes and move forward. The time has come for us to accept the reality…

      I would encourage the readers to accept the fact people have different ideas and opinions.

      I am sending my reply so the readers will not judge books based on only the reviewer’s opinion. Do not judge the book by the cover. Get the google review about the book Tamil Tigress, or browse google to watch the video clip and try to get the book in your hand and evaluate yourself.

    • Rohan

      Well, well…..

      Why are we jumping the gun, Yogarajan? You seem to be very keen to shut DBS down. He has not finished his write-up. He has announced that his Part 2 will be out this weekend. “Jeyaraj you still have time to read the book and make an honourable exit before things get worser for you”, you said. You did not think about suggesting him to give a complete response.

      • Ravikumar

        S.Yogarajan

        Why do you think DBSJ has to answer or tackle all those silly and stupid questions raised by these three musketeers (the so called critics)???

        DBSJ is writing what is known to him about Tamil Tigress and his article is not finished yet to come to conclusions.

        On the other hand he has not taken up a task to defend Niromi De Soyza from anyone and he has nothing to do with these three clowns.

  • jaffnaboy

    Hello Prof

    In your first article (Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?) about this book you noted

    “Such profound ignorance suggests that she was not in Sri Lanka then and that her tale is a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.”

    Now that you have found out that she was in Sri Lanka and she was a member of the LTTE you have turned your attention to the 1987 December ambush. Why not earn your AUS$ in some other way prof. You are well connected and a respected man surely there are other means of making money than this.

    From what I have read on GV and TC the book has more than 100 pages and all you can pick is one sentence/paragraph of possible fabrication/lies/editing error? Surely prof you can do better than this!!
    JB

    • SR- TD

      Did she say Sri Lankan? Now do not have a corronary and read this statement from the Telegraph account. “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” In Niromi speak, inspite of what you are busting a gut to prove, it does seem as if Government Troops = Sri Lankan Troops no? Or are you saying some stupid editor in Telegraph took out the I word from the ‘government troops’ too? Then how woiuld it have read? “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the indian government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

      And now that I have satisfied your curiosity about where in the Telegraph account she says she fought the SL forces, let me satisfy it even further by giving you another glimpse of these elusive government forces in Niromi’s fighting experiences; “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”
      Throsby 2011 21 July

      The Tigers did not fight the SL forces while fighting the IPKF. Did the tigers make peace with the SL forces while they were fighting the IPKF? It’s more like a peace with the SL government was forced down their throats with the signing of the Accord and after the Accord turned to discord and they decided peace was out it was the IPKF they found themselves fighting. Not the IPKF as well as the SL forces.
      Niromi’s monumental and fatal slip is exposing her ignorance of who she fought during her alleged fighting tenure.

      Q- Niromi who did you fight during your fighting tenure?

      N- urm..The IPKF ..and the Govenment Forces.

      Q- What do you mean by ‘the Government Forces’?

      N- What’s this, you can’t read or somethin? Read my 2009 Telegraph short story where I clearly say “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” Geddit? When I mean government I mean the SL government. Simple linguistics and perception no?.

      The blurb and the Telegraph article could be put down to editing by a person other than Niromi.?

      That neither the blurb nor the Telegraph article was a publisher’s contribution or isolated minor slips are confirmed by the fact that 2 years after the 2009 article Niromi re-affirms (yes re-affirms without the slightest awareness that she is fatally revealing her ignorance) in her own voice in the Throsby interview what she said in the Telegraph article; “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”

      That the blurb is not a publisher’s mistake is again re-affirmed in her Nikki Barrowclough interview “She maintains that while she was involved in some combat, the very nature of guerilla warfare meant that most of her time with the Tigers was spent running and hiding from government soldiers.” That this curious persistence of ‘Government Forces’ in Niromi’s accounts of her fighting experiences is due to the mistakes of other people (oh those stupid publishers and stupid Nikki) is triumphantly negated by her Telegraph short story; “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

      That these darned curious and tiresome government-forces we keep coming across in her fighting experiences are no mere editor/journalist incompetence is again triumphantly affirmed when Niromi is represented by Nikki as fleeing from the violence of her fighting experiences, violence generated by the two antagonists in those fighting experiences. Her side and the Other side. One side is obviously the tigers but guess what ‘the other side’ is? Those gosh darned Government Forces again. But this time called by their proper specific name. “She cries for reasons as complex and tragic as the conflict itself, even though it has been more than two decades since the former rebel put down her gun and fled the violence she’d become a part of, unable to deal any longer with the brutality of her fellow Tigers or the viciousness of the Sri Lankan armed forces.”

      Q- Niromi what are you talking about here? You fled the violence you became part of? How did you become part of any violence?

      N- Duh. Isn’t it obvious? I became part of the violence when I picked up a gun?

      Q- So this violence, who was generating it?

      N- The sides who fought; us and them

      Q- So when you put down your gun and fled this violence, you were actually doing so because you couldn’t take it anymore what your side was doing and what the other side was doing.

      N- Yes. I couldn’t take any more the brutality of the tigers (my side) and the viciousness of the other side.

      Q- So which was this vicious other side?

      A- Duh the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. Can’t read or somethin?

      Q- Er.. oops?

      Stand alone this quote from the Nikki Barrowclough and the quote from the same source about having spent much of her time running away from government forces can be put down to Niki’s ignorance and carelessness. (Though was Nikki that stupid, that ignorant and that careless? it is a big question mark because she seems to be aware of the Indian occupation and actually writes in that interview account , “At one stage, the LTTE controlled almost one-third of Sri Lanka’s territory. It also fought the Indian army, when Indian soldiers occupying north-eastern Sri Lanka as part of an Indo-Sri Lanka peace accord reportedly committed human rights atrocities, including rape, while trying to disarm the guerillas between 1987 and 1990.”)

      Stand alone, the blurb can be put down to a publisher’s mistake in a publisher’s blurb. But taken together and looked at in the proper chronology, all the statements point to one inescapable reality. Niromi is not aware of the identity of her battle adversaries. If asked the question ‘who did you fight?’ she will answer ‘I (the LTTE) fought the IPKF as well as the Government Forces once the fighting started again after the signing of the peace accord.’

      Pointing to evidence that she talked a lot about the IPKF won’t show that she knew who she was fighting. Obviously she knew she was fighting the IPKF. ‘I (the LTTE) fought the IPKF as well as the Government Forces’ incorporates fighting the IPKF. It’s the presence of the government forces in her declarations about her fighting experiences that compromises her fatally.

      Finally what comes out is that, when she sat down to do research and write her novel, the books she read told her clearly about the IPKF but did not mention where the government forces were and what they were doing all this while. (Of course a real LTTE fighter or someone who was in Jaffna/wanni in the IPKF period would have known this straight away without any books.) So she was at a loss about what to do with the government forces.

      “um maybe I should just leave them around in the picture hanging in the background sort of. Might come in useful’

      And they did come in useful. In exposing her.

      As to the other ‘bright idea’ which seems to be brewing that the boat incident involving the capture of 17 tigers and their suicide can be construed to imply that the tigers were fighting both the IPKF and the government forces? Duh man. No one was fighting anyone in this incident. Patrolling navy captured some fleeing tigers, they were put in IPKF custody, Colombo wanted them brought there, LTTE shouted ‘what about amnesty huh?’ India was initially reluctant to hand over but finally ordered IPKF to back off and allow SL’s constitutional rights. The prisoners took cyanide on the tarmac where they were supposed to be transferred to an SL plane. The tigers were not fighting the IPKF as well as the SL forces here. The tigers were not yet fighting. Period. The tigers started fighting soon after. When they did they fought the IPKF, the whole IPKF and nothing but the IPKF. Any lack of awareness of this basic scenario points to lack of familiarity with context. Lack of fam with con has no place in the mental make up a former LTTE cadre. Hope you are enlightened now. I am tired but happy after my enlightening exercises

      • Rationalman

        Sigh!
        SR-TD,
        I know that you trying very hard at satire and humor. Keep up the good work, and like Robert the Bruce, you will get it right one of these days!

        I hope you understand the difference between a war and a battle. A number of battles, skirmishes, raids and what ever terms military historians use make a war. I hope you get the distinction.

        Niromi was referring to the War with the Sri Lankan Armed forces, not the battle. As an example, a soldier from the British Army who fought the Afrika Corps at El Alamein would be correct in saying that “I fought the Germans”. He would also be correct in saying that “we were at War with Japan”.

        Niromi does not say that “I” fought the Sri Lankan Army. “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

        As you said elsewhere (December 30, 2011 • 12:56 pm)
        “Early October 1987 a boat with 17 tigers is apprehended by SL Navy. the Navy’s right to patrol SL borders had not been /could not be restricted by the peace accord. SL government wants them in Colombo”.
        So the Sri Lankan Navy(which is part of the SL amed forces) in your own words conducted an hostile act against the LTTE cadre during the ceasefire. So by your own words, you admit that Niromi was right. (a word of advice, perhaps you should check what you write before pressing the submit button. You just made the argument for me by your carelessness. Thanks)

        Article 2.11 of the Indo Sri Lankan Accord of July 29, 1987, specifically mentions that (and I paraphrase) a general amnesty would be granted political and other prisoners held under PTA and other emergency laws AND TO COMBATANTS as well as PERSONS ACCUSED, CHARGED and/or CONVICTED under these laws etc. etc. etc.

        I hope that I have been able to get through to you.

        Happy New Year!

      • “Rational”man, when someone uses the term “we” it means “I and others”, not someone else unconnected to the interlocutor. Your example of the British soldier is also incorrect. Britain DID in fact fight Germany and Japan simultaneously. So if Niromi had said today that “we FOUGHT not only x but the y, too,” that could mean that they fought both entities at different times in the past war. But she writes “NOW we were FIGHTING not only x but y, too”, meaning that it was at the same time. So it is YOU that has shot down your own argument in flames. I understand that a less than complete grasp of the language can lead to this sort of incomprehension, so you trying to ridicule Prof Roberts on his lack of comprehension is pretty hilarious.

        Out of curiosity, why is it that in different parts of this same comments thread, you are making two contrary arguments? 😀 Up above you say that Niromi never referred to the SL Army. Yet here you acknowledge that she has, and that she meant it to be in two different time periods.

        So who does she mean by “government troops”, “Rational”man? You seem to want many questions answered, but are unwilling to answer those put to you.

    • Ken

      With the right context and background given in the DBS article, we can understand clearly the book Tamil tigress is a true. The article was published this morning http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3463

      Most of the so called critics fighting for the missing word ” Indian” in the … Government soldiers and continue with all sort of assumptions to support their claims. Interestingly Michael Robert never lived in Jaffna. I lived contemporary to Jaffna and understand the entire book with the right context.

    • Rationalman

      David you say…”

      Your example of the British soldier is also incorrect. Britain DID in fact fight Germany and Japan simultaneously” in response to my comment .”As an example, a soldier from the British Army who fought the Afrika Corps at El Alamein would be correct in saying that “I fought the Germans”. He would also be correct in saying that “we were at War with Japan.

      How can I be incorrect, when I clearly say “He would also be correct in saying that “we were at War with Japan”

      I know some of these “foreign concepts” gets you confused from time to time.

      Perhaps I should make it easier to understand with examples closer to home. Let’s say a player from the Havelocks rugby team (Niromi) , after a game against CR and FC (the IPKF, and the CR supporters please forgive me for using them as an example), says “I played against CR and FC” on Dec 23, 1987 at Longden Place.

      20 years later, if he says “during the 1987 season, WE (the Havvies squad) played CR AND the Police (Sri Lankan Armed Forces) for the Clifford Cup (the war)”, he would be right.

      You say “But she writes “NOW we were FIGHTING not only x but y, too”, meaning that it was at the same time”. Not really!

      This is the equivalent of the Havvies player saying , “during the 87 season, we were not only playing CR but the Police as well”.

      To think that the Havvies player meant that they were playing CR and Police at the very same game would be pedantic, especially if there is no proof that the Havvie player referred to a particular game.

      But then I should know that I cannot expect anything else from you, though I am optimistic!

      • Rationalman

        I know that your are going to say “but but but, the Police (Army team) was confined to the barracks so the Havvies player(Niromi) is wrong in saying that her team (LTTE) played the police. And herein lies your confusion!

        You admit elsewhere that “But the SL Navy wasn’t so required (to remain in port)”.January 6, 2012 • 11:02 am. Which is absolutely correct. Article 2.9 of the Indo Sri Lankan Accord of July 29, 1987 clearly states that. Article 2.16 (b) states “the Indian Navy will cooperate with the Sri Lankan Navy in preventing Tamil Militant Activities”.

        So the Police (Navy) team continue to did play the Havvies Squad (LTTE sans Niromi) on the high seas.

        As for the Amnesty…from Article 2.11 (I will paraphrase)
        “The President of the Government of Sri Lanka will grant a general amnesty to political and other prisoners now held under custody under the PTA and other Emergency Laws AND TO COMBATANTS as wll as persons accused, charged and /or convicted under these laws”.

        JN Dixit, the Indian High Commissioner at the time in his book, In His book, “Assignment Colombo”, (Chapter “Saboatge Begins” pages 208-211), the man you dismiss as “the Machiavellian ambassador of the country that sponsored Tamil separatism in SL is really someone worthy of reference when it comes to so-called SL “machinations””, states that Pulendran and Co were in clear violation of the accord for transporting a boat load of weapons”. And goes on to describe the machinations of Lalith Athulathmudali to undercut his President, “Jayawardne agreed to stop Lalit from bringing the LTTE cadres to Colombo” He asked me to tell the IPKF Commander to take over the custody of these cadres, while he was sending the insructions to Lalit in the matter”. Lalith anticipated my hurried return from Delhi to Colombo and the likelyhood of Jayawardne thwarting his plans to create a crisis and took perniciously pre-emptive action. He had sent the plane to Palaly Airbase on in the afternoon of October 4th or morning itself with the orders to Brig Jayaratne that he should forcibly move Pulendran and 16 other cadres to Colombo”.

        Now you can amd most probably will dismiss Indian High CommissionerJN Dixit’s first hand version as a tale of an indian Machiavelli. In that case I suggest that you provide proof from an equally important source.

        David, you have a habit of demanding proof, but when you dont like what is provided to you which I usually do with links or documentary , you dismiss them as unreliable without providing alternate sources, and then you start making childish insults. I am not sure if that comes from your upbringing or from the circles that you move in.

        Here is the concept of the burden of proof (from Wikipedia, where else, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) In public discourse

        “Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] the burden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions”

        And when I ask you a direct question, you reply “Ha ha however precise you may feel this question is, “Rational”man, it is an irrelevant one”.

        You claim to be an honest and independent commentator and you question my assertion that Dr. Roberts did not fully comprehend Niromi’s writing. Fair enough

        On the other hand, you do not question Dr. Roberts’ comparison of Niromi with well known fabricators, Norma Kouri and Helen Darville (aka,Helen Demidenko), even after it was proven that Niromi is who she was.

        You standby and let Dr. Roberts’ accuse DBS Jeyaraj in this thread, “Clouds of Deception: Jeyaraj anoints and cloaks Niromi Tigress”. DBSJ has shown you the courtesy of posting your articles, presumably at your request or at least with your express permission on his websites, Transcurrents.com and/or DBSjeyeraj.com so I assume that you at least respect the man and have faith in his motives.

        If you were truly independent as you claim you are, You do not think it would have been fair to question Dr. Robert’s characterization of DBSJ and his writing?

      • “How can I be incorrect, when I clearly say “He would also be correct in saying that “we were at War with Japan””

        It is an incorrect example because you are using an example of a simultaneous act to justify your claim of an act that wasn’t simultaneous. If you understood basic English grammar I would not have to explain this to you.

        “I know some of these “foreign concepts” gets you confused from time to time.”

        Not at all, I dislike attempts to create smoke clouds to engineer an escape when trapped. Your attempt at the British soldier is a good example of this lame tactic.

        “This is the equivalent of the Havvies player saying , “during the 87 season, we were not only playing CR but the Police as well”. To think that the Havvies player meant that they were playing CR and Police at the very same game would be pedantic, especially if there is no proof that the Havvie player referred to a particular game.”

        😀 Trying your hand at sports now, Rationalman? Oh dear. What wriggling. Unfortunately, you have had to insert the words “during the ’87 season,” to clarify the point of reference; something that Niromi does differently. Let me explain further. If she had said “during the 1980s”, and then proceeded to say she fought the IPKF as well as the SL Army, your example would be correct because, like Havvies playing CR and Police both in ’87, the Tigers did indeed fight both the IPKF and the SL Army. HOWEVER, what Niromi says is, “the war resumed just as Prabakharan predicted”, which is a very specific reference to a point in time, “Rational”man. WHEN did the war resume? It was in 1987. And the war didn’t resume THROUGHOUT 1987, but on a particular day in late 1987. So Niromi saying “the war resumed,” is the equivalent of the Havvies player saying “when the referee blew his whistle, we were playing not only CR but Police too,” which, as we all know, would be impossible. Thank you, once more, “Rational”man, for thoroughly demolishing your own argument and saving me the trouble.

        “But then I should know that I cannot expect anything else from you, though I am optimistic!”

        For you to expect more, you would have to know more, “Rational”man; just as for us to expect an alien lifeform to look a particular way would require us to have a knowledge of its habitat we do not possess. It is for this reason that I regularly urge you to educate yourself on the subject under discussion so that you would not make such an absolute fool of yourself.

        “As for the Amnesty…from Article 2.11 (I will paraphrase)
        “The President of the Government of Sri Lanka will grant a general amnesty to political and other prisoners now held under custody under the PTA and other Emergency Laws AND TO COMBATANTS as wll as persons accused, charged and /or convicted under these laws”.”

        Correct, but it doesn’t state that it would absolve all violators if they were to violate further laws or the Accord itself. Try again.

        “JN Dixit, the Indian High Commissioner at the time in his book, In His book, “Assignment Colombo”, (Chapter “Saboatge Begins” pages 208-211), the man you dismiss as “the Machiavellian ambassador of the country that sponsored Tamil separatism in SL is really someone worthy of reference when it comes to so-called SL “machinations””, states that Pulendran and Co were in clear violation of the accord for transporting a boat load of weapons”.”

        Exactly why the SL Navy were within their rights to arrest them.

        “Now you can amd most probably will dismiss Indian High CommissionerJN Dixit’s first hand version as a tale of an indian Machiavelli. In that case I suggest that you provide proof from an equally important source.”

        Proof of what? No one has contested the fact that Athulathmudali delayed handing over the prisoners to the IPKF. If VP had been patient, international diplomacy would eventually have won out and Athulathmudali would have handed over the prisoners. It’s hardly likely that he could have ferried them about indefinitely. Instead VP had cyanide smuggled to the prisoners to commit suicide and inflate the incident.

        “David, you have a habit of demanding proof, but when you dont like what is provided to you which I usually do with links or documentary , you dismiss them as unreliable without providing alternate sources, and then you start making childish insults. I am not sure if that comes from your upbringing or from the circles that you move in.”

        Lol, you flatter yourself into thinking that your sources are irrefutable; they are not. As above, you quote Dixit on an incident that we all know occurred. But what you quote him on is the subjective matter of whether Athulathmudali’s actions were machinations undertaken to scupper the Accord. This is Dixit’s opinion, not proof of motivation. So you see, your accusations about my upbringing, etc are irrelevant. The fact is, you are unable to substantiate your claims, yet whine about being victimized. Is that your upbringing, or result of the circle of diaspora whiners you hang out with? 🙂

        “Here is the concept of the burden of proof (from Wikipedia, where else, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) In public discourse”

        While congratulating you on your ability to Google the meaning of proof, I must ask you what your point is. You have asked me to prove that fighting between the Tigers and the SL military DID NOT happen. How can I prove something that did not happen? If it did not happen, there will be NO proof that. But if your claim is that there might have been such occurrences, then you most certainly must prove it, because if it occurred there will be proof of it.

        “After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions”

        As you have quoted, the common assumption in this case is that there was no fighting between the Tigers and the SL military. This has been established because no such fighting has been reported. So if you are now introducing the concept that there was such fighting, you must also provide the evidence to prove it.

        “And when I ask you a direct question, you reply “Ha ha however precise you may feel this question is, “Rational”man, it is an irrelevant one”.”

        It is irrelevant, “Rational”man. Relevancy cannot simply be wished upon it.

        “On the other hand, you do not question Dr. Roberts’ comparison of Niromi with well known fabricators, Norma Kouri and Helen Darville (aka,Helen Demidenko), even after it was proven that Niromi is who she was.”

        Where has Niromi been proven to be who she says she is (or was). We have only DBSJ’s word on that.

        “You standby and let Dr. Roberts’ accuse DBS Jeyaraj in this thread, “Clouds of Deception: Jeyaraj anoints and cloaks Niromi Tigress”. DBSJ has shown you the courtesy of posting your articles, presumably at your request or at least with your express permission on his websites, Transcurrents.com and/or DBSjeyeraj.com so I assume that you at least respect the man and have faith in his motives.”

        I have not “let” Prof Roberts do anything. It is a free world. As already explained to you, Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review. Therefore, since Roberts has been referred to by DBSJ, he has every right to also refer to DBSJ. My writing has been published on several websites, including Transcurrents, and while I certainly respect DBSJ and correspond with him often, that respect (which I believe is mutual) is not because he published some of my articles, but because of who he is. However, that respect doesn’t extend to blindly accepting everything he says or does. As for faith, what faith have we in the works of man? I have, however, questioned DBSJ on allowing barely literate commentators on his blog to ridicule and vilify Roberts in retaliation for some of the anti-DBSJ comments here on GV. Unfortunately, DBSJ hasn’t thought it necessary to publish my comments 😉

        “If you were truly independent as you claim you are, You do not think it would have been fair to question Dr. Robert’s characterization of DBSJ and his writing?”

        Perhaps you have mistaken me for Sir Galahad of the Internet who charges from one website to another righting wrongs and rescuing bloggers in distress. The only question I have at the moment is how someone who cannot comprehend simple English is taking it upon himself to correct the linguistic incomprehensions of Prof Roberts.

      • Rationalman

        Let’s try again………. “

        “Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] the burden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their position”.

        Assumed that both sides have agreed to a reasoned discourse ( and I hope you agree)
        …. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over .

        Lets decide on the common assumptions……

        So let me give you as list of common assumptions as I see them. Tell me if you agree and if you don’t, what do you need as proof? And do you have any assumptions that can be included in the list?

        1) Niromi is who she says she is.
        2) Niromi was a member of the LTTE
        3) Niromi was an LTTE cadre in 1987
        4) Niromi was involved in the December 23, skirmish with the IPKF.
        5) The Sri Lankan Army was confined to the barracks between October 1987 till the end of December 1987.
        6) The Sri Lankan Navy was not confined to port and still continued to patrol the seas around Sri Lanka.
        7) On October 3, 1987, the Sri Lankan Navy captured/arrested/apprehended LTTE Lt. Colonel Pulendran, Trincomalee District commander and his associates on the high seas with a cache of weapons.
        8) Lt Colonel Pulendran and his associates were not charged under the civilian penal code and handed over to the civilian law enforcement to be tried in civilian courts.
        9) Lt. Colonel Pulendran and his associates were taken in custody by the Sri Lankan Army and held at the Palaly Air Force base.
        10) As preparations were being made to transport, .Lt Colonel Pulendran and his associates on a Sri Lankan Air Force Plane, he and ten others committed suicide.

        Can we decide on the common assumptions before proceeding?

        I also would like you to answer my earlier questions

      • Rationalman

        David,

        you claim that “As already explained to you, Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review. Therefore, since Roberts has been referred to by DBSJ, he has every right to also refer to DBSJ.”

        I don’t think DBSJ has referred to Dr. Roberts’s review of Tamil Tigress in any of his four articles about Niromi on his website.

        Are there any other articles by DBSJ which I have missed, which refers to the Roberts “review”? Please explain again?
        ——————————————————————————————–
        David you ask “Where has Niromi been proven to be who she says she is (or was). We have only DBSJ’s word on that”.

        DBSJ has given names, dates, places and events. For example “As a student at Holy Family Convent (HFC)she had won awards for poetry in 1984 and 85 and also won a Jaffna district competition for Tamil poetry in 1985. She had also won a poetry award at Chundikuli Girls College(CGC) and published her poem in the College magazine.
        (from the latest article)

        After joining the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) formally the two friends Shenuka and Nirmala were lodged at the house of a widowed mother of three daughters by senior tiger leader Murali. This lady was an aunt of Bharathan Rajanayagam who was then in charge of the LTTE ‘s TV and photographic unit.

        Bharathan’s father Rajanayagam master was a respected progressive citizen of Jaffna. I have been to his house in Thirunelvely a few times in 1986 to visit HN Fernando the teachers trade union activist and brother in law of former JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera.HN was a friend and one of my earliest contacts from the time I was a reporter on the Tamil daily (the latest article)

        Why don’t you try to disprove these two statements? Chundkuli Girls School still exists and if the school is as good as it was (and yes I was a student in the in the prekindergaten/kindergarten in 1961 for a short while and fell in love with a little girl called Mohana, who became a nationally renowned dancer) they will have the College Magazine. Easy to verify isn’t it? Holy Family Convent will also have records of her, if she was real.

        How about putting some money where you mouth is and try disprove DBSJ?

        _____________________________________

        “Perhaps you have mistaken me for Sir Galahad of the Internet who charges from one website to another righting wrongs and rescuing bloggers in distress”

        Galahad has been described as

        “the best of Arthour’s Knights,
        Who should achieve the quest of the Sangrael
        Which only they shall see whose lives are pure.
        No bravery is such a virtue as the Graele may gain.”

        No, I don’t see you as the Sir Galahad of the Internet, not be a long shot

      • Let’s try again………. “

        Try as many times as you like 🙂

        “1) Niromi is who she says she is.”

        If you mean that she says she is a former member of the Tigers, where is the evidence of this, given that we don’t know what here real name is, and we have no images of her in the Tigers (as far as I know)?

        “2) Niromi was a member of the LTTE”

        See my response to point 1).

        “3) Niromi was an LTTE cadre in 1987”

        See my response to point 1).

        “4) Niromi was involved in the December 23, skirmish with the IPKF.”

        Except for the word of an anonymous author, we have no evidence of this.

        “5) The Sri Lankan Army was confined to the barracks between October 1987 till the end of December 1987.”

        The SL Army was confined to barracks during the entire period of the Accord, which was dissolved in 1989, not December 1987.

        “6) The Sri Lankan Navy was not confined to port and still continued to patrol the seas around Sri Lanka.”

        Correct.

        “7) On October 3, 1987, the Sri Lankan Navy captured/arrested/apprehended LTTE Lt. Colonel Pulendran, Trincomalee District commander and his associates on the high seas with a cache of weapons.
        Lt Colonel Pulendran and his associates were not charged under the civilian penal code and handed over to the civilian law enforcement to be tried in civilian courts.”

        Correct, because they committed suicide before they could be brought to Colombo and charged.

        “9) Lt. Colonel Pulendran and his associates were taken in custody by the Sri Lankan Army and held at the Palaly Air Force base.”

        Perhaps; though it is possible they were held by the SLAF.

        “10) As preparations were being made to transport, .Lt Colonel Pulendran and his associates on a Sri Lankan Air Force Plane, he and ten others committed suicide.”

        Correct.

        “Can we decide on the common assumptions before proceeding?”

        As you can see, we are only in agreement on three of your ten points. Perhaps you think “common assumptions” to literally mean assumptions 😀 They are not. Common assumptions are things that we take for granted and which are not disputed, and therefore don’t need proof to verify authenticity. Most of the above points do not fall into this category.

        “I also would like you to answer my earlier questions”

        I would like you to first answer my questions since I put them to you first.

        “I don’t think DBSJ has referred to Dr. Roberts’s review of Tamil Tigress in any of his four articles about Niromi on his website.”

        I suggest you reread DBSJ’s first article. Even if he doesn’t refer to Roberts by name, he makes it clear that his article was written because of the questioning of Niromi’s authenticity. Even if he had not done so, there is no reason why Roberts is forbidden from referring to DBSJ. If you take issue with that, you should address that to Prof Roberts instead of questioning his English comprehension.

        “DBSJ has given names, dates, places and events.”

        DBSJ has given no names, and the dates, places, and events are applicable to many other students from the same period. Without Niromi’s real name, they cannot be considered evidence.

        “Why don’t you try to disprove these two statements? How about putting some money where you mouth is and try disprove DBSJ?”

        Why should I attempt to do any such thing? Have I ever claimed that DBSJ is lying? Or even that Niromi isn’t who she says she is? 😀 If DBSJ claims that God spoke to him last night i a dream, why would I need to disprove that; and even if I needed to, how could I?

        “No, I don’t see you as the Sir Galahad of the Internet, not be a long shot”

        Then perhaps you should stop urging me to take up crusades on your behalf.

      • Rationalman

        David,
        Thanks for your reply!This is good stuff.

        “1) Niromi is who she says she is.”
        If you mean that she says she is a former member of the Tigers, where is the evidence of this, given that we don’t know what here real name is, and we have no images of her in the Tigers (as far as I know)?
        “2) Niromi was a member of the LTTE”
        See my response to point 1).
        “3) Niromi was an LTTE cadre in 1987?
        See my response to point 1).
        “4) Niromi was involved in the December 23, skirmish with the IPKF.”
        Except for the word of an anonymous author, we have no evidence of this.

        SO you do not know if Niromi is real or not, if she was a member of the LTTE in 1987 or she was involved in the December 23, 1987 skirmish with the LTTE.

        Most people including myself would agree with those sentiments.

        If someone was ignorant of Niromi’s story they have they have four choices of action, three of them logical and courteous.

        1) Ignore the topic and go on with their lives.
        2) Declare their ignorance, read the book and wait for someone like DBSJ to educate them with the facts and if the facts presented are incorrect, then disprove DBSJ
        3) Teach themselves about the subject by reading the book and and conduct their own investigation.
        4)Or like a monkey throw feces on the writer without reading the book or learning the first thing about her.

        And sadly you are not in the first three categories. Without reading the book and understanding the whole context, you pick one ambiguous line from a newspaper interview and have declared her a liar by repeating the line ” she does indeed claim to have fought both the peacekeepers and the government troops”, with being able to provide one single example of Niromi claiming that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the SL Armed Forces and/or had ever fired or been fired upon by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.

        I gave you an opportunity to prove or disprove the Chundukuli Girls School or the Rajanayagam story.

        And you weasel out by saying “Why should I attempt to do any such thing? Have I ever claimed that DBSJ is lying? Or even that Niromi isn’t who she says she is”.

        Then what are you saying? That you dont know? Isn’t it better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt?

        —————————————————

        I applaud your attempt at sarcasm…”If DBSJ claims that God spoke to him last night i a dream, why would I need to disprove that; and even if I needed to, how could I?”

        Are you implying that DBSJ, intentionally or unintentionally dreamed up the story and all the characters mentioned are as remote and as amorphous as god?

        ——————————————————

        I suggest you reread DBSJ’s first article. Even if he doesn’t refer to Roberts by name, he makes it clear that his article was written because of the questioning of Niromi’s authenticity.

        This is what DBSJ has said about his series of articles (I quote) from the 4th installemnt about Niromi.(January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am)

        I have already stated clearly that these articles are neither responses to “critics” or a book review. I am only writing what I know about her with some background and context.

        ……It is up to the readers to make comparisions and draw their own conclusions

        Did DBSJ tell you something else privately?

      • “And sadly you are not in the first three categories. Without reading the book and understanding the whole context, you pick one ambiguous line from a newspaper interview and have declared her a liar by repeating the line ” she does indeed claim to have fought both the peacekeepers and the government troops”, with being able to provide one single example of Niromi claiming that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the SL Armed Forces and/or had ever fired or been fired upon by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.”

        First of all, can you point out where I have called Niromi a liar, or indeed attempted to throw feces (or anything else) at her writing? Isn’t it YOU who is the liar for claiming such a thing? It is not I who picked out the line (a line which is anything but ambiguous to anyone who can read plain English), but you. It was YOU who contested Prof Roberts understanding of the line. It is YOUR arrogance and stupidity that I take issue with, “Rational”man; not Niromi’s nor DBSJ’s, both of whom have excellent writing skills and understanding of language; unlike you. So please don’t attempt to weasel out of this disagreement between you and me and attempt to show it to be an attack by myself on Niromi.

        “I gave you an opportunity to prove or disprove the Chundukuli Girls School or the Rajanayagam story.”

        But why do I need to prove the above since I have not claimed it, nor disprove it since I have not contested it?

        “And you weasel out by saying “Why should I attempt to do any such thing? Have I ever claimed that DBSJ is lying? Or even that Niromi isn’t who she says she is”.”

        Why do you keep calling me a weasel when this entire debate is based on the fact that you cannot understand English? If you did, this matter would never have come up 😀 I repeat, where have I claimed that DBSJ is lying or that Niromi is? I have merely pointed out to you (since you asked) that there is no evidence that they are being factual.

        “Then what are you saying? That you dont know? Isn’t it better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt?”

        Again, if you could comprehend English, I would not have to explain to you what I am saying. As for fools, it is you that has cleared up all doubt on your status as one by trying to teach Prof Roberts what you yourself haven’t the basic grasp of. Of course we don’t know whether it is the truth or not. There is no evidence of it. Are you someone who imagines that a fact is something someone claims it to be? 😀

        Since your twisting and turning have led you to the point where you no longer even know where this debate began, let me remind you: You accused Prof Roberts of not understanding what Niromi said in the Daily Telegraph interview, and you then proceeded to give your own absurd and illiterate understanding of it. I corrected you and pointed out what the sentence means and how it is inaccurate for historical reasons. If you then want to deduce that since that claim by Niromi is inaccurate (and it is inaccurate), that she is therefore a liar, that is your problem. Please don’t accuse me of things I haven’t done.

        “I applaud your attempt at sarcasm…”If DBSJ claims that God spoke to him last night i a dream, why would I need to disprove that; and even if I needed to, how could I?” Are you implying that DBSJ, intentionally or unintentionally dreamed up the story and all the characters mentioned are as remote and as amorphous as god?”

        Again, you are superimposing your own beliefs on me and attempting to come to an analysis thereby. This is, in plain language, stupid. Perhaps God is remote and amorphous to you, and therefore you think that is my meaning, and that therefore I am implying that DBSJ is dreaming. Once more, it is your own opinions that give you this deduction, and not my words. My point is that there is no way to prove or disprove what DBSJ says until we ourselves have satisfied ourselves beyond doubt that God (or Niromi-the-ex-Tiger) is real.

        “This is what DBSJ has said about his series of articles (I quote) from the 4th installemnt about Niromi.(January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am)”

        I suggested you reread DBSJ’s first article, not what he says in his fourth article about his first article. Is even simple English now beyond you?

        “I have already stated clearly that these articles are neither responses to “critics” or a book review. I am only writing what I know about her with some background and context.……It is up to the readers to make comparisions and draw their own conclusions”

        And we have made our comparisons and drawn our conclusions; in your case, inaccurately.

        “Did DBSJ tell you something else privately?”

        What business is it of yours what DBSJ did or did not communicate to me privately?

      • Rationalman

        Ahh David,

        you say “It was YOU who contested Prof Roberts understanding of the line. It is YOUR arrogance and stupidity that I take issue with, “Rational”man; not Niromi’s nor DBSJ’s, both of whom have excellent writing skills and understanding of language”.

        So the issue was not Niromi’s statements?

        It was little meek mousy Rationalman’s arrogance and stupidity that awoke the slumbering knight in shining armor in you? Because I had the temerity to question Dr. Roberts?

        So you took it upon yourself to defend (fair or dark as the case may be) Dr. Roberts’ honor and charged at me with your trusty pen, like Sir Galahad of the Roundtable? I am truly honored!

        ———————————————————–

        David you ask “First of all, can you point out where I have called Niromi a liar, or indeed attempted to throw feces (or anything else) at her writing?”

        In response to my comment on January 6, 2012 • 9:18 am ,“And then the hysterical cry went out “Niromi lies, because she could not have fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces because they were confined to the barracks.”

        And you replied on January 6, 2012 • 11:17 am Nothing hysterical about it It was impossible indeed for a Tiger to have claimed to have fought the SL military in 1987-89

        What did you mean by “ there was nothing hysterical it It was impossible indeed for a Tiger to have claimed to have fought the SL military in 1987-1989? ” in response to my comment then A hysterical cry went out “Niromi lies”.

        Or was there another case of hysteria that was referred to in that particular thread?

        ________________________________________________________

        I said, “This is what DBSJ has said about his series of articles (I quote) from the 4th installment about Niromi.(January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am)
        And you replied I suggested you reread DBSJ’s first article, not what he says in his fourth article about his first article. Is even simple English now beyond you?

        The first installment was posted on 9 December 2011, 4:56 pm. DBSJ’s comments on the 4th installment was posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am which is almost a month after the first installment. Surely the later statement should be the definitive one?

        Even if there is some dispute about that, DBSJ refers to his first installment (the very same one you have also referred to ) in the 2nd installment thread where he states(December 30, 2011 at 7:00 pm?

        “Thank you for this Ken but I must reiterate that I am not reviewing the book or responding to critics. I have no need to do that and have stated so in the first article. I am only writing the facts I know about the author of the “Tamil Tigress” and providing some context and background in relating some of her experiences”.

        Are you now saying that DBSJ is confused or is lying?

        And you ask “What business is it of yours what DBSJ did or did not communicate to me privately?

        Of course it’s not my business, I only ask since you seem to imply multiple times that he was referring to the Roberts article and DBSJ is categorically and publicly denied twice that he is not responding to critics .

        So who is right? You or DBSJ?
        ——————————————

        My point is that there is no way to prove or disprove what DBSJ says until we ourselves have satisfied ourselves beyond doubt that God (or Niromi-the-ex-Tiger) is real.

        What kind of proof do you need to accept that Niromi is real? And while you are at it, what kind of proof do you need to accept that god is real? Perhaps you could develop and share with us a common set of evaluation criteria?

        Thanks

      • “So the issue was not Niromi’s statements?”

        For me, no, it was never the issue. I have never claimed anywhere that Niromi is a fraud or a fake or a liar or anything else. I have no idea if what she claims to be is true or not, anymore than I know if anything you say about yourself is true. You are both anonymous.

        “It was little meek mousy Rationalman’s arrogance and stupidity that awoke the slumbering knight in shining armor in you? Because I had the temerity to question Dr. Roberts?”

        You may amuse yourself with as many adjectives as you wish, but yes (and I have already explained this to you several days ago), I took issue with the fact that though you have a very poor grasp of English, you attempt to ridicule Prof Roberts’ grasp of the language. The point isn’t that I am defending Roberts, but opposing your attempt to change the meaning of a sentence simply because it doesn’t fit with your opinion. The fact is that Niromi’s claim is inaccurate; and no attempt by you to rewrite history or change the English language will make the sentence accurate.

        “So you took it upon yourself to defend (fair or dark as the case may be) Dr. Roberts’ honor and charged at me with your trusty pen, like Sir Galahad of the Roundtable? I am truly honored!”

        I took it upon myself to comment, just as you took it upon yourself to comment, and as dozens of other commentators here have taken it upon themselves to comment. All your melodrama about knights and honour is quite unnecessary.

        “What did you mean by “ there was nothing hysterical it It was impossible indeed for a Tiger to have claimed to have fought the SL military in 1987-1989? ” in response to my comment then A hysterical cry went out “Niromi lies”.”

        I meant exactly what I said, that there was nothing hysterical about the claim that she is lying. It is based on the fact that her claim is inaccurate. So to call Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation. However, I haven’t made that accusation, as your inability to quote me saying so evidences.

        “Or was there another case of hysteria that was referred to in that particular thread?”

        Most of your theories in this thread are most certainly hysterical; hysterically funny, in fact.

        “The first installment was posted on 9 December 2011, 4:56 pm. DBSJ’s comments on the 4th installment was posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am which is almost a month after the first installment. Surely the later statement should be the definitive one?”

        How so? Are you under the impression that the fourth installment is actually the fourth edition of the first installment?

        “Are you now saying that DBSJ is confused or is lying?”

        I have no idea if DBSJ is confused or is lying.

        The point is that this debate over DBSJ’s motives is a sideshow to the real debate. I have already told you that if you take issue with Roberts’ opinion that DBSJ is referring to him, then you should address that to Roberts and not to me. I see no problem with Roberts referring to DBSJ. But if you have a problem with that, I will not contest your right to that opinion. So why don’t we move on?

        “What kind of proof do you need to accept that Niromi is real?”

        I would need to see photographic evidence of her in Tiger uniform in 1987, or documentary evidence of her on a Tiger document, or eyewitness statements corroborating her claims. If you refer to the British author Andy McNab (a pseudonym), you will find that there is plenty of evidence of the fact that he is in fact a former member of the SAS and that he did what he claims in his autobiographical books. Similar evidence will put all doubts to rest. However, I repeat, I have never claimed that Niromi wasn’t a Tiger, etc. I just don’t know.

        “And while you are at it, what kind of proof do you need to accept that god is real? Perhaps you could develop and share with us a common set of evaluation criteria?”

        Religion doesn’t require proof; just faith.

      • Rationalman

        David, you say.
        I would need to see photographic evidence of her in Tiger uniform in 1987, or documentary evidence of her on a Tiger document, or eyewitness statements corroborating her claims.

        I believe that is what DBSJ is doing now . Why don’t you do the decent thing by read the book, and wait till DBSJ completes the series of articles before declaring “I meant exactly what I said, that there was nothing hysterical about the claim that she is lying. It is based on the fact that her claim is inaccurate. So to call Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation”.

        As for the documentary eveidence about Niromi, how would you know that a picture of her in a Tiger uniform was not photo shopped or any documentary evidence from the LTTE archives is authentic. You in the past you have refused to accept documentary evidence that did not suit your narrative. Why would you start now?

        DBSJ is publishing eyewitness statements. At least some of it is verifiable like the documentation from her schools. I personally have talked to some friends and relatives who used to live down Somasundaram Lane and Kacheri East lane in Chudukuli , who knew “Niromi” as a girl and have confirmed her schooling and her recruitment into the LTTE. If I can verify this information from thousands of miles away with a couple of emails with people I have known all their lives, surely you can prove or disprove it from a distance of 250 miles?
        ———————————–
        What kind of proof do you need to accept that Niromi is real? And while you are at it, what kind of proof do you need to accept that god is real? Perhaps you could develop and share with us a common set of evaluation criteria?
        Religion doesn’t require proof; just faith.
        Yes, the story of Niromi requires proof, Religion just faith.

        That is with was inappropriate for you declare “My point is that there is no way to prove or disprove what DBSJ says until we ourselves have satisfied ourselves beyond doubt that God (or Niromi-the-ex-Tiger) is real.”
        —————————-

        If you refer to the British author Andy McNab (a pseudonym), you will find that there is plenty of evidence of the fact that he is in fact a former member of the SAS and that he did what he claims in his autobiographical books

        I am glad you are finally providing some documentary evidence to support your assertions. However you very well know, the British MOD does not publicly acknowledge the activities of the SAS, or it the identity of its soldiers, unless they are deceased. His real name is not known to anyone.

        While the MOD did approve the publication of “Mcnab”’s book “ Bravo Two Zero and and his alleged fellow team member “Chris Ryan’s book “The One That Got Away”, the MOD also approved the publication of another team member “Mike Coburn”’s “Soldier Five” which in certain areas contradicts “the MCNab” and “Ryan” versions of the “Truth”.

        You must be also aware that Michael Asher (not a pseudonym. who also wrote highly regarded history of the SAS) , a former soldier, author and explorer went back and interviewed eyewitneses retraced the mission and of the Bravo Two Zero mission , and wrote a book called “the Real Bravo Two Zero” which severely contradicted the assertions mad e by “Mcnab” and “Ryan”.

        Unless you were personally involved with the SAS and or Andy McNab, you are depending on the writings of third parties some of them contradictory.

        I assume that you have read the Coburn and Asher books and accepted the McNab’s tale with all the contradictions, some of it much, much more severe that Niromi’s ambiguous line.

        On the other hand you have a lot more info to go in the case of Niromi’s story. But you get stuck pedantically stuck on the line “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

        You are unwilling to verify the easily verifiable, refuse to accept or even challenge the investigative writings of a very highly regarded journalist , publicly state that “I meant exactly what I said, that there was nothing hysterical about the claim that she is lying. It is based on the fact that her claim is inaccurate. So to call Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation” , refuse evaluate documentary evidence that does not suit your narrative, answer precise questions and what worst of all, are unable to provide documentary proof other than a couple of ambiguous lines from a radio and another TV interview, without taking the full interviews in context.

        Your fans in Colombo must be mighty disappointed!
        ———————————

        David Blacker January 12, 2012 • 2:03 pm I meant exactly what I said, that there was nothing hysterical about the claim that she is lying. It is based on the fact that her claim is inaccurate. So to call Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation. However, I haven’t made that accusation, as your inability to quote me saying so evidences.

        You are now telling me that there is nothing wrong about the claim that she is lying because you know for a fact that her claim is inaccurate and have publicly declared that calling Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation. So you publicly supported others when they called, Niromi a liar, but you just didn’t do it. Is that your story?

        And you cite “Andy NcNab” as an example? Seriously?

        —————————
        I said “The first installment was posted on 9 December 2011, 4:56 pm. DBSJ’s comments on the 4th installment was posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:01 am which is almost a month after the first installment. Surely the later statement should be the definitive one?”

        And you retort “How so? Are you under the impression that the fourth installment is actually the fourth edition of the first installment?”

        Very nice effort to weasel out! But I will explain again. The fourth installment is not fourth edition of the first installment, surely if you had read the articles on Niromi, you would or should know that.
        The four parts cover different time periods. Perhaps you should read the articles before commenting on Niromi.

        In any event, the DBSJ comments were not part of the installments, but comments in response to reader postings. That is why I specifically stated “Even if there is some dispute about that, DBSJ refers to his first installment (the very same one you have also referred to ) in the 2nd installment thread where he states(December 30, 2011 at 7:00 pm)

        DBSJ says ““Thank you for this Ken but I must reiterate that I am not reviewing the book or responding to critics. I have no need to do that and have stated so in the first article. I am only writing the facts I know about the author of the “Tamil Tigress” and providing some context and background in relating some of her experiences”.

        Again, I would happy to explain to you…These comments (from the 2nd and 4th installments threads) I refer to were posted in response to reader observations, which even you should know could have occurred after DBSJ posted each installment, that is after December 9. 2012.

        I asked you “Are you now saying that DBSJ is confused or is lying?”

        I have no idea if DBSJ is confused or is lying.

        You have reiterated twice that DBSJ reviewed Roberts’ review and the third time, referred to earlier assertion. I have listed your assertions below. .
        It is a free world. As already explained to you, Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review. Therefore, since Roberts has been referred to by DBSJ, he has every right to also refer to DBSJ.
        I suggest you reread DBSJ’s first article. Even if he doesn’t refer to Roberts by name, he makes it clear that his article was written because of the questioning of Niromi’s authenticity. Even if he had not done so, there is no reason why Roberts is forbidden from referring to DBSJ. If you take issue with that, you should address that to Prof Roberts instead of questioning his English comprehension.
        I suggested you reread DBSJ’s first article, not what he says in his fourth article about his first article. Is even simple English now beyond you?

        And now when confronted DBSJ’s clear and ambiguous assertion that I am not reviewing the book or responding to critics. I have no need to do that and have stated so in the first article , you weasel out by saying I have no idea if DBSJ is confused or is lying. .

        The man who was so stubbornly asserted that DBSJ referred to reviewed Roberts’ and asked “. Is even simple English now beyond you?” now backs off by saying I have no idea if DBSJ is confused or is lying. .

        And now Blacker says “So why don’t we move on?” , because for once, unlike Gamini Dissanayake, or JN Dixit and so many others who not present among us or taking part in the debate, we have a person who can call you out on your assertion that he reviewed the Roberts’ article if he chooses.

        So you do not want to challenge the man, unlike the late Gamini Dissanayake ,who cannot defend the Blacker charge that he was duped..

        Do you still insist that “As already explained to you, Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review.”? If you do, what is the basis for your declaration that “Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review”, when DBSJ has unambiguously declared that that I am not reviewing the book or responding to critics at least twice.

        .———————————————————————-
        You often call others illiterate. (ex. I have, however, questioned DBSJ on allowing barely literate commentators on his blog). I would like to know about the educational credentials of the man who calls others illiterate. Can you share with us?
        ——————————————————————-

        You say I have, however, questioned DBSJ on allowing barely literate commentators on his blog to ridicule and vilify Roberts in retaliation for some of the anti-DBSJ comments here on GV. Unfortunately, DBSJ hasn’t thought it necessary to publish my comments January 9, 2012 • 3:52 pm

        DBSJ doesn’t seem to have a problem with an open discussion about Niromi and still is posting material from all sides including Gotabya Rajapakse. I can only surmise that he has refused to publish your comments because he has tightened his quality control standards.

      • “I believe that is what DBSJ is doing now . Why don’t you do the decent thing by read the book, and wait till DBSJ completes the series of articles before declaring “I meant exactly what I said, that there was nothing hysterical about the claim that she is lying. It is based on the fact that her claim is inaccurate. So to call Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation”.”

        DBSJ Has neither done, nor is doing, any such thing. DBSJ is telling a story that may or may not be true. He has published no photos, cited no named witnesses, nor provided any documentary evidence. I have no problem waiting for DBSJ to finish, but your question was on what evidence was required. I have told you. Reading Niromi’s book will happen when I have the time (I have a backlog of books I am more interested in right now), but that won’t change my opinion, because I have never claimed that Niromi is lying. Have YOU read her book? you claim not to have, so shouldn’t you do so before swearing by her? Her claim IS inaccurate; there is no doubt about that. She has compounded this by claiming in radio interviews to have fought the SL Army (OTC has given you the exact quote, link, and time). You may assume for yourself if this is a lie, a mistake, or delusion. What is undisputed (except by you) is that she has made the claim. DBSJ avoids addressing this issue.

        “As for the documentary eveidence about Niromi, how would you know that a picture of her in a Tiger uniform was not photo shopped or any documentary evidence from the LTTE archives is authentic. You in the past you have refused to accept documentary evidence that did not suit your narrative. Why would you start now?”

        Such manipulation is always possible; but first let’s at least see an attempt to substantiate before we claim forgery. You cannot say “oh you won’t believe us anyway, so let’s not bother with proof.” You have to at least try. I have never refused to accept documentary evidence, though I am yet to see you provide any. A documented opinion, is not documented proof 😀

        “DBSJ is publishing eyewitness statements. At least some of it is verifiable like the documentation from her schools. I personally have talked to some friends and relatives who used to live down Somasundaram Lane and Kacheri East lane in Chudukuli , who knew “Niromi” as a girl and have confirmed her schooling and her recruitment into the LTTE.”

        WHO is “Niromi”? An eyewitness statement about an anonymous person is of no use. It’s like someone coming on here and saying I know “Rationalman”. Pseudonym’s do not exist, and can only be corroborated if unambiguously connected to a confirmed event. Andy McNab’s first book, Bravo Two Zero was about a famous incident, and it mentioned actual people, by name, who were involved. So the fact that he was in fact the commander of the mission was easily verifiable, because there were no two such incidents. Whereas there may have been many “Niromi”-like characters who went to the same school, joined the Tigers at the same time, and so on. She has to be connected to an undisputed time and place in history, or her real name has to be revealed, or a real image must be revealed.

        “If I can verify this information from thousands of miles away with a couple of emails with people I have known all their lives, surely you can prove or disprove it from a distance of 250 miles?”

        What have you verifed for me to disprove? 😀

        “That is with was inappropriate for you declare “My point is that there is no way to prove or disprove what DBSJ says until we ourselves have satisfied ourselves beyond doubt that God (or Niromi-the-ex-Tiger) is real.””

        How is it inappropriate, since we have no idea if Niromi or God exists? If we knew God existed, we would require proof that He had spoken to DBSJ, or proof that He regularly spoke to people. Same goes for Niromi.

        “Rational”man, have you now abandoned all attempts to prove Niromi’s claims accurate, and are now struggling to save face by suggesting my statements about DBSJ, Dixit, the Dissanayakes (all people YOU introduced to this debate to prove YOUR absurd claims) are “inappropriate”. You are a pathetic man, “Rational”man 😀

        “I am glad you are finally providing some documentary evidence to support your assertions. However you very well know, the British MOD does not publicly acknowledge the activities of the SAS, or it the identity of its soldiers, unless they are deceased. His real name is not known to anyone.”

        What assertions have I made for which the above is evidence? I simply used McNab as an example of how the claims of an anonymous author can be verified. McNab’s name is certainly known to people (including other former SAS writers), and his activities recorded in Bravo Two Zero have been acknowledged by the British MoD who awarded him a medal for it. It is a simple matter to look up the public records for the medal citation and compare the dates to those of the Bravo 2-0 patrol to arrive at McNab’s real name. McNab (unlike Chris Ryan, author of The One that Got Away) persists in the silliness of hiding his face, mostly as a publicity stunt. Ryan (also a pseudonym) appears publicly without any of the melodrama.

        “While the MOD did approve the publication of “Mcnab”’s book “ Bravo Two Zero and and his alleged fellow team member “Chris Ryan’s book “The One That Got Away”, the MOD also approved the publication of another team member “Mike Coburn”’s “Soldier Five” which in certain areas contradicts “the MCNab” and “Ryan” versions of the “Truth”.”

        Even Ryan contradicts McNab, but my point isn’t whether what McNab said was true or not, but whether what he said could be corroborated or not. In his case, this is mostly possible because the incident was a well-known event.

        “You must be also aware that Michael Asher (not a pseudonym. who also wrote highly regarded history of the SAS) , a former soldier, author and explorer went back and interviewed eyewitneses retraced the mission and of the Bravo Two Zero mission , and wrote a book called “the Real Bravo Two Zero” which severely contradicted the assertions mad e by “Mcnab” and “Ryan”.”

        See my previous comment. Have you now abandoned Niromi in order to discuss McNab and salvage some dignity?

        “Unless you were personally involved with the SAS and or Andy McNab, you are depending on the writings of third parties some of them contradictory.”

        Not at all. No one (not Ryan, Coburn, nor Asher) has disputed the fact that McNab was an SAS sergeant and commander of Bravo 2-0, nor the basic premise — ie that his small SAS patrol was ambushed, some were killed, some captured, and one escaped. They have disputed some of the events and details. In Niromi’s case, there has to be substantiation of her basic claim — that she was in fact a Tiger, that she saw combat. Once this is done, there may be further corroboration or dispute of the details such as whether she saw combat against the SL military, actually shot and killed people, etc. First things first, “Rational”man.

        “I assume that you have read the Coburn and Asher books and accepted the McNab’s tale with all the contradictions, some of it much, much more severe that Niromi’s ambiguous line.”

        Yes, I have read all three books, plus a couple more from Asher and McNab. I have accepted what isn’t disputed, and accepted the rest as disputed. In Niromi’s case, there is neither corroboration nor dispute by other eyewitnesses of her basic premise, that she was a Tiger and saw combat. DBSJ is not an eyewitness, nor has he claimed to be, so what he writes is second-hand.

        “On the other hand you have a lot more info to go in the case of Niromi’s story. But you get stuck pedantically stuck on the line “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.””

        What is this info? We have claims by DBSJ based on so-called eyewitnesses who never say they are talking about “Niromi” because we do not know who Niromi is. Is there any eyewitness statements of Niromi in combat? If you wish to call my response to your accusation of Prof Roberts pedantic, go ahead. The fact is, you have failed miserably to substantiate the claim you made, have rambled on from rugby to the iron guard to everything else under the sun, yet call me pedantic for insisting you substantiate the one claim you made; ie that Roberts hasn’t comprehended the sentence you comprehend differently.

        “You are unwilling to verify the easily verifiable,”

        What are these “easily verifiable” facts, and why should I verify what you cannot?

        refuse to accept or even challenge the investigative writings of a very highly regarded journalist ,”

        However highly regarded a journalist may be, journalism requires verifiable facts, not unsubstantiated stories. But on that point, how is it that you refuse to accept the opinion of a very highly regarded academic over your uninformed and largely illiterate grasp of the English language?

        “publicly state that “I meant exactly what I said, that there was nothing hysterical about the claim that she is lying. It is based on the fact that her claim is inaccurate. So to call Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation” ,”

        Should I say one thing publicly, and another privately? 😀 The fact is that her claim is inaccurate, and impossible to substantiate. To therefore suspect her of lying is not unreasonable at all. To however opine that Prof Roberts is illiterate is in fact hysterical.

        “refuse evaluate documentary evidence that does not suit your narrative,”

        What documentary evidence have you provided to substantiate Niromi’s claim of having fought the SL military?

        “answer precise questions”

        I have told you that I will answer any questions I already haven’t once you have answered the questions first put to you.

        “and what worst of all, are unable to provide documentary proof other than a couple of ambiguous lines from a radio and another TV interview, without taking the full interviews in context.”

        If you will not accept the radio and TV interviews (in which Niromi is heard and seen to claim she fought the SL military), what do you consider documentary evidence? 😀 Also, what is ambiguous about what she says (this is one of the questions you have ducked for weeks) and which part of the interview gives a different context to her claim of having fought the SL military?

        “Your fans in Colombo must be mighty disappointed!”

        If I have fans, I think they are intelligent enough to see that you are a fool struggling to save face, and nothing more.

        “You are now telling me that there is nothing wrong about the claim that she is lying because you know for a fact that her claim is inaccurate and have publicly declared that calling Niromi a liar would be a reasoned accusation. So you publicly supported others when they called, Niromi a liar, but you just didn’t do it. Is that your story?”

        We all know for a fact that her claim is inaccurate; you have failed to prove it accurate. I disputed your suggestion that to claim Niromi a liar is hysterical. I do not support anyone. I am merely explaining to you in short words that you can understand that it is reasonable to call her a liar, even though I myself haven’t.

        “And you cite “Andy NcNab” as an example? Seriously?”

        I cited McNab as an example of an anonymous writer who’s bona fides have been established in spite of his anonymity. If you did not accept this example seriously, why did you try to dispute it above?

        Very nice effort to weasel out! But I will explain again. The fourth installment is not fourth edition of the first installment, surely if you had read the articles on Niromi, you would or should know that.
        The four parts cover different time periods. Perhaps you should read the articles before commenting on Niromi.”

        You seem to be stuck on the word weaseling 😀 It is precisely because the four parts cover four different periods that your claim that something said in a subsequent part can change the attributes of the first part. For that to be so, the subsequent parts would have to be improved editions of the first part. Which is why I asked you to read the first part and respond; instead, you read the second part and responded. I have read all the articles myself. Do you have any further points?

        “In any event, the DBSJ comments were not part of the installments, but comments in response to reader postings. That is why I specifically stated “Even if there is some dispute about that, DBSJ refers to his first installment (the very same one you have also referred to ) in the 2nd installment thread where he states(December 30, 2011 at 7:00 pm)”

        Which is why I said, even if DBSJ was not referring to Roberts, I see no problem with Roberts referring to DBSJ. It’s a free world, and if you take issue with it, you should take it up with Roberts instead of questioning his English comprehension.

        “And now when confronted DBSJ’s clear and ambiguous assertion that I am not reviewing the book or responding to critics. I have no need to do that and have stated so in the first article , you weasel out by saying I have no idea if DBSJ is confused or is lying.”

        I have not commented on any comments made by DBSJ or others, except for you in this thread. I believe DBSJ wrote his piece in response to the criticisms leveled by Roberts and the others. If you want to get some juvenile pleasure out of picking a fight between me and DBSJ to cover your own humiliation, I’m afraid you must look elsewhere 😀

        “The man who was so stubbornly asserted that DBSJ referred to reviewed Roberts’ and asked “. Is even simple English now beyond you?” now backs off by saying I have no idea if DBSJ is confused or is lying. .”

        Let me reword that: I am not interested in calling DBSJ names so that you will have something to argue about and cover your “weaseling” out of calling Prof Roberts illiterate.

        “And now Blacker says “So why don’t we move on?” , because for once, unlike Gamini Dissanayake, or JN Dixit and so many others who not present among us or taking part in the debate, we have a person who can call you out on your assertion that he reviewed the Roberts’ article if he chooses.”

        Well it was you that brought up Gamini Dissanayake, full-well knowing he couldn’t dispute your claims. So it’s a bit lame to now accuse me of anything except disputing your claims. DBSJ is free to call me out on anything he pleases, either here or privately — if he is interested. I said we should move on, because none of this has anything to do with Niromi’s claim to have fought the SL military? Or are you claiming that DBSJ has confirmed her claim? 😀

        “So you do not want to challenge the man, unlike the late Gamini Dissanayake ,who cannot defend the Blacker charge that he was duped..”

        You remind me of the classroom wimp who runs from one big boy to another whispering “David called you a bad name”, or “DBSJ said you’re a rogue”. 😀 YOU “Rational”man are the liar and the rogue in this forum, hiding behind DBSJ now because you cannot substantiate your claims. Is this what you were taught in the boyscouts? Lol

        “Do you still insist that “As already explained to you, Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review.”? If you do, what is the basis for your declaration that “Roberts reviewed a book, and DBSJ then reviewed Roberts’ review”, when DBSJ has unambiguously declared that that I am not reviewing the book or responding to critics at least twice.”

        I have not changed my opinion on this? Are you still insisting that Niromi fought the SL Military, and that everyone else is wrong in their analysis of history; or are you still insisting that she didn’t say it and that Prof Roberts is illiterate? Since you have made both claims here, could you clarify where you now stand? 😉

        “You often call others illiterate. (ex. I have, however, questioned DBSJ on allowing barely literate commentators on his blog). I would like to know about the educational credentials of the man who calls others illiterate. Can you share with us?”

        Since you have first accused Prof Roberts of illiteracy in English, shouldn’t you first share your educational qualifications? As for me, whenever you have asked me for personal info in the past, I have explained that I am not in the habit of divulging personal info to anonymous trolls on the internet. What makes you think I would start now?

        “DBSJ doesn’t seem to have a problem with an open discussion about Niromi and still is posting material from all sides including Gotabya Rajapakse. I can only surmise that he has refused to publish your comments because he has tightened his quality control standards.”

        You may continue to base your opinions on assumptions if you wish, but if you had been paying attention, you would know that my comment to DBSJ wasn’t about Niromi, but about some of the comments appearing on his blog.

      • Rationalman

        “I have told you. Reading Niromi’s book will happen when I have the time (I have a backlog of books I am more interested in right now)”.

        Oh, David, David, David, I am sorry that I seem to have taken so of your time.

        Don’t you think that all this time spent responding to poor insignificant Rationalman could have been better used for enriching your mind that for venting your spleen?

      • “Oh, David, David, David, I am sorry that I seem to have taken so of your time. Don’t you think that all this time spent responding to poor insignificant Rationalman could have been better used for enriching your mind that for venting your spleen?”

        My mind is constantly enriched, both by books and other means. Perhaps it is self-flattery that makes you think I have devoted a significant amount of time to you. I believe you mention this particular delusion at the tail-end of every one of our discussions, perhaps to convince yourself that you have had some effect after weeks of fruitless meandering 🙂 I assure you that I have not diverted more time or energy than I would have to the court jester.

        Should we take it that you have no further response to my previous comment? Predictably pathetic.

      • Rationalman

        David, I am honored when you say “I assure you that I have not diverted more time or energy than I would have to the court jester”.

        If someone knowledgeable compared me to a “court jester”, my poor feelings may been hurt.

        But you are such a well read fellow and would be aware of the traditional image of the court jester in literature and history. With your knowledge of the English language, you certainly would have come across many literary allusions to that character, like in William Shakespeare’s “King Lear”.

        Thank you.

      • Rationalman

        David
        Correction
        If someone knowledgeable compared me to a “court jester”, my poor feelings may been hurt

        Should read If someone less knowledgeable compared me to a “court jester”, my poor feelings may been hurt

        The sounds mean spirited and it was not my intention.

      • I had underestimated your capacity for self flattery when I used the term “court jester”; perhaps I should have said “village idiot” instead.

      • Rationalman

        I had underestimated your capacity for self flattery when I used the term “court jester”; perhaps I should have said “village idiot” instead.

        So with all your literary pretensions, you didnt know the role of the “court jester” in English literature? Haven’t you even read King Lear?

        Tsk, Tsk, Blacker!

      • You are free to make as many assumptions as your ego requires 😉

  • anbu

    I have always appreciated Groundviews for their broad coverage. But in this issue it is simply best to concede that you got it wrong and stop publishing this series of articles knit picking stuff by Robersts, Sarvananthan etc. Sometimes we all dont get it right but when we realise we should give up and stop labouring points.

    Also Prof Roberts as an acadmic you should know that looking for the ‘authentic’ doesnt exist in autobiogrpahy.Even the so called ‘authentic’ is after all inauthentic. any decent academic book on autobiogrpahy will illustrate that.
    For example read this : Autobiography and Performance (Theatre and Performance Practices)
    Deirdre Heddon

    This is particular to theatre that I give as a reading list to my students but its analysis of autobiogrpahy will cover the likes of Niromi and put her in good stand.

  • aratai

    .
    I maybe wrong, but I think Commander in Chief of IPKF was Sri Lankan President JRJ!

    Does this means they are ‘Government Soldiers’?

    🙂

  • Off the Cuff

    Dear Arun, Ken, A Jeevan- melbourn, RSV, Tammy, Kumaran, Rohan, Rationalman, Many, Nag A. Nanthi, HD, Jaffnaboy and any others who write in defence of Niromi

    The Achilles Heel of Niromi’s book is her claim to have fought “Government troops” at a time The SL Govt troops were confined to Barracks under the Indo Lanka Peace Accord.

    We do have childish attempts to portray that when Niromi refers to govt troops, she meant Indian Govt troops.

    Both, Niromi herself and her publisher Alan and Unwin contradicts that.

    Niromi the Tamil Tigress says in her Daily Telegraph account in 2009

    “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too”

    If you can understand English, there are TWO entities referred to by Niromi

    1. Government Troops
    2. Peacekeepers

    It is not in dispute that the Peacekeepers were Indian. Then who were the Government Troops? Could you please explain without being irrational?

    Allan and Unwin states,

    Quote
    A well-educated, middle-class seventeen-year-old, Niromi decided, in a fit of righteous anger and teenage idealism, to defend her rights and the lives of her friends and neighbours. Along with her lifelong friend, Ajanthi, she joined the Tamil Tigers and found herself part of a small platoon of young girls. In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army.
    Unquote

    Who is Lying? Alan and Unwin, Niromi or the “Intellectuals” trying to say that Niromi meant the Indian Govt? Obviously ALL of them are Lying, though with different objectives.

    Neither DBS Jayaraj nor God Himself can refute Michael Roberts, without answering how Niromi alias Tamil Tigress fought Sri Lankan Govt Troops that were CONFINED TO BARRACKS under the Indo Lanka Agreement that resulted in Rajiv Gandhi being assaulted by a disillusioned Naval Rating.

    Can you or DBSJ or ANYONE enlighten the GV readership how this miracle was performed?

    There are other “Intellectual” attempts to portray Niromi the Tamil Tigress as a young woman who in her innocence had made an inadvertent mistake.

    Unfortunately for those who take that path, Niromi published the book when in her Forties and she herself claim to be an University Graduate qualifying amongst other things, in Law, in the promotional video by Allen and Unwin the publisher of Tamil Tigress.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikCt-dimkE

    She is neither “Innocent” nor naïve. She is more like a cunning schemer.

    Niromi’s declared objective was to create public sympathy for illegal Tamil immigrants to Australia. This explains the anger of those rushing to defend a proven Liar whose LTTE ideology has not ebbed despite her professed disillusionment.

    That anger is directed at Prof Roberts (and anyone who supports him), who was instrumental in the Public Exposure, of the lies and spoiling the attempted deception of the Australian and World public.

    • jaffnaboy

      Firstly, Happy New Year to you and your family OTC

      Have you read the book or you are just picking out paragraphs from the book as per Prof Roberts and his “good student” and “friend” Dr Sarvananthan. Aren’t these the same two people, who said?

      1. The number of innocent civilians forcefully held by LTTE in the no fire zone was less than 70,000.The actual number of people held in the internment camps, after the war ended, were well over 250,000, per government stats.

      2. Prof Roberts in his first article said “Such profound ignorance suggests that she was not in Sri Lanka then and that her tale is a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.” We all know now that she was a member of LTTE.

      3.Dr Sarvananthan’s title of his first article on this book was “Outing a Counterfeit Guerrilla: A tale of lies by Tamil Tigress Niromi de Soyza”. Have a look at any dictionary for the word counterfeit and you know where he is coming from.

      4.DBSJ clearly states that his articles are not a review of the book but the background to who this Niromi is. This is the quote from Prof’s article, as above, “Rather daintily he avoids naming these critics, namely, Ambalavanar, Roberts, and Sarvananthan, and proceeds to lump all three together in his review with casual disdain for the differences in argument. He dismisses the various charges as “unsubstantiated” and “unfair.” Compare this to what DBSJ said in his first article “My intention is not to write a review of her book or examine the charges of “fake, forgery or fabrication”leveled against her”. The Prof has a problem understanding the meaning of review.

      You get the gist of these two my friend?

      These two friends are not the most reliable people in the world and they should be the last to pick holes in any book let alone this book.

      On your question, which you keep asking every man and his dog on GV,
      “In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army.”
      The book has well over 100 pages I am told. Prof Roberts, his friends and you are picking on this one sentence/para? The truth of the matter is, it has now been confirmed that she was with the LTTE, which your friends cannot accept or couldn’t accept till few weeks ago, now are down to ascertaining the veracity of one sentence/para?

      FYI –
      1. I haven’t read the book nor have I have any intention of reading.
      2. I don’t give two hoots about Niromi or the prof and his friends.
      3. Ambush of government troops? From what I have read on various websites and my knowledge, is in-correct. Was this deliberately misleading the readers or a genuine mistake? I don’t know and I can’t answer this. Only person who can answer this is Niromi her self. Not me or as you put it “our ilk”!

      The first casualty of a war is the truth, didn’t someone say that years ago!!

      On a final note, I am happy if the Prof,Dr S or Niromi is making money out of this. One has to earn a living by hook or by crook right?

      Chill out and have a glass of wine or what ever you drink on this happy day!

      JB

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Jaffnaboy,

        Best of Health and Wealth to you and your family too.
        May the New year bring more cheer to you.

        That Five months prior to Christmas 1987 the SL Army was confined to Barracks under the Indo Lanka Peace Accord is an UNDISPUTED Fact.

        Extract from wiki
        The signing of the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord on 29 July 1987 brought a temporary truce to the Sri Lankan Civil War. Under the terms of the agreement, Colombo agreed to a devolution of power to the provinces the Sri Lankan troops were withdrawn to their barracks in the north, the Tamil rebels were to disarm.

        Why did Niromi and her publisher attempt to convey that she fought the SL Army when it was only the Indian Peacekeepers that she fought?

        This assertion by Niromi and her publisher Allan and Unwin is there in black and white hence it is not necessary for Prof Roberts or anyone else to prove it. In the circumstances it is futile to point to Prof Roberts’ or anyone else’s past, as that is totally irrelevant.

        You have been unable to counter it either, hence the unsuccessful attempt at dancing around it.

        What was the Motive behind the Lies?

        Niromi has declared that her book was written to create a favourable climate for the Illegal Tamil immigrants who were arriving on Australian shores after the end of the war.

        Prof Roberts observes, “These goals include an explicit desire to show Australians that the boat people who had begun to arrive off the coast of their continent were not economic refugees, but worthy asylum seekers fleeing persecution. She told Throsby that her tale was in line with the revelations provided by the Channel Four documentary Killing Fields and the Moon Panel of Experts. “I knew that when the Tamil Tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things …It was nothing new.”

        The Ch4 is not a documentary but a biased fabrication. Alston’s so called experts have been found to be frauds. Please refer http://groundviews.org/2011/12/18/llrc-recommendations-can-the-rajapaksa-regime-digest/#comment-39892 for details. Her attempt at giving weight to such false propaganda shows her partiality and lack of objectivity. It also explains why she deliberately involves the SLA which had absolutely nothing to do with her xmas time ambush.

        Prof Roberts has proved that she starts building her propaganda with a Lie. This has placed a very big question mark on the Propaganda pitch.

        You wrote “On your question, which you keep asking every man and his dog on GV, ………. The book has well over 100 pages I am told. Prof Roberts, his friends and you are picking on this one sentence/para? The truth of the matter is, it has now been confirmed that she was with the LTTE, which your friends cannot accept or couldn’t accept till few weeks ago, now are down to ascertaining the veracity of one sentence/para? “

        Sorry my friend, that para was chosen by Niromi and her Publisher as the MOST IMPORTANT para in her book, your attempt at downgrading it notwithstanding. That is why it features in the Blurb, the opening chapter and the Sales pitch by Alan and Unwin.

        The Foundation is a Deliberate Lie.
        That makes the rest of her propaganda pitch suspect, even though she may have been truthful in some places no one will ever know which is Fact and which is Fiction.

        You cannot blame Prof Roberts who praises Niromi’s literary talent, for pointing it out.

        I note that you have accepted that Niromi’s ambush did not involve SL Forces, yet you express doubts by asking whether it was a genuine mistake. How can both Niromi and Allan and Unwin make the same mistake with different wording? Niromi says “government forces” Allan and Unwin specifically names Sri Lanka Army. Remember that Niromi is not naïve. She is graduate in Law amongst others.

        I do not grudge Niromi what she earns from playing to the sentiments of the Tamil Diaspora but she should not be allowed to propagate hate by Lying, when those in Lanka are seeking reconciliation.

        I do not agree with earning a living by hook or crook as that implies deceit and stealing.

        Thank you.

    • Rationalman

      OTC,

      You claim that Allan and Unwin states, “A well-educated, middle-class seventeen-year-old, Niromi decided, in a fit of righteous anger and teenage idealism, to defend her rights and the lives of her friends and neighbours. Along with her lifelong friend, Ajanthi, she joined the Tamil Tigers and found herself part of a small platoon of young girls. In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army”.

      Here is the link from Allen and UNWin’s website. http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781742375182.

      The part you refer to reads “two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades”.

      I do not see the words “Sri Lankan Army”.

      With your apparent “googling” skills, perhaps you can link to your reference?
      ———————————————
      To the Editors of Groundviews.org
      Please let me know and I think it would be helpful to others as well. about your standards on knowing misrepresentations.
      Thanks

      • Then who does she mean, “Rational”man, when she refers to “government troops”? Does she mean Indian government troops? If so, why pick such a clearly unclear term? Can you show us any other such reference in literature or the media where the IPKF is referred to as government troops or even Indian government troops, and not simply IPKF, peacekeepers, or just Indian troops? I have asked you this before, and you have not answered.

        It is a simple question; why does Niromi need to refer to the IPKF as both peacekeepers and government troops in the same sentence? If you cannot answer this satisfactorily — ie with the substantiating references — you have to concede that Prof Roberts is right, at least on this particular point. All other nonsense about Athulathmudali, Dixit, etc is just smoke and mirrors to disguise the real issue.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote “I do not see the words “Sri Lankan Army”. With your apparent “googling” skills, perhaps you can link to your reference?”

        You have put your foot in your mouth again and again. The above is no exception.

        The link was posted in my post of December 31, 2011 • 11:37 pm
        But with your persistent Myopia you rush to print without thinking or in this case looking…… Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread don’t they?

        Unlike you, I do not write without facts to back me up.

        There is a Sinhala saying that describes your predicament perfectly and it goes like this
        Gale reepu balla wage.

        Here is the Full text that Allen and Unwin uploaded 9 months ago.
        Polish up your fogged Lenses before attempting to read it.

        Extract.
        Uploaded by Allenandunwin on 20 Mar 2011
        Terrible things happen in a civil war especially during a systematic campaign by an elected government to wipe out parts of its own population. In the calm world of Australia, it is hard to imagine gun fights in our suburban streets and country towns. For Niromi de Soyza, who grew up in the north of Sri Lanka, this was part of the daily experience of living on this otherwise beautiful island.

        A well-educated, middle-class seventeen-year-old, Niromi decided, in a fit of righteous anger and teenage idealism, to defend her rights and the lives of her friends and neighbours. Along with her lifelong friend, Ajanthi, she joined the Tamil Tigers and found herself part of a small platoon of young girls. In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army.

        As a Tamil Tiger guerrilla, there was no honour in being caught alive and, in the face of defeat, the girls were trained to bite cyanide capsules. Instead Niromi witnessed Ajanthi being killed, her friend’s blood soaking her own fatigues and that day the dream of Tamil Eelam—an autonomous homeland—suddenly felt far from reach. On the run and infected with malaria, Niromi realised that an armed conflict would resolve nothing and resigned, leaving behind her beloved homeland to build a new life in Australia.

        Category: Education
        Licence: Standard YouTube Licence
        End extract

        I wonder what the Editors of GV would do with your Advice. Banish Niromi from GV or banish you?

        You wrote “To the Editors of Groundviews.org
        Please let me know and I think it would be helpful to others as well. about your standards on knowing misrepresentations. Thanks”

        Ha ha haaa …… Have a nice day iRationalMan.

      • Rationalman

        David, you ask… “Then who does she mean, “Rational”man, when she refers to “government troops”? Does she mean Indian government troops?”.

        It is not clear if Niromi actually used the words “government troops” in her description of the skirmish on Dec 23, 1987. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the opening chapter of “Tamil Tigress”, in her own voice, I don’t think she describes the enemy she ambushed as anything other than the IPKF.

        Once we get over that hurdle, then we could proceed to the next stage of the debate?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        Thank you for referring to the youtube post. I was able to find the link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikCt-dimkE).

        And since you are unable to disprove that Niromi in the opening chapter of the “Tamil Tigress”, referred to the enemy as nothing other than the IPKF, do you agree that Niromi in NEVER CLAIMED HER OWN WORDS THAT HER ENEMIES IN THE AMBUSH were anyone other than the IPKF? (I am sorry I have to repeat the clarification, but I am only trying to help you)

        The reference that you quote is from the DESCRIPTION of Niromi’s youtube video, and NOT BASED on the statements made by Niromi in the Video.

        Agree with me so far?

        Are you familiar how the public relations arm of large cooperation like Allen and Unwin works? Till you figure that out, you are going to be repeating yourself by calling Niromi a liar, based on a pre-publication (by 3 months) youtube posting by an Allen and Unwin publicist.

        Here are some clues… as you rightly said the youtube post was made on March 20, 2011, and the book is listed under the “education” category.

        The book was published three months after on June 27, 2011 and is listed under the “memoirs” category.

        Unless you have direct knowledge that Niromi was responsible for posting the Youtube video and its description, three months before the book was publised, you have to agree that Niromi cannot be responsible for an error make by a Allen and Unwin publicist.

        Niromi is and should be held responsible for what she wrote. The 64000 rupee question is did she write or state anywhere that she fought the Sri lankan soldiers during the ambush.

        Again, publicist… error…. stupid.
        Niromi..if she claimed in her book or in interviews that she fought Sri Lankan Soldiers during the ambush…. lie… bad..very bad…. diabolical….

        So I ask you again… Did Niromi claim in her book or interviews that she fought the Sri Lankan troops during the ambush?

        Can you provide me with a link.

        And let say how much I enjoy your writing. I dont think I have ever seen so many mood swings such a short piece. You deride, you mock, you preach, you humiliate (unfortunately my Sinhalese is weak so I dont get the meaning other than the word “balla”), you question and then you become delirious with your cleverness”. In other posts, you shout, you condemn, you accuse, you are angry, you are frustrated etc etc…..

        Only once did you seem to laugh, and I am glad that I was the one who amused you. Almost all the emotions expressed are what a psychologist would call “negative”, but then you would know it as you seem to be an expertly analyzing the psyche of Niromi and DBSJ.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, you also ask “I wonder what the Editors of GV would do with your Advice. Banish Niromi from GV or banish you?”

        I am not sure how the Editors of GV could banish Niromi as far as I know she has not expressed any desire to join GV. But if any references to her is banished I think she may be disapointed as GV has been giving great publicity to her book. And is she is banished, I would be concerned about how you would spend your free time.

        As for me, I have not presumed to advise the good editors of GV. I merely asked a question. I hope you can differentiate between asking a question and providing unsolicited advice. Perhaps that’s whats causing you the confusion?

      • “Rational”man, the quote by Niromi in the Daily Telegraph has been provided to you several times in the thread. It is Niromi’s words, and she does use the term “government troops”. Why are you now questioning this when you first accepted she had said it and gave an alternate explanation for her terminology. Were you wrong before, or are you wrong now? Or are you just confused, as usual?

      • Rationalman

        Davidc you say,

        ““Rational”man, the quote by Niromi in the Daily Telegraph has been provided to you several times in the thread. It is Niromi’s words, and she does use the term “government troops”.

        I think I have to refer you back to Gamarala’s response to you.

        ——————-
        And you ask “Why are you now questioning this when you first accepted she had said it and gave an alternate explanation for her terminology. Were you wrong before, or are you wrong now? Or are you just confused, as usual?””.

        Mea Culpa! I made a huge mistake in believing “Roberts, OTC and Co”. But when I started researching in depth, I began to get a better sense of the truth. So here I am.

        And can you say something more original than ” Or are you just confused, as usual?”. When you get frustrated you go back to the same old, same old. I would love to see new material!

      • Well, “Rational”man, Gamarala is still trying to explain that Niromi didn’t mean the Tigers were fighting both the SL Army and the IPKF in 1987; and yet you now say that you were wrong about taking that path of argument and have now opted for questioning whether Niromi had actually said the above. But yet again when I ask you about your position, you refer me to Gamarala who is arguing the point you have now accepted to be wrong! 😀 Let me assure you no one here needs to accuse you of confusion and irrationality; you do a damn good job of convincing us yourself. Lol

        Let me also assure you that Niromi has indeed said the above, and is quoted as such in the Daily Telegraph. So which straw are you going to clutch at now?

      • Rationalman

        David, David, David……
        There are two different issues here which were conflated and inflated by Roberts, you and your ilk. Initially I was responding to you on the basis that you were a neutral observer defending Roberts. Afer you admitted to Gamarala that your responses were included in Roberts’ answer, I am beginning to understand your motives.

        Someone somewhere picked up the youtube blurb about the book which stated Allan and Unwin states, “A well-educated, middle-class seventeen-year-old, Niromi decided, in a fit of righteous anger and teenage idealism, to defend her rights and the lives of her friends and neighbours. Along with her lifelong friend, Ajanthi, she joined the Tamil Tigers and found herself part of a small platoon of young girls. In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army”” and claimed that Niromi was a liar.

        Fair enough if it Niromi actually said it. Since Niromi’s detractors (most who had not read the book) couldnt find either in her writings, radio or TV interviews said anything like that, the next stage began..

        So they conflated a line from the Sunday Telegraph which read ““The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too” to her description of the IPKF ambush of Dec 23, 1987.

        The end product looked like this….

        “Off the Cuff
        December 28, 2011 • 10:29 pm
        Quote from Prof Michael Robert
        “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).” Unquote”.
        So far so good, so thought the detractors of Niromi De Soyza. !.

        And then the hysterical cry went out “Niromi lies, because she could not have fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces because they were confined to the barracks.

        Again when they were asked to supply proof about Niromi’s claim from her own words, in her writings or interviews about fighting the Sri Lankan Armed forces, they could not give any as even in much quoted the Sunday Telegraph, Niromi clearly identifies the IPKF as the enemy.

        Being at war is not the same as fighting a skirmish. Let me give an example…Just because the Ceylon Army (Niromi) didn’t battle with the Iron Guards of Romania, didnt mean that the Allies (LTTE) were not at war with the Axis powers (Sri Lankan Armed forces)

        On Octber 3, 1987, a boat carrying Pulendran and other LTTE leaders were captured by the Sri Lankan Navy and these men were brought to the Palaly Air-force base. Was that a hostile act in violation of the ceasefire amnesty? How would you consider the capture of a LTTE vessel with senior commanders? Would Prabakaran and the LTTE have been justified in cosidering the actions of the Sri Lankan Navy an act of war?

        So wasn’t the Sri Lankan Navy at war with the LTTE?

      • Rationalman

        David,

        I refer to THIS quote from Gamarala. “If the above cannot be presented as a contradiction, Rationalman’s question was, where had Niromi directly contradicted herself? I think his contention that the book blurb is not valid evidence – stands – because it was probably written by some publicist”.

        I am still waiting for an answer……..

      • “There are two different issues here which were conflated and inflated by Roberts, you and your ilk. Initially I was responding to you on the basis that you were a neutral observer defending Roberts. Afer you admitted to Gamarala that your responses were included in Roberts’ answer, I am beginning to understand your motives.”

        Given your lack of understanding of most things discussed here, I wouldn’t rely too much on your claimed understanding of my motives either 😀 I am indeed neutral and have not formed an opinion on whether Niromi is being truthful or not, or whether Roberts & co are justified in their opinion. My only issue with you is your claim that Prof Roberts cannot comprehend simple English, as articulated by you in your first comment on this thread: “The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force””. The sentence in question is that quoted by the Daily Telegraph in which Niromi says, ““The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too”. This is the only sentence I have referred to, and have questioned you on, and to which you have been unwilling to answer. I ask again, do you believe that Niromi refers to two different entities; or is your argument that it is indeed two different entities, but in two time frames; or are you now saying that Niromi never said any of this? You seem to be arguing all three versions at different places in the thread 😀

        Prof Roberts indeed inquired as to whether Niromi could simply have been mistaken in who she was fighting, and whether this mistake could explain the discrepancy. I told him that no such mistake was likely back in 1987, and certainly not today in hindsight. How does this make me less than neutral when Prof Roberts has not used me to justify his conclusion, but to negate one possible other conclusion?

        “Someone somewhere picked up the youtube blurb about the book which stated Allan and Unwin states, “A well-educated, middle-class seventeen-year-old, Niromi decided, in a fit of righteous anger and teenage idealism, to defend her rights and the lives of her friends and neighbours. Along with her lifelong friend, Ajanthi, she joined the Tamil Tigers and found herself part of a small platoon of young girls. In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army”” and claimed that Niromi was a liar.”

        Whoever this someone somewhere was, it wasn’t me. I have only referred to Niromi’s words, and never to those of Allan & Unwin. As usual, you are tilting at windmills instead of addressing the actual subject, which is that the Daily Telegraph in no uncertain terms quotes Niromi as saying she was fighting both peacekeepers and government troops in December 1987. Clearly it was impossible to do so since there was no such fighting between the Tigers and the SL military at that time.

        “Fair enough if it Niromi actually said it. Since Niromi’s detractors (most who had not read the book) couldnt find either in her writings, radio or TV interviews said anything like that, the next stage began..”

        The three detractors — Roberts, Ambalavar, and Sivananthan — have indeed read the book and have in fact quoted her saying exactly what is quoted above.

        “So they conflated a line from the Sunday Telegraph which read ““The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too” to her description of the IPKF ambush of Dec 23, 1987.”

        They have conflated no such thing. The only period in which peacekeepers were present in SL was 1987-1989, and in that time there was no fighting between the Tigers and the GoSL troops. This is also the period in which Niromi claims to have served in the Tigers. So whether the reference by her is to a specific ambush or the fighting in general is immaterial. There was NO fighting between the Tigers and the SL military while the IPKF was fighting the Tigers. Full stop. There is no getting around history, no matter how low you crawl.

        “And then the hysterical cry went out “Niromi lies, because she could not have fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces because they were confined to the barracks.”

        Nothing hysterical about it 😀 It was impossible indeed for a Tiger to have claimed to have fought the SL military in 1987-89.

        “Again when they were asked to supply proof about Niromi’s claim from her own words, in her writings or interviews about fighting the Sri Lankan Armed forces, they could not give any as even in much quoted the Sunday Telegraph, Niromi clearly identifies the IPKF as the enemy.”

        She identifies the enemy as the peacekeepers and the government troops. Have you now stooped to outright lies to prop up your absurd premise?

        “Being at war is not the same as fighting a skirmish. Let me give an example…Just because the Ceylon Army (Niromi) didn’t battle with the Iron Guards of Romania, didnt mean that the Allies (LTTE) were not at war with the Axis powers (Sri Lankan Armed forces)”

        Oh dear. What wriggling we do to justify our lies 😀 It’s very simple “Rational”man; Niromi, in her own words, claims that “we” were “now fighting” the “peacekeepers” “as well as” the “government troops”. Don’t worry your little head about Iron Guards and Axis powers. Stick to subject at hand which is why Niromi is claiming the Tigers fought the SL military in 1987-89 when they did not. That’s all 😉

        “On Octber 3, 1987, a boat carrying Pulendran and other LTTE leaders were captured by the Sri Lankan Navy and these men were brought to the Palaly Air-force base. Was that a hostile act in violation of the ceasefire amnesty? How would you consider the capture of a LTTE vessel with senior commanders? Would Prabakaran and the LTTE have been justified in cosidering the actions of the Sri Lankan Navy an act of war?”

        I have already answered this above.

        “I refer to THIS quote from Gamarala. “If the above cannot be presented as a contradiction, Rationalman’s question was, where had Niromi directly contradicted herself? I think his contention that the book blurb is not valid evidence – stands – because it was probably written by some publicist”.”

        And has been explained umpteen times to you and Gamarala, the contradiction is between Niromi and history, and her contradiction has been clearly articulated in the quote from the Daily Telegraph.

        “I am still waiting for an answer……..”

        If you refuse to read what is placed in front of you, you will wait forever in denial.

      • Rationalman

        David, you say…”My only issue with you is your claim that Prof Roberts cannot comprehend simple English, as articulated by you in your first comment on this thread: “The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force””. The sentence in question is that quoted by the Daily Telegraph in which Niromi says, ““The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too”. This is the only sentence I have referred to, and have questioned you on, and to which you have been unwilling to answer.”

        I was refering to his quote as repeated by OTC (December 28, 2011 • 10:29 pm)
        “Quote from Prof Michael Roberts
        “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).” Unquote”

        And I will repeat my question to you again……….“But does Niromi in her own voice (and as an author, you know what I mean), refer to the enemy in the December 23, 1987 skirmish as anything other than the members of the IPKF? All I want is a yes or no.””

      • I have no idea whether she refers to anyone other than the IPKF in that incident. If you wish me to comment on that reference, please provide the quote. However, when referring to the fighting in December 1987, she does indeed claim to have fought both the peacekeepers and the government troops (as is quoted in the interview), and that is an impossible feat.

      • Rationalman

        David,

        you say..”However, when referring to the fighting in December 1987, she does indeed claim to have fought both the peacekeepers and the government troops (as is quoted in the interview), and that is an impossible feat.”

        Here is link to the interview…. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/5283438/Life-as-a-female-Tamil-Tiger-guerilla-relived-by-one-of-first-female-soldiers.html

        I have copies and pasted the parts where she describes her interaction with the enemy forces. (If I had missed out a para or two or even three, just point them out to me)

        At dawn that day, Indian soldiers had surrounded our hideout, an abandoned house in Urumpiraay, a village in Sri Lanka’s far north. As the war had intensified, our units were being squeezed out of Jaffna peninsula. We slept in different places each night: in open fields or houses taken by force.

        The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too. A few thousand youths suited only for guerrilla warfare, we were no match for the world’s second largest army. Fighting the Indians made no sense to me.

        In October 1987 I was sent to the battle front north of Jaffna where, by coincidence, Akila and Ajanthi joined me in a unit of 30 cadres. The first female Tiger had died only a few days earlier, confirming that women were now firmly engaged in frontline fighting. During battles we had been trained to fire in the general direction of the enemy, not at individual targets, and I am not sure whether any of my bullets hit anyone. I’m glad I don’t know. I once asked the more experienced Muralie how he had coped with the knowledge that he had shot people. ‘After your second victim,’ he said, ‘you learn to live with it.’

        The Tigers had no chance of overpowering the Indian army. Jaffna and many surrounding areas were now under their total control. We were being ambushed on an almost daily basis, becoming accustomed to life on the run. Support among Tamil civilians was waning, too. Whenever we encountered them, they pleaded with us to stop this futile war.

        By early 1988 self-preservation was now our main strategy. Forced out of the Jaffna peninsula by the IPKF and following an overnight boat trip, we found ourselves in the jungles of the Vanni in the Northeastern Province, where it was easier to lie low. I was now part of a large unit of nearly 45 girls, with Sengamalam, one of only two boys, in charge. We moved around the jungle constantly, enduring primitive living conditions, while 130,000 Indian troops searched for some 2,000 Tigers on foot and by air.

        Niromi does not claim anywhere that SHE fought the peace keepers and government forces. So I do not find any proof of your assertion that she does indeed claim to have fought both the peacekeepers and the government troops. The only forces she that she mentions fighting and running away from is the IPKF.

        If I had missed anything please let me know.

      • Of course she claims it. Here is the relevant part of the above quote: “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” This has been explained to you at length, “Rational”man, and you have attempted to bring in WW2, the Iron Guard, rugby football, and all manner of nonsense to avoid the subject, eventually collapsing like a burst balloon in the face of the facts. And yet, you re-enter the SAME argument again. “We” means “I and others” or “the group I am a part of”, and “fighting” is the present tense that the character is placed in.

      • Rationalman

        David,
        I am glad that I gave you the opportunity to fantasize that you were bursting balloons. If that makes you happy, more power to you.

        Now, let me clarify the question even further……Can you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?

        Thanks.

      • Sure. It’s the same quote I have been pointing you to for weeks: ““The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” — Niromi de Soyza in the Daily Telegraph. No avoiding it, “Rational”man.

      • Rationalman

        David,
        I say this with heavy heart.

        If you recall, on December 30, 2011 • 8:37 pm I asked you “You have the knowhow and the contacts and I am pretty sure you would done your own research. I would be interested in your findings or opinion. (seriously!)”

        I meant the question seriously as I have enjoyed our tête-à-têtes over different subjects and while we have disagreed most of the time, I have always respected you as someone who played with a straight bat.

        Now I am sad to see, that you do not have the grace to answer this question …Can you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces? directly.

        A very simple question.

        And you give this very weaselly answer….Sure. It’s the same quote I have been pointing you to for weeks: ““The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.” — Niromi de Soyza in the Daily Telegraph. No avoiding it, “Rational”man.

        So I am telling you now that you HAVE FAILED to give me a single example where an you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?

        That is a “MASSIVE FAIL”!

        All your verbiage that in response to this is worth diddly squat unless you answer this direct question which you will not because there isnt a single incident where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?!

      • Ha ha do calm down, “Rational”man. Typing in caps or calling me names will not change the facts of what Niromi has claimed; ie that she was “fighting” both the government troops and the IPKF. You have asked for a quote of her claiming to have been fighting the SL military, and it has been given to you.

        You have also attempted elsewhere in this thread to explain that the SL Navy arrest of the Tigers could be viewed as an act of war which would explain why Niromi claimed to be fighting government troops. By that you have acknowledged that the fighting Niromi claims to be is military action.

        So your current insistence that the above quote isn’t a claim of fighting is more childish babbling from an irrational man who cannot bear to admit he’s got it wrong. Right at the beginning, I told you that if you will not accept what’s in black and white in front of you, then you may live in denial. Instead of taking that option, you attempted to prove that what was in front of you wasn’t what it was. And you failed. Now (as you have done in every single debate you’ve had with me) when faced with defeat, you childishly stamp your feat 😀 You are the massive fail in this thread, “Rational”man.

      • Rationalman

        David,

        Let me apologize for the caps. I was more frustrated with myself for giving more credit that you were due. I will not overestimate you again.

        You said “ You have asked for a quote of her claiming to have been fighting the SL military, and it has been given to you.

        I didn’t ask you for a quote of her claiming to have been fighting the SL military.

        I specifically did not use the term “fight” or “fighting” when

        I asked you if “ Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?!”
        Has she ever used the words “battle. skirmish, ambush, fired, fired upon chased or ambushed in relation in her interactions with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?

        Please can we get a direct answer?
        ———————————————————————————————————————

      • “Let me apologize for the caps. I was more frustrated with myself for giving more credit that you were due. I will not overestimate you again.”

        I’d be pretty frustrated with myself if I was you, “Rational”man 😀 You have never overestimated me in the past, so I will not expect it in the future; just as I will not expect intelligence from you. I think we’re even now on the insults, so why not get back to the topic?

        “I didn’t ask you for a quote of her claiming to have been fighting the SL military. I specifically did not use the term “fight” or “fighting” when I asked you if “ Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?!” Has she ever used the words “battle. skirmish, ambush, fired, fired upon chased or ambushed in relation in her interactions with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?”

        Since you wish to avoid the word “fighting” in favour of “ambush, skirmish”, etc, I take it you think of the latter to not be “fighting”. Can you explain what you think “fighting” to mean in the context of Niromi’s statement? Hand-fighting perhaps? Siamese fighting fish fighting maybe?

        “Please can we get a direct answer?”

        Who is this “we” you speak of; and since you haven’t answered the questions first put to you, why should I reciprocate?

      • Rationalman

        You repeatedly displayed your phobia about answering this very simple and direct question “Can you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?”

        I cant for the life of me understand, why you would be reluctant to answer this question but now its clear. You said “Reading Niromi’s book will happen when I have the time (I have a backlog of books I am more interested in right now). January 17, 2012 • 1:56 pm”.

        I wait for the time when you get interested enough Niromi’s book and find the time to read it. Perhaps then you would be rid of the phobia of answering the question “”Can you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?”‘.

        Fair enough?

      • “You repeatedly displayed your phobia about answering this very simple and direct question”

        There is no phobia whatsoever, “Rational”man; I have clearly told you that I will not indulge you until you answer the questions first put to you.

        As for Niromi’s book, I was fairly open-minded about it when this discussion began, but in the course of it, I have gradually begun to think that perhaps it is indeed fiction. In which case, I will probably never read it. But who knows.

        In the meantime, if you answer the questions put to you already, I will answer yours. I have also asked you whether your previous claim to have not read Niromi’s book is true or not. So why don’t you first answer these queries before making demands.

        Until then, you and I both will have to accept that:

        1) You cannot prove that Niromi fought the SL military as you have claimed
        2) You cannot prove that she meant something other than that she fought the SL military as you have also claimed 😀
        3) You cannot substantiate your claim that the arrest of Pulendran was an act of war by the GoSL
        4) You cannot prove that the attack on India was in retaliation for the arrest (in fact you have also claimed that the attack was actually pre-emptive and nothing to do with the arrest)

        Fair enough? 😉

      • Rationalman

        Oh David,

        We have gone through the 4 questions over and over again so much that we could update “There’s a hole in the bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza” with lines form this discussion, so unless you bring some new facts to the table nothing is going to change.

        When ever you have asked me a substantial question, I have tried to answer. You just dismiss my explanations, as it is your right. But just because you don’t like the answer, does not mean that I haven’t answered.

        You on the other hand continue to refuse to answer questions, especially this question “Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?!” Has she ever used the words “battle. skirmish, ambush, fired, fired upon chased or ambushed in relation in her interactions with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?””

        So unless you bring new information to the table, (perhaps by reading Niromi’s book, your own research, using published sources etc), we will be going around and around the mango tree, wasting your precious time, which could be spent reading books.

        I look forward you doing another expose of Niromi like your “Darusman” expose!

      • “We have gone through the 4 questions over and over again so much that we could update “There’s a hole in the bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza” with lines form this discussion, so unless you bring some new facts to the table nothing is going to change.”

        We have certainly gone through it, but you have been unable to substantiate any of the four points, as is evidenced by your gradual abandonment of each point in each relevant thread in favour of sarcasm and jibes. If you disagree, I suggest you take the opportunity now to answer the four points.

        “When ever you have asked me a substantial question, I have tried to answer. You just dismiss my explanations, as it is your right. But just because you don’t like the answer, does not mean that I haven’t answered.”

        You have not substantiated anything. You have merely claimed to verify things. For me to dislike your answer, you must first give an answer 😀 This is your usual pattern, “Rational”man. you will now declare victory and disappear for a few months in the hope that people will forget your stupidity.

        “You on the other hand continue to refuse to answer questions, especially this question “Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?!” Has she ever used the words “battle. skirmish, ambush, fired, fired upon chased or ambushed in relation in her interactions with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?”””

        Who has made the above claim, that I must substantiate such a claim? 😀 You, on the other hand have claimed that she fought the SL military, that she didn’t fight the SL military and meant something else when she said “I fought the SL military”. I have asked you to substantiate those claims weeks ago. You refuse to (since you obviously cannot), but instead of admitting your inability like a man you insist that I answer your questions. Once you have answered, so will I.

        “So unless you bring new information to the table, (perhaps by reading Niromi’s book, your own research, using published sources etc), we will be going around and around the mango tree, wasting your precious time, which could be spent reading books.”

        New information about what? What claim have I made that I haven’t substantiated? Can you quote me? The one claim I have made is that the Tigers never fought the SL military between 1987 and 1989; a claim that needs no substantiation since there is no evidence whatsoever of any such fighting. You, on the other hand have made the above claims and must therefore substantiate them.

        “I look forward you doing another expose of Niromi like your “Darusman” expose!”

        Why should I bother; since Prof Roberts has already done so, and you are unable to refute the man?

      • Rationalman

        I know that you can and will do a better job than Roberts.

        At least I know you will not write “I may not have accepted his reading; but when I made inquiries from my Scottish wife she reminded me of a Sri Lankan friend in the old days who could turn on the tears at will to persuade recalcitrant bureaucrats at the customs office.

        So write on David!

      • Pathetic as your adulation is, the fact that you have been unable to refute Roberts makes any further writing on the subject unnecessary. If Roberts is inadequate, you should have been able to easily prove him wrong; yet you failed miserably, but predictably.

      • Rationalman

        Repeating that over and over gain makes you happy, it makes me happy!

      • It doesn’t make me happy at all. I am greatly saddened by the poor standard of education you obtained at the Colombo school you are so proud of, and the lack of any sort of character building in the Boy Scouts you claim to have been a member of. I can only hope that you are truly a unique product of those institutions.

        My repetition of the basic premise of our debate was necessitated by your failure to substantiate your claims, and your childish need to avoid acknowledgement of the same.

        None of these things are matters for pride or happiness, “Rational”man.

      • Rationalman

        . I am greatly saddened by the poor standard of education you obtained at the Colombo school you are so proud of, and the lack of any sort of character building in the Boy Scouts you claim to have been a member of. I can only hope that you are truly a unique product of those institutions.

        You stop with my secondary school education?

      • “You stop with my secondary school education?”

        I’d be very surprised if you got beyond the primary school.

      • Rationalman

        Do I sense some hostility?

      • Amusement would be a more accurate observation.

      • Rationalman

        I congratulate you on your very low threshold for amusement.

      • Your congratulations are unwarranted; your comedy is of quite a high level, albeit unintentionally.

      • Rationalman

        David,
        Your congratulations are unwarranted; your comedy is of quite a high level, albeit unintentionally.

        And yet, you accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer/supporter!

      • Oh, there’s nothing as funny as supporting a dead man 😀

      • Rationalman

        Do I sense a little bravado? A little insy, weensy teeney, weeney threat?

      • Oh, I think you’ve ably demonstrated the worth of your senses 😀

  • K. Thirukumaran

    Why does this artilce contain the word “Jeyaraj” more than anything else? Also, I visited transCurrents and dbsjeyaraj.com and couldn’t find the word “Michael” nor “Roberts” mentioned so many times in any article posted there.

    • Ken

      K.Thirukumaran,

      It is a valid question you asked.

      I think most of the questions posted and raised against the ” Tamil Tigress”,the book written by Niromi de Soyza has answers in DBS’s articles and it gave the readers context and additional background information there. rather copying the entire paragraphs , readers would have put the links to save the space and guide the readers . It is one way good that readers can identify the false allegation by baseless criticism of the Niromi’s book

      Bur Michel Roberts article is directly hit the author with the base less allegation or pages by pages attempt to justify the Niromi’s book is a fake by the missing word “Indian” in the Government force , people would have realised it. What do you think?

      • Off the Cuff

        Ken,

        Very poor attempt at twisting what Niromi meant with the words “government forces”.

        Allen and Unwin has pulled the Rug from under you and your ilk, by explicitly naming the “government forces”

        Quote
        In 1987, just two days before Christmas, this platoon came under heavy fire in a ruthless ambush by the Sri Lankan Army.
        Unquote

        Good time to wipe that egg off your face and save any shreds of dignity that you have left.

        Wish you a Happy New Year.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, so now you claim that “Allen and Unwin has pulled the Rug from under you and your ilk, by explicitly naming the “government forces””.

        A link would be appreciated. And can we all agree that Niromi never used those words in her book?

        I have to ask you the 64000 rupee question…..Have you actually read the book?

        And some information that you may not be aware of.

        And are you aware that Article 2.10 of the Indo Sri Lankan Accord of July 29, 1987, specifically states that (and I paraphrase) the GOSL will utilize for the purpose of law enforcements and maintenance of security in the Northern and Eastern Province, the same organizations and mechanisms of Government as are used in the rest of the country.

        And 215.c (again I paraphrase) in the event that the GOSL requests the GOI to afford military assistance to implement these proposals, the GOI will cooperate by giving to the GOSL, such military assistance as and when necessary.

        Do you understand the implications of these two articles?

      • Ken

        Off the Cuff,

        In your comments ,I can clearly see , you do have issue with the missing word ” India ” and have been trying to convince the readers do not read the book because of the missing word which mislead the people. am I write? Other comments are irrelevant to the subject we are commenting on.

        I read the book page by page with the right context since I live in Jaffna contemporary to the author Niromi’s time. Now DBS gave a clear background now. Why do not read the book open minded with the help of DBS article and see whether the missing word is a problem.

        Wish you happy news year with the great understanding of the book with the right context in the new year!

      • Off the Cuff

        Ken,

        You wrote “In your comments ,I can clearly see , you do have issue with the missing word ” India“

        What you don’t clearly see (or pretend not to see) is that Niromi writes about two entities. Allen and Unwin names the so called “government forces” unambiguously, as Sri Lanka Army. There are no Missing Words.

        Try explaining the above in your next response without obfuscating or avoiding it.

        You wrote “and have been trying to convince the readers do not read the book because of the missing word which mislead the people. am I write? ”

        Ken I was hoping that you could understand the Language that is used in these discussions. Sadly your comprehension seems to be below par (I assume “write” was a typo).

        You wrote “I read the book page by page with the right context since I live in Jaffna contemporary to the author Niromi’s time.”

        Right context?
        Context applies to what she writes not to where you reside.

        You wrote “Now DBS gave a clear background now“

        Clutching at straws?

        DBSJ is as CLUELESS about Niromi’s LTTE period, as much as you and me. Only a handful of LTTE terrorists would be in the know, if she is what she claims to be.

        He apparently knew (or tries to show he knew) the Niromi before she became a Terrorist but is absolutely CLUELESS about her, after she became a Terrorist.

        DBSJ uses deceptive language to convince the gullible but leaves himself a loophole to squeeze through, if challenged.

        Example
        Quote
        It appears that Sharmila’s outward appearance, interests and way of life made many who knew her react negatively to the news of her opting for military training in the LTTE.
        Unquote

        The use of the words “It appears” makes the above statement an assumption, rather than an ASSERTIVE statement made with factual personal knowledge.

        DBSJ states
        Quote
        I have been gathering some additional information about her in the past weeks. Many of her classmates and schoolmates remember her vividly and retain many memorable anecdotes.
        Unquote

        What is the need for “gathering” information if you already have personal knowledge?

        DBSJ states,
        quote
        What I have learnt enables me to form an impression of the author of “Tamil Tigress” at the time she was a student in Jaffna
        Unquote

        What I have learnt? (So he did not know originally)
        Impression?

        DBSJ is still learning and is still forming impressions, based on what he uncovers by HEARSAY about the Schoolgirl. Nothing Factual only impressions based on HEARSAY.

        Absolutely No evidence to confirm anything, when she was a Terrorist.

        Niromi Lied in the very first Chapter. That is beyond question.
        How do you propose to sieve Fact from Fiction from the rest of the book?
        Intuition?
        Hearsay?
        Or by talking to the Dead, Muralie, Gandhi or Ajanthi?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        I am glad that you took my challenge and read the DBSJ articles on Niromi and I appreciate that you have made a valiant effort to disprove DBSJ.

        But I do think you have to better than your first attempt.

        For example, you say…
        “”””DBSJ states Quote I have been gathering some additional information about her in the past weeks. Many of her classmates and schoolmates remember her vividly and retain many memorable anecdotes.
        Unquote
        What is the need for “gathering” information if you already have personal knowledge?””””.

        I think you missed or misunderstood the key words “some” and “additional”.

        Don’t you agree that unless, one is the modern equivalent of the all knowing Oracle of Delphi, we would not everything about even our nearest and dearest unless we had hired private detectives to research their backgrounds and even then we may not know everything. Of course you may operate differently, but most of us mere mortals, do not know EVERYTHING even about our nearest and dearest.

        And again you categorically state that “Niromi Lied in the very first Chapter. That is beyond question.”

        I have asked you before and will ask you again. Can you give us the page, para, and line where she lied in the opening chapter of the book, “Tamil Tigress”?

        Thanks

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        I had asked you a question earlier and I may have missed your answer so please forgive me for asking again.

        Have you actually read Niromi De Soyza’s book, “Tamil Tigress”, published by Allen and Unwin, June 27, 2011?

      • Off the Cuff

        iRationalman,

        Finally you have accepted that Alan and Unwin did say that Niromi fought the Sri Lanka Army. To my knowledge no attempt was made by Niromi to correct Alan and Unwin to date, has she done so to your knowledge?

        Why did you avoid what Niromi, the Tamil Tigress said in her Daily Telegraph account in 2009 but instead focus only on Alan and Unwin?

        I hope you possess the capacity to analyse the SINGLE sentence statement attributed to Niromi, before making futile attempts at making complex psycho analysis.


        “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too”

        If you can understand English, there are TWO entities referred to by Niromi
        1. Government Troops
        2. Peacekeepers
        It is not in dispute that the Peacekeepers were Indian. Then who were the Government Troops? Could you please explain without being irrational?

        the above is an Extract from my post of December 31, 2011 • 11:37 pm

        Catholic, middle class, educated background ,,,,,, holds a degree in Law amongst others is how she describes herself. Do you contest that description?
        You claim you have read her book, Is there anything wrong with her English? I certainly observe her to be very fluent with a very good command of English.
        Prof Roberts too praises her literary talents.
        Are you in agreement?

        Niromi repeatedly claimed at different times and locations to have fought the Sri Lankan Army when the SLA was confined to Barracks NINE months previously.

        Prof Roberts made a Valid observation.

        1. The SLA was confined to barracks (since July / August 1987 and remained so till 1990).
        2. Niromi claims to have fought the SLA two days before Xmas in 1987

        DBSJ, you and all others who write in defence of Niromi, deftly avoids the above, WHY?

    • Rationalman

      OTC,

      firstly I really must protest. Surely I am worthy of cleverer insults than word plays on my pseudonym? Blacker and you dont seem to be able to get beyond that. Come on “machan”, you can do better!

      You say “Finally you have accepted that Alan and Unwin did say that Niromi fought the Sri Lanka Army”.

      It was not “finally” as you claim, but it was soon as you provided the link to it. I admit that the Youtube publicity blurb but not the Allen and Unwin website, posted on March 20, 2010 3 months before the actual publication of the book (states that Niromi was involved in a skirmish with the Sri Lankan army). The youtube publication also states that the book falls under the category, Education while the Allen and Unwin website (which should be considered more definitive says that the book falls under the category memoirs.

      As said earlier, that the youtube post was probably posted by a company publicist, who did not know much about the book as it had been posted 3 months and 7 days before the publication.

      My question to you was ” Niromi ever claimed that she was attacked by the Sri Lankan Army on December 23, 1987, either on in the book Tamil Tigress, radio, TV or even in the Sunday Telepgraph article. .

      If I may repeat my questions (some of them addressed to you) from an earlier posts”

      1) Have you actually read Tamil Tigress”?
      2) Did Niromi claim in her book or interviews that she fought the Sri Lankan troops during the ambush of December 23, 1987 or any where else?
      3) Do you agree that on October 3, 1987, the Sri Lankan Navy captured Pulendran and his comrades when they were returning to Sri Lanka? Though the amnesty was in effect, they were captured as enemy combatants and brought to the Palaly Naval bases.
      4)If that was not an act of war against the LTTE, how would you describe it?
      5) Would the LTTE have been correct in considering capture of a senior leader and other LTTE combatants by the the members of Sri Lankan forces as an act of war?
      6) Can you be absolutely sure that there were no other hostile engagements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas, between October 3, 1987 and Dec 23, 1987?

      Once you answer these questions, I promise to explain the reasons for these questions, and perhaps you will stop asking “why? Why? Why?

      Deal?

      • All of your points have already been answered, “Rational”man.

      • Rationalman

        David, are you and OTC one and the same?

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        How did you arrive at that suspicion?
        Was it by Rational observations?

        I do respect David and enjoy what he writes but he is his own man as much as I.

        Apparently you are too young to GV to really know.

      • Rationalman

        I think David would know that I was joking. I would never compare you to him. Not in a million years!

  • The issue here is not just the veracity of Niromi de Soyza’s book, but also the attempt at character-reconstruction by DBSJ, while keeping the identity of everyone concerned ‘secret’.

    For many people, ‘truth’ is what they want to hear. In politics you do not usually ask if what X is saying is true, but you ask if what X is saying is ‘on our side’, or ‘on their side’.

    That is the nature of ‘truth’ that we are dealing with here.

    DBSJ has a high tendency to spin his write ups to satisfy such ‘truth’. DBSJ recreates the person of Niromi de Soyza, and even ‘explains’ that the 17 year old Jaffna girl was captivated by the killed Colombo journalist Soyza to the extent of assuming the name ‘Soyza’ (!!!) — DBS does this by building up the image of Kittu and his hero role to girls in Jaffna. Then, as some one remarked, there is the white-pigeon song and ‘Niromi’ is fabricated in detail: “her class, religion, age, what books she liked, what music she listened to, what musical instruments she played, what sports, animals and films she liked, her GCE(O’) Level results, and how she used to stroke and pat her hair while cycling, wearing a red and black tie”. That is the spin.

    Approximately one month before Killinochchi (ancient Giranikke) fell to government forces, DBSJ wrote a ‘bat by bat’ account of how the army arrived there (along the bund of the tank etc.), in gory detail. It was all made up, and the mistake he made was assuming the definitive fall of Killinochchi several weeks before it happened and publishing it a wee bit too soon. As eye witness accounts may not exist, he could create what happened in the way best suited to his readership which is essentially not crtical – the impression is given that DBSJ has incredible ‘inside information’.

    His account of the demise of Prabhakaran included the pithy sinhalese merde said to have been uttered by the sinhala soldiers to the wife of Nadesan. Other space-time zoomed details had to be the inventions of a fertile mind as there was no such space-time zooming mechanism. We are led to believe that DBSJ has such well-placed informants providing him ‘inside information’ even from the battle front – just as with the fall of Killinochchi.

    Given these ‘journalistic exploits’ in these, much more important matters, it is a minor excercise for DBSJ to reconstruct the personality of the white-pigeon from subluminal information that comes to him for filling the blanks.

    The mistake here is treating DBSJ as a reporter who writes facts. He is more a prose-form ballad writer where the commonly held belief (not emperical content) is the ‘truth’, and what is written should be spun to conform to the myth-truth. Such ballad writers were, and are an important part of our culture. In the old days, such ballad writers who distributed their phamplets were frequent at major bus halts, rewriting the assasination of SWRD, the race-course 4-million robbery, or the Sathasivam murder, or what ever was touching the hearts and minds of the people. DBSJ has filled that role in a very able manner for the Lankan electronic medium.

    DBSJ may be satisfying the ‘Tamil mindeset’, feeding the ‘sinhala mindset’, ‘the human-rights mindeset’, or whatever is going, but not the dry-empricist approach of historians.

    • Kamalakannan

      Dear Chander DW,

      You have perfectly diagnosed DBS Jeyaraj.
      Anyone compare DBS Jeyaraj with respected Journalists like M.R Narayan Swamy, Iqbal Athas and Rohan Goonaratne (Though an academic now his books on LTTE and JVP are products of his Journalistic work) can see the difference. DBS Jeyaraj is a Jaffna Tamil and insider whereas Swamy, Athas and Goonaratne are outsiders. Yet the outsiders amid their troubles always exercised scientific methods strictly to present the truth. DBS Jeyaraj is a spoiled prodigal son who sailed by the wind.One also take into account that DBS Jeyaraj is a university drop out. He prefers to work for a master throughout his career. Until the death of Commander Kittu DBS. Jeyaraj was a favourite of Col. Kittu. Kittu was DBS.J’s valuable informant. Later DBS.J was seduced by the Flattery king Anton Balasingham

      • Rationalman

        Chandre and Kamalakannan,

        I read your posts with great interest.

        “DBSJ has a high tendency to spin his write ups to satisfy such ‘truth’. DBSJ recreates the person of Niromi de Soyza, and even ‘explains’ that the 17 year old Jaffna girl was captivated by the killed Colombo journalist Soyza to the extent of assuming the name ‘Soyza’ (!!!) — DBS does this by building up the image of Kittu and his hero role to girls in Jaffna. Then, as some one remarked, there is the white-pigeon song and ‘Niromi’ is fabricated in detail: “her class, religion, age, what books she liked, what music she listened to, what musical instruments she played, what sports, animals and films she liked, her GCE(O’) Level results, and how she used to stroke and pat her hair while cycling, wearing a red and black tie”. That is the spin.”

        I assume that you have more to say about the matter and am eagerly looking forward to the detailed dry-empiricist approach and scientific methods that you two are going to use deconstruct DBSJ’s articles about Niromi(there are 3 of them so far and counting) , line by line, fable by fable with eyewitnesses accounts, testimonials from classmates etc. etc etc….

        How about starting by disproving the “hair patting story first”.

        And I do think that the people of Jaffna had electricity and television in the 1980s and some of them did understand English and may have watched the TV news read by the late Richard De Soyza. He was a good looking guy with a nice voice and one shouldn’t be too surprised if he became a heartthrob of some of the young school girls. But I may be wrong. So please let me why I am wrong.

        Thanks

        Thanks

    • Agnos

      Mr. Dharmawardana,

      You yourself got into some legal problems with a site registered in your name that in its Sinhala nationalist extremism sought to paint many as pro-LTTE people when they had nothing to do with the LTTE. That site even attacked journalists like Tisaranee Gunasekara. When someone sent a legal notice for defamation, I remember that you were in apologetic mode, saying something to the effect that even though the site was registered in your name, you had nothing to do with the content. Of course the site was then taken down.

      Given such skullduggery, despite your having been an academic/physicist, and given your association with other sites that promote Sinhala nationalist extremism such as LankaWeb, do you think any neutral person would think you have any credibility to speak on these matters?

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Chandre DW,

      Very incisive and clear analysis.
      Congratulations

  • The Owl of Minerva

    I am very glad that Micheal Roberts and his adherents are carrying on this jihad against Niromi.It will only increase the sales of her book and there is a chance that the more perceptive readers will learn to disregard the details and focus on the general theme of the book:the futility of violence and the criminal stupidity of both sided in the Sri Lankan conflict.
    Some commentators have suggested that Roberts is an agent of the Sri lankan government– one of them in fact called him a “mastiff” for the government!More likely he is an agent,perhaps unwittiing,for Alllen and Unwinn,the publishers!

  • S.B.D

    As OTC says, if Niromi declared that her book was written to create a favourable climate for Illegal Tamil immigrants who were arriving on Australian shores after the end of the war, she was just following what her masters were practising during the IPKF time.

    “The people were the killing fodder not only for the occupying Indian Army, but also for the Tigers. It seems a strange twist that the so called leaders of the people wanted them to die defenceless. Invariably the Tigers have used the vicinities of refugee camps as places to mount attacks from (Kokuvil Hindu college where 34 people died is an example) and then withdraw at great cost to the people left behind. They turned a deaf ear to the people’s sufferings and their entreaties.
    They continued to lure the army, just to run away, letting the people face the result. It was cruellest of all when they told the people that another 500 to 1000 must die for them to have a viable international publicity campaign. This was not an isolated instance or the statement of a group without contact with the leadership. It was pronounced at many places and in many forms. When the people were starving, wandering around like dogs for rice, the Tigers issued leaflets asking the people to boycott Indian distributed food”

    From The Broken Palmyra, U.T.H.R. Volume 2 – 6.3.2 page 359

  • K.Thirukumaran

    At the stroke of a pen, what DBSJ endures validity and read by friends and foes, through today, that’s NOT about to change tomorrow, NO matter how much mud slinging or analysis by pseudonymous pundits and Phds here. How did DBSJ become what he is, to just look all the writings over the years, which stand by for truth and reality over the course of time. So keep this bandwagon rolling.

    • Off the Cuff

      K.Thirukumaran ,

      Prof Roberts point to what he labels a Fundamental Error in Niromi’s and her Publisher’s claims.
      His argument is built on that.

      Extract from Prof Roberts first article

      But within this little tale within a biographical tale lies a fundamental error. Once the uneasy relationship of ‘alliance’ between the LTTE and the Indian government (the LTTE’s ‘mentor’) unravelled in September-October 1987, the Tigers were engaged in a guerrilla war with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in the northern and eastern parts of the island.

      As the details below reveal, the armed services of the Sri Lankan state (GoSL) were not directly engaged in this war and did not have joint operations with the Indians on the ground. In brief, the December skirmish could NOT have been against Sri Lankan soldiers.
      End extract

      Has DBSJ even addresses it?
      Have you addressed it?
      Has anyone who write in defence of Niromi, addressed it?

      It is true that DBSJ was a fearless critique of the LTTE. It is true that the LTTE targeted him and even assaulted him. That did not stop him from criticising the LTTE. I respected him for that.

      In defence of Niromi, DBSJ is resting on his laurels and has avoided answering Prof Roberts main point. He deftly avoids it and instead writes an essay based on hearsay projecting it as personal knowledge and embellishing it with prose that has nothing to do with whether Niromi is lying or not.

      What has DBSJ written about Niromi’s time with the LTTE if any?

      BTW are you using a Pseudonym or your Real name?
      If I were to use K.Thirukumaran as my pseudonym do you have anyway of identifying it as a Pseudonym?
      Hope you see the how childish your ill advised harangue really is.

      The Truth seems to be very unpalatable to you all, judging from the acrobatics antics of the defence. Why are you trying so desperately to avoid the TRUTH, like the Plague?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        when you ask questions, most of us, courteously attempt to respond to your questions. You on the other hand, never seem respond to questions, but attack the questioners, their intelligence and their motives and now their pseudonyms .

        Why?

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan

        You wrote “when you ask questions, most of us, courteously attempt to respond to your questions”

        Thank you.
        As I stated before to “Human”, courtesy be gets courtesy.
        Take any other path, I have no problem in countering it.

        I lived through the LTTE terrorism and am hoping for Peace and reconciliation. Anyone who lies, misrepresents facts, relates half truths and obfuscates is working against that hope. Hence I will counter any attempt at spreading hate using baseless lies. The web is not the exclusive domain of the LTTE propagandists that it was long ago. We have paid the price of silence, it wont happen again.

        You wrote “You on the other hand, never seem respond to questions, ”

        Then I believe that you are either blind or is a perfect Liar.

        You wrote “ …..but attack the questioners, their intelligence and their motives and now their pseudonyms. ”

        I am sorry that you feel that way but as you can see from my Pseudonym, I write off the cuff and do not attempt to hide the fact. However I base my writing on factual data and have no problem in apologising to anyone who proves me wrong, not by attempted obfuscations and diversions but by factually contesting what I write (I have apologised in the past, when I was proved wrong in interpreting the Thesawalami Laws and that wont be the last time either).

        Regarding Pseudonyms, I will advice you to re read K.Thirukumaran’s post. Especially the line “ ….. mud slinging or analysis by pseudonymous pundits and Phds here.”

        I made a logical response to Thiru, to show how erroneous his thinking is. A REAL sounding name does not mean a writer is using his or her real name. It does not give such a writer a sense of SUPERIORITY to be able to ridicule a Pseudonym because as I have shown, a REAL name can also be a Pseudonym but using a REAL name as such, is absolutely dishonest and cowardly. So how can Thiru prove that he is not that despicable coward? He has not responded yet, has he?

        On the web, everyone is anonymous irrespective of whether one uses a Pseudonym or a Real name. Proving otherwise is possible but not easy. Depending on how one does it, such proof may still not be definitive.

    • Rationalman

      “If I were to use K.Thirukumaran as my pseudonym do you have anyway of identifying it as a Pseudonym?”

      The editors of Groundviews would be able to identify you (OTC) as the fake Thirukumaran by your ip address. It happens all the time in blogs. I am surprised you did not know that.

      Thirukumaran said “At the stroke of a pen, what DBSJ endures validity and read by friends and foes, through today, that’s NOT about to change tomorrow, NO matter how much mud slinging or analysis by pseudonymous pundits and Phds here”.

      I think he referred to posters like Kamalakannan (January 2, 2012 • 12:58 pm) accused DBSJ of being an apologist of the LTTE with remarks like “DBS Jeyaraj is a Jaffna Tamil and insider whereas Swamy, Athas and Goonaratne are outsiders. Yet the outsiders amid their troubles always exercised scientific methods strictly to present the truth. DBS Jeyaraj is a spoiled prodigal son who sailed by the wind.One also take into account that DBS Jeyaraj is a university drop out. He prefers to work for a master throughout his career. Until the death of Commander Kittu DBS. Jeyaraj was a favourite of Col. Kittu. Kittu was DBS.J’s valuable informant. Later DBS.J was seduced by the Flattery king Anton Balasingham”.

      I don’t think he meant you, because you did not impugn DBJS’s character, only his work, which is fair. You did say “It is true that DBSJ was a fearless critique of the LTTE. It is true that the LTTE targeted him and even assaulted him. That did not stop him from criticising the LTTE. I respected him for that.”

      As for “REAL name can also be a Pseudonym but using a REAL name as such, is absolutely dishonest and cowardly”.

      Thiukumaran means something in the Tamil language, unlike Fernando, Perera or De Silva. Who knows, it may be is real name of he might have aspirations of being a “Thirukumaran”, I suggest that you find from your Tamil friends (if you have any) the meaning of the word, Thirukumaran.

      It may have as much meaning to him as the the pseudonym term “Off the Cuff” which means “with little or no preparation or forethought; “his ad-lib comments showed poor judgment”; “an extemporaneous piano recital”; “an extemporary lecture”; “an extempore skit”; “an impromptu speech”; “offhand excuses”; “trying to sound offhanded and reassuring”; “an off-the-cuff toast”; “a few unrehearsed comments” ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/off-the-cuff), has to you.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote “The editors of Groundviews would be able to identify you (OTC) as the fake Thirukumaran by your ip address. It happens all the time in blogs. I am surprised you did not know that“

        Your Technical Knowledge parallels your English comprehension.
        And how would GV identify a Dynamic IP that has no permanent owner other than the ISP? By getting a Court Order against the ISP? I must admit that in your own way, you are Brilliant.

        It’s best to be silent without putting your ignorance on public display by Pontificating on a subject that you know little or nothing about.

        That’s an Off the Cuff comment, try disputing it.
        Should be very easy, since it is off the cuff…. ha ha.

        You wrote “I think he referred to posters like Kamalakannan (January 2, 2012 • 12:58 pm) “

        Is that an interpretation that uses the same logic as you used to interpret “government forces” in Niromi’s Fantasy?
        How did a general reference become a specific one?
        Try using Logic. Speculation seems to be your only Forte !!!

        You wrote “Thiukumaran means something in the Tamil language, “

        The meaning is irrelevant. I can use it too. You and anyone else would be hard put to challenge the name.

        You wrote “It may have as much meaning to him as the the pseudonym term “Off the Cuff” which means “with little or no preparation or forethought; “his ad-lib comments showed poor judgment”; “an extemporaneous piano recital”; “an extemporary lecture”; “an extempore skit”; “an impromptu speech”; “offhand excuses”; “trying to sound offhanded and reassuring”; “an off-the-cuff toast”; “a few unrehearsed comments” “

        Oops so you have taught me something in English!!!
        The Pseudonym was deliberately chosen as I don’t need to shore up my Ego by patting myself on the back with a Pseudonym such as Rationalman or Human etc.

        The point made was that using a Real name does not give the person using the Real sounding name any Moral High Ground over a person using a Pseudonym. The real name may not refer to the writer who uses it. On the web, the identity cannot be established that easily. Thiru took the Moral High ground simply because he used a Real sounding name. My post challenges Thiru to prove that K. Thirukumaran is really him. Let’s wait and see how successful he will be.

        Attempting to deride a Pseudonym based on the writer’s desire for anonymity is idiotic under the circumstances. Even some reputed Tamil Intellectuals who debated on GV, tried to take the Moral High Ground when they failed to counter an argument with facts, just because they, like Thiru, used a Real sounding name. They failed to prove their ID when challenged to do so. They also had Ph.D’s by the way.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, you wrote,
        “RationalMan, You wrote “The editors of Groundviews would be able to identify you (OTC) as the fake Thirukumaran by your ip address. It happens all the time in blogs. I am surprised you did not know that“

        Your Technical Knowledge parallels your English comprehension.
        And how would GV identify a Dynamic IP that has no permanent owner other than the ISP? By getting a Court Order against the ISP? I must admit that in your own way, you are Brilliant.

        It’s best to be silent without putting your ignorance on public display by Pontificating on a subject that you know little or nothing about.

        That’s an Off the Cuff comment, try disputing it.
        Should be very easy, since it is off the cuff…. ha ha. “

        I am glad that I can make you laugh!

        Are you aware that these dynamic address blocks are leased to ISP companies (http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/lk.html) with starting and ending range and they could be identified by the city, Rajagiriya, Bandaragama, Moratuwa, Colombo etc? .

        Try this site. http://www.ip-address.org/. And emails could be tracked to the IP address and then the location of the ISP.http://www.ip-address.org/tracker/trace-email.php. And big companies like Hayleys (203.94.73.118) and NHB (203.115.31.159), have their own static addresses. This is public info! Of course you could post via IP masking sites like hidemyass.com but that pratice is frowned upon by most sites and even banned.

        I am not sure where you are domiciled and don’t want to presume. If you had posted on groundviews as Thirukumaran and he after identifying himself with his usual email address, complains to GV that it was a forgery, it would be easy to track the address of the poster and compare the its location with Thirukumaran’s usual posting IP range.

        If you were from Bandaragama and Thirukumaran was from UK, it would be a patently obvious. If both of you were from Colombo (which is a small market with ISPS like mobitel and infocraft, it would be a little bit more difficult but the groundviews editors (if they choose) would be able to check Thirukumaran’s usual email address with email address that you gave with the post.

        And you would be busted for impersonating another poster!

        ———————————————————

        Thiru took the Moral High ground simply because he used a Real sounding name.

        Is there any rules established by the Editors of Groundviews about taking real sounding names? Could you point them out to us?

        (i>The point made was that using a Real name does not give the person using the Real sounding name any Moral High Ground over a person using a Pseudonym

        Did Thirukumaran claim that he was on a Moral High Ground?

        ——————————————————————

        ‘Even some reputed Tamil Intellectuals who debated on GV, tried to take the Moral High Ground when they failed to counter an argument with facts, just because they, like Thiru, used a Real sounding name.”

        You really dont like Tamils do you?

        ————————————————————

        “The Pseudonym was deliberately chosen as I don’t need to shore up my Ego by patting myself on the back with a Pseudonym such as Rationalman or Human etc.”

        That’s nice!
        ______________________________________________

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote “I am glad that I can make you laugh!”

        If you were performing as a joker, in a comedy, that ability would have been a source of pride.
        But you are not performing in a comedy are you?

        You wrote “Are you aware that these dynamic address blocks are leased to ISP companies (http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/lk.html) with starting and ending range…… ”

        Yes of course.

        You wrote “ ….. and they could be identified by the city, Rajagiriya, Bandaragama, Moratuwa, Colombo etc? ”

        Wrong again.
        The Internal IP assignment is kept confidential.

        You wrote “Try this site. http://www.ip-address.org/. And emails could be tracked to the IP address and then the location of the ISP.http://www.ip-address.org/tracker/trace-email.php.”

        Yes correct.

        You wrote “And big companies like Hayleys (203.94.73.118) and NHB (203.115.31.159), have their own static addresses. This is public info!”

        Yes, correct.
        But the size of the company has no relevance to a static IP.
        Any small company or an individual can have a static IP.

        You wrote “Of course you could post via IP masking sites like hidemyass.com but that pratice is frowned upon by most sites and even banned.”

        Yes you could but I am not aware of what GV does. Do you?

        You wrote “I am not sure where you are domiciled and don’t want to presume. If you had posted on groundviews as Thirukumaran and he after identifying himself with his usual email address, complains to GV that it was a forgery, it would be easy to track the address of the poster and compare the its location with Thirukumaran’s usual posting IP range”

        Wrong
        Thirukumaran can post from anywhere in the world.
        If GV limits posting to “usual IP addresses” he wont be able to post from any other ISP even during his travels.

        You wrote “If you were from Bandaragama and Thirukumaran was from UK, it would be a patently obvious. “

        Wrong again.
        He could post via Lanka while in UK or from Lanka while in Lanka and make a false claim.

        You wrote “If both of you were from Colombo (which is a small market with ISPS like mobitel and infocraft, it would be a little bit more difficult but the groundviews editors (if they choose) would be able to check Thirukumaran’s usual email address with email address that you gave with the post. And you would be busted for impersonating another poster! ”

        Wrong again.
        There are many more ISPs in Lanka. Internal IP information is generally kept confidential and not shared with outsiders. However GV could force ISP’s Like SLT or Mobitel which are govt controlled to release such information via the courts. Whether they will go to such extreme lengths is unknown by me but I would think the odds are against it, if the issue is not serious. Is it your “Rational” opinion that GV will take extreme measures over an insignificant complaint which could be either true or frivolous?

        In contrast, GV has the intelligence to understand that a name is not unique.
        There will be many K Thirukumarans in the world as much as there are many de Silvas, Pereras, Fernandos, de Soyzas, Ponnambalams, Sivalingams, Jayakumars, Ambalavanars, Wijayabandaras, Wickramasinghes, Rajapakses, Jayatilakes, Whites, Browns, Milibands, Bushes etc with Identical initials.

        Have there not been different posters with the same name on GV?

        Anyone can create multiple email addresses with the name T Thirukumaran.
        GV can suspect that they originate from the same person but they cannot be certain.
        You will only see the user name as decided by the user not the email address.
        Hence as far as you are concerned you have no way of telling, Rationally that is.

        You wrote “Is there any rules established by the Editors of Groundviews about taking real sounding names? Could you point them out to us? “

        Why don’t you ask them?

        You wrote “Did Thirukumaran claim that he was on a Moral High Ground? “

        On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?
        Though you have attempted to read his mind, He has remained silent haven’t he?

        You wrote “You really don’t like Tamils do you? “

        Wrong again.
        I dislike Pompous Humbugs, irrespective of ethnicity, who distort the truth and try to scuttle the chances that we have of a real Reconciliation and Peace in Lanka.

        In my last post I stated, The Pseudonym was deliberately chosen as I don’t need to shore up my Ego by patting myself on the back with a Pseudonym such as Rationalman or Human etc.

        Your responded with “That’s nice!”

        Is that an admission that you need to Shore Up Your Ego, by patting yourself on the back, proclaiming to the world, that you are Rational?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        Sigh……

        Do you agree with the following para?

        If you post as “K.Thirukumaran” and the person who usually posts as “T. Thirukumaran” complains to the Editors of GV that his pseudonym has been hijacked, it would be very easy for the editiors of GV to come to the conclusion that it the post was a forgery by a) checking the posting IP address and comparing it to usual range of the original “T. Thirukumaran’s IP posted IPs and if they happen to be in the same range, check the usual (fake or real) email address given by “T. Thirukumaran” with the fake email address you would have given, because you would not know his address.

        So I suggest that if you have any ideas of hijacking the pseudonym of someone else, you should think twice as your post would be exposed as a fake.

        It happens at other blogs all the time.

        ———————————————-

        “On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?”

        a) Who are you referring to when you say “the who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds”
        a) You deride people all the time, including me. I don’t suffer from a severe inferiority complex to think that you are on a higher moral ground or you are claiming a higher moral ground.
        _______________________________

        I asked “Is there any rules established by the Editors of Groundviews about taking real sounding names? Could you point them out to us? “

        And you replied Why don’t you ask them?

        I dont have a problem with people using either real (what ever that means) or fake sounding names. You are the one with the problem?

        In you think that people should not be using “real” sounding names, unless it this is your blog, you should not get your underclothing in a twist!

        —————————

        “I dislike Pompous Humbugs, irrespective of ethnicity, who distort the truth and try to scuttle the chances that we have of a real Reconciliation and Peace in Lanka.

        I congratulate you on the high opinion you have of yourself. However, what really matters, is not we think of ourselves but how others regard us.

        The high regard that you have about yourself is apparently not (to put it kindly) unanimously shared by the rest of the posters. I say this not to hurt your tender feelings but so you can improve yourself and one day, not so far in the near future, I can say, “That OTC, what a shining example of the Sri Lankan Nation”.

      • Off the Cuff

        Rational Man,

        You ask Do you agree with the following para?
        If you post as “K.Thirukumaran” and the person who usually posts as “T. Thirukumaran” complains to the Editors of GV that his pseudonym has been hijacked, it would be very easy for the editiors of GV to come to the conclusion that it the post was a forgery by a) checking the posting IP address and comparing it to usual range of the original “T. Thirukumaran’s IP posted IPs and if they happen to be in the same range, check the usual (fake or real) email address given by “T. Thirukumaran” with the fake email address you would have given, because you would not know his address”

        How can I agree when you post comments that underlines the absence of sound technical knowledge on a subject that you decided to Pontificate on?

        I have already contested what you wrote and tried to show you where you have gone wrong but your English comprehension is standing in the way of understanding them.

        Computer Networking is a very complicated subject and unless you are truly conversant with it’s intricacies it is best left alone lest you make a fool of yourself. However if you still want to make a fool of yourself, please go ahead.

        You have named Mobitel as an ISP.
        If the person who calls him/herself as K Thirukumaran is using Mobitel ISP and I use the same ISP the IP pool that both of us would be using is the same. Depending on Mobitel’s policy of IP assignment and renewal (this is a random assignment from Mobitel’s IP pool), over a time period, I would be using the identical IP that K. Thiru would have used sometime before and Vice versa.
        Hence IP cannot be used to differentiate between the two.

        Names are not unique and people with the same initials are in abundance. Hence that cannot be used to differentiate between the two.

        Email addresses are however unique but since names are not unique GV would see the two Thirukumarans as TWO different people who by coincidence has the same initials. Hence as far as GV is concerned neither are fake.

        However you will not be PRIVY to the email address and You will see both posters as K Thirukumaran.

        Assuming the poster you decided to defend is actually K Thirukumaran he would be using his/her real name (meaning it is not a pseudonym).

        But since I will also be posting as K Thirukumaran and since I am not actually K Thirukumaran, I will be using K Thirukumaran as a Pseudonym but no one would know that it is a Pseudonym and will be deceived in to believing that it is also the same real person.

        This is why posting under a Real name does not give any moral superiority over a Pseudonym.

        I have tried to give you a simple explanation of your fallacy.
        Hope you can understand it.

        You ask “a) Who are you referring to when you say “the who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds” “

        I searched the whole of this web page for the word combination you attributed to me within the quotes and could not find any previous such combination.
        Is that a genuine error on your part or Dishonesty?

        You wrote “a) You deride people all the time, including me. I don’t suffer from a severe inferiority complex to think that you are on a higher moral ground or you are claiming a higher moral ground.”

        That you do have a severe inferiority complex is underlined by your need to pat yourself on the back by proclaiming to the World that you are a Rational Person.

        I deride you and any other, if what you write justifies it, not otherwise. My personal opinion is that, lying, half truths, prostituting the truth, obfuscation, etc, justifies ridicule. If you are guilty of any of those or similar I would have derided you. If you can point out any instance that I have derided you or anyone else unjustly, I would unhesitatingly apologise.

        You say “I dont have a problem with people using either real (what ever that means) or fake sounding names. You are the one with the problem? “

        Again your English comprehension is giving you trouble.
        I certainly don’t have a problem with what anyone decides to call themselves but I do have a problem with those who think they are morally superior to those who use Pseudonyms and decide to deride a Pseudonym user on that account.

        K Thirukumaran is guilty of doing that. You overlooked that fact and challenged me on behalf of K. Thirukumaran, who, to date, has been silent, exposing his cowardice.

        You wrote “You really don’t like Tamils do you? “
        I said Wrong again. I dislike Pompous Humbugs, irrespective of ethnicity,
        You wrote again “I congratulate you on the high opinion you have of yourself. However, what really matters, is not we think of ourselves but how others regard us”

        I did not blow my own trumpet but you do it every time you call yourself Rational. I think you need to take the advice that you so freely dispense to others.

        You wrote “The high regard that you have about yourself is apparently not (to put it kindly) unanimously shared by the rest of the posters. I say this not to hurt your tender feelings but so you can improve yourself and one day, not so far in the near future, I can say, “That OTC, what a shining example of the Sri Lankan Nation”.”

        Pardon me for deriding you again but you don’t leave me any alternative. Obviously English is not your Forte. If I was self opinionated I would not use a nom de plume like Off the Cuff and leave myself open to derision by those who cannot meet my arguments, as you tried to do earlier.

        Of course I have confidence in what I write as I try to base it on facts. Else I would not write what I write. It is up to those who are in disagreement to prove (with facts) what I write is wrong, without worrying about my feelings.

        GV is a space filled with diverse opinions and only a Fool will look for Unanimity within it. I certainly do not look for unanimity with so many terror sympathisers writing in. Do you?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        very proudly you announce that

        “I deride you and any other, if what you write justifies it, not otherwise. My personal opinion is that, lying, half truths, prostituting the truth, obfuscation, etc, justifies ridicule. If you are guilty of any of those or similar I would have derided you”.
        and “Pardon me for deriding you again but you don’t leave me any alternative”.

        In real life, (where you meet actual people, not the anonymous posters who do not know you and vice versa), are you as brave and bold with the people who do not accept your version of the “truth” as you are behind the screen and keyboard?

        If I recall, the people of Ceylon, Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims, Burghers and others are very courteous and kind but very proud people, and would not have stood for such aggressive and abusive behavior. Do you go around deriding people in real life as you do behind the keyboard? Or you meet people who disagree refuse to accept your version of the “truth” only in cyberspace?

    • Rationalman

      OTC, you say , ” I write off the cuff and do not attempt to hide the fact”.

      I am glad that you write off the cuff, but I dont think you really understand what it means. here is another definition “Off-the-cuff (adjective). A quick, unthinking answer for which the speaker has no valid authority(comes from the alleged practice of writing an abbreviated answer on the cuff of your shirt, to be glanced at during an examination) http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070901651/student_view0/colloquial_glossary.html

      Are you saying that you definition of off the cuff is “to write A quick, unthinking answer for which the speaker has no valid authority”?

      Or is there a different definition that is used in your circles? If it is could you explain with links please?

  • In reply to rationalman, indeed, we will not dispute the hair patting story. Instead we add our own ‘inside information’. Our sleuths tell us that when Niromi was a very young lass she had a few pimples that bothered her greatly. She was seen rubbing it with water and chanting ‘Nicodemus’. One of her aunts told her of a more successful cure using crushed leaves of Makkippu and Vembpu. This was a cure that she found useful even as an LTTE fighter to rub on cuts and injuries caused when fighting some ‘government forces’ who had camouflaged themselves as IPKF soldiers. So, when Niromi spoke of government forces, she was speaking the truth. How do we know all these ? We have our informants too. I am sure DBSJ can come up with his version of it.

    Dear Agnos

    I find that my articles have been reproduced by Lankaweb, Sinhala hotpress, Spur and all sorts of other websites, including the Sri Lanka Guardian which is the other side of the coin. Those who follow the Lankaweb or Spur would claim that DBSJ’s blog is also a chauvinist site, and vice versa. So let us not get into that discussion. Every writeup has some partial truths and untruths. Furthermore, Lankan electronic media seem to borrow from each other without even indicating the original source, or sometimes asking the actual author, perhaps because no copyright is indicated.

    There was no notice for defamation by some legal action if you are suggesting that, but you can see what was involved by reading the successive details of the events and letters exchanged in the Sri Lanka Guardian. It was claimed that associating people with the LTTE even when mining already public data could lead to such people being arrested in some situations, purely based on our website-based information.

    If the state department website could be hacked by Wikileaks, it is not surprising that our attempt to collect information on post-LTTE activists was hacked, especially because it was a partially open-access website where a significant number of people could fill in information. My mistake was leaving such a sensitive topic in the hands of others assuming that negative and positive factors entered by different people would eventually cancel out. Actually many people had written to our editors and introduced valid corrections. However, the moment we realized that the site had been hacked, and that quite a few entries had been modified maliciously, I closed the site and removed the access given to far-flung editors in several locations. Ours was actually a well-designed empirical method but Agnos should write to me directly, and I can give many more details of how individual names got collected from the computerized data-mining program looking for LTTE-related key words; all that need not be presented in this forum, when discussing a very different topic.

    • Rationalman

      Chandre,
      I am bitterly disappointed when you say…”we will not dispute the hair patting story”. After claiming that “Then, as some one remarked, there is the white-pigeon song and ‘Niromi’ is fabricated in detail: “her class, religion, age, what books she liked, what music she listened to, what musical instruments she played, what sports, animals and films she liked, her GCE(O’) Level results, and how she used to stroke and pat her hair while cycling, wearing a red and black tie”. That is the spin.”

      After using the devastating terms “fabircating” and “spin”, now you back pedal furiously when you say “we will not dispute the hair patting story”. And add you claim to add your own inside information to DBSJ’s report . Can you explain to us, why you accused DBSJ of fabrication and spin and now attempt to supplement his version with how the young Niromi treated her pimples.

      Or is it a feeble attempt at satire? If it is, I commend you for trying but you have a couple of light years to go before you can aspire to be a Lucien Rajakarunanayake of the Sunday Island era (thatha and bindu columns) of the late 70/early 80s . I am pretty sure
      it was Lucien. If I am wrong, I hope someone would correct me.

      Chandre, when you say..”soldiers. So, when Niromi spoke of government forces, she was speaking the truth. How do we know all these ? We have our informants too”, I want to believe you. Since your eloquently and passionately of the detailed dry-empiricist approach to history, I would have expected you to use the standards you expect from others. Aren’t you doing the same things you are accusing DBSJ of? At least DBSJ has put his information out in the open with names, dates and places. I am looking forward to you doing the same.

      I commend your effort to increase the traffic to the websites you work for by promoting them. I hope they show you their apprication in some way or form. As for me, I will check them out one of these days.

      In your earlier post, you sated that “DBSJ recreates the person of Niromi de Soyza, and even ‘explains’ that the 17 year old Jaffna girl was captivated by the killed Colombo journalist Soyza to the extent of assuming the name ‘Soyza’ (!!!)”

      And when I responded, you have chosen to ignore my reply. Here is one additional bit of information that you probably are not aware of. Mr. Soyza’s mother was Tamil, a Ms Saravanamuthu and she was a well known physician. This was well known fact at that time and a source of pride among the tamils that Richard was such a brave and crusading journalist.

      So when you mock Niromi for taking Mr. Soyza’s name to honor him, either you didnt know that his mother was Tamil or deny his heritage. I am not sure which was worse.

      If you didn’t know that his mother was tamil, which could have been done with a little “googling”, I suggest that you seriously improve your research capabilities. Perhaps by asking the publications you work for to raise some funds so you can hire a young kid, perhaps seventh or eighth grader in exchange for some pocket money to do the heavy lifting for you.

  • Rationalman

    Chandre DW,

    You state that “There was no notice for defamation by some legal action if you are suggesting that, but you can see what was involved by reading the successive details of the events and letters exchanged in the Sri Lanka Guardian.”

    In the hurry to repond to Agnos and Me, you must have forgotten to include the links to the articles from the Lanka Guardian. I am going to help you by linking them for you so that our fellow readers can understand the references.

    The original article: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/01/ahrc-tells-canada-based-sri-lankan.html

    Your response: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/01/ahrc-tells-canada-based-sri-lankan.html

    You do not have to thank me, it was my pleasure.

  • The Owl of Minerva

    I don’t understand all this agitation over certain inacuurate details in Niromis work — if there are any.Sri Lankans should be used to fictionalised works.Some of our historians both Sinhala and Tamil,the Peradeniya school and the Jaffna schlool –have been producing it for years!

  • Agnos

    Mr. Dharmawardhana,

    “Those who follow the Lankaweb or Spur would claim that DBSJ’s blog is also a chauvinist site, and vice versa. So let us not get into that discussion.”

    That is a very revealing comment. The LankaWeb editors once published an article by one Perera (Charles or Sam, my memory is not clear), that openly advocated genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka. They used the exact word genocide, it is not my interpretation. This was a couple of years before the mass slaughter in the Vanni in May 2009. Of course, after a day or two, the article was removed. Equating DBSJ’s blog to such a site, that such “sensibility” comes from someone who had been VC of a university in Sri Lanka, someone who now works in liberal Canada’s NRC as a physicist, shows how deeply rooted chauvinism is in Sri Lanka, and how much work Sri Lankan polity has to do before reconciliation becomes possible.

    • The Owl of Minerva

      TO AGNOS:
      The article in LankaWeb that you were referring to was by Dilrook Kannangara and was entitled,”The Only Practical Solution”.It suggested that the only way to solve the Tamil problem was to exteriminate them all,as was apparently done in earlier times,says Mr. Kannganara citing the Mahavamsa!This document by Kannangara is truly a treasure and must be given wider circulation.
      I must admit though that, having read the Mahavamsa, I find no advocacy of genocide in it.
      Of course you are right:the statements made in this site alone,the passion and rabid fury with which Niromi’s book is being attacked by Sinhala “nationalists”alone,will reveal how diificult it would be construct even a minimally just and egalitarion state in the country.

      • Agnos

        The Owl of Minerva,

        Yes, sorry. I have a bad memory for names.

  • All that the government sycophants do is to nit pick. After a hard days work, it’s fun to come online and read their fairy tales. I am looking forward to the day, when some Sinhala soldier living abroad, publishes his memoirs about how he or some of his mates killed Tamil civilians. Boy, the pouring of righteous indignation that will surely ensure on groundviews is something I am looking forward to reading.

    • Perhaps you should start writing that piece of fiction yourself, Duncey, and make a quick buck before the world loses interest in this fantasy.

      • @ Blacker

        Was never a ‘Peacekeeper’ nor was I ever involved in any ‘Humanitarian Operations’…your the hot shot writer of fiction no? I recall you writing a book about something being ‘untrue’?

        And since you were once a ‘Peacekeeper’ and was involved in ‘Humanitarian Sniping’ why not write a sequel?

        • PresiDunce Bean, Blacker has right of response to this literary request, AND THEN PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

      • Duncey, it is precisely because you have never been anything connected to the reality that you would be the perfect person to write the fiction you so eagerly await. As the bus conductor says, “You can’t always ask for the change — you must also bring the change.” 😀

  • Bewildered

    It appears this eminent historian – Prof. Roberts, has nothing to research on but on here say narration of an individual. Has he become, tired of history, and lost interest in academic research. Has he got to write this rather confusing narrative to keep his job going.
    Come on Prof., get into serious research.

    • Off the Cuff

      Bewildered,

      This is what Prof Roberts stated in his first article. What is confusing or bewildering in it?

      Market Pitch, Fundamental Error
      The dramatic beginning via “The Ambush” is geared to the book’s market pitch. Both the back cover and the cyber-world notices advertising the book tell us that “two days before Christmas 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting the government forces that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades”…….

      But within this little tale within a biographical tale lies a fundamental error. Once the uneasy relationship of ‘alliance’ between the LTTE and the Indian government (the LTTE’s ‘mentor’) unravelled in September-October 1987, the Tigers were engaged in a guerrilla war with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in the northern and eastern parts of the island.

      As the details below reveal, the armed services of the Sri Lankan state (GoSL) were not directly engaged in this war and did not have joint operations with the Indians on the ground. In brief, the December skirmish could NOT have been against Sri Lankan soldiers.

      • Rohan

        “As the details below reveal, the armed services of the Sri Lankan state (GoSL) were not directly engaged in this war and did not have joint operations with the Indians on the ground. In brief, the December skirmish could NOT have been against Sri Lankan soldiers.”

        Well, Off the Cuff… One wonders whether you ever questioned any section of Mahavansa, the ‘History of India and Sri Lanka’!

        The LTTE was always in war with the Sri Lankan state mechinery. Sri Lankan armed forces were considered the enemy even during the peace time. Please don’t bother about all these responses, but keep asking the same question again and again.

      • Off the Cuff

        Rohan,

        Well Rohan, this is not about Mahavansa, history of India or your biography but of Niromi’s claim of fighting the Sri Lanka Army, that remained confined to barracks from July /August 1987 to 1990.

        Unless you are an illiterate, you would notice that the last week in December 1987 falls right within that period.

        We are not contesting who and what the LTTE considered as it’s enemy but how Niromi and her band of Terrorists fought and army confined to barracks?

        Neither you, DBSJ or anyone else has answered the above question and till such time someone does so satisfactorily, I am within my rights to repeat the question and prevent you from sidestepping it.

        So how about an answer?

      • wijayapala

        Dear Rohan

        The LTTE was always in war with the Sri Lankan state mechinery.

        Even during all those ceasefires when the LTTE was talking “peace?”

      • Off the Cuff

        Rohan and Bewidered,

        Have you got writer’s cramp or are lost for words?

        Prof Roberts made a Valid observation.
        1. The SLA was confined to barracks (since July / August 1987 and remained so till 1990).
        2. Niromi claims to have fought the SLA two days before Xmas in 1987
        DBSJ, you and all others who write in defence of Niromi, deftly avoids the above, WHY?

        Still waiting for your answer.

    • Rationalman

      You say…”We are not contesting who and what the LTTE considered as it’s enemy but how Niromi and her band of Terrorists fought and army confined to barracks?”

      Would you consider the Navy as part of the government forces?

      • “Rational”man, do you have any evidence of the Tigers fighting the SL Navy between 1987 and 1989, and of Niromi being a member of the Sea Tigers? If you have neither, what exactly is your point?

      • Rationalman

        Sigh, here we go again……

        Did the SL Navy conduct a hostile operation against the LTTE boat with Pulendran and his comrades on October 3, 1987?

        You have admitted that the SL Navy was not confined to port, right?

        So if the Navy had encountered an LTTE boat on the high seas between the period October 3, 1987 to Dec 23 , 1987, they would the right have under the Article 2.16.(b) of the Indo-Sri lankan Accord to prevent “Tamil Militant activities from affecting Jaffna.”

        And LTTE was all about Tamil Militant activities in Jaffna, right?

        So if a commander of a SL Navy vessel had met a LTTE vessal on the high seas, he would have to engage militants or would be been indereliction of his duty, right?

        In plan English, doesn’t that mean the SL Navy was duty bound to fight the LTTE on the high seas?

        As Niromi says, doesn’t that mean, that the Naval arm of the Sri Lankan armed forces would have been duty bound to fight or would fighting the LTTE in December 1987?

        Doesn’t that mean, Niromi was right?

      • Off the Cuff

        Rationalman asks, Would you consider the Navy as part of the government forces?

        “government forces”?
        Ah that’s a good one.

        “i” Rationalman, now you are arguing with yourself and it is hilarious.
        I doubt you will ever realize why.

        I suppose Niromi and her gang of Terrorists could also walk on water too….. next time you will claim that they were fighting the SLAF in the Air to justify Niromi’s claim of fighting an Army confined to Barracks by an inter government peace agreement, 5 months previous to the time that she claims to have fought them …. ha ha haa.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, I am glad to make you laugh but my question still stands, would you consider the Navy a part of the Government forces?

      • Rationalman, an arrest is not a hostile operation, and regardless of whether the SL Navy had the right to attack Tiger boats that violated the Accord, the point is whether there is ANY EVIDENCE of them having done so. Do you have any such evidence, “Rational”man? 😀

      • Rationalman

        Oh David, David, David,

        If it was not a hostile military operation, what was it then? A friendly operation?

        If it was merely an arrest, why not treat the arrest like any other arrest of smuggler or a navigationally challenged fisherman and hand them over to civilian law enforcement, the Police? And charge Pulendran for violating civilian statues and charge him under civilian laws in Jaffna courts?

        When the Pulendran and his team were arrested/apprehended/captured by the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas and took them in military custody, LTTE took it as an act of war. (we are not debating the legality of LTTE’s assumption, though I would agree with the LTTE statement) )

        We are debating Niromi’s statement “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too,”. It was the LTTE’s perception that the war was still going on with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, because they were still conducting hostile operations against the LTTE. .

        Now if it was a simple arrest and Pulendran and co were handed over to civilian (police) custody like any other smuggler or lost fisherman, one could argue that it was simple arrest and LTTE was overreacting.

        But Pulendran were taken in to the Palaly military base and treated like prisoners of war.

        So the LTTE saw it as the continuation of hostile activities. And thus Niromi’s statement “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too,”.

      • “If it was not a hostile military operation, what was it then? A friendly operation?”

        Why must it be either friendly or hostile? The law is dispassionate.

        “If it was merely an arrest, why not treat the arrest like any other arrest of smuggler or a navigationally challenged fisherman and hand them over to civilian law enforcement, the Police? And charge Pulendran for violating civilian statues and charge him under civilian laws in Jaffna courts?”

        Since the violation wasn’t simply that of regular laws but those of national security, I don’t think it was necessary for the suspects to be produced in Jaffna courts, just in courts. This was thwarted by the VP-engineered suicide.

        “When the Pulendran and his team were arrested/apprehended/captured by the Sri Lankan Navy on the high seas and took them in military custody, LTTE took it as an act of war. (we are not debating the legality of LTTE’s assumption, though I would agree with the LTTE statement) )”

        I am sure you agree with many LTTE statements, but the fact is that the SL Navy was acting within the stipulations of the Accord, and the Tigers were in violation of it. Being then arrested under the rules of the Accord cannot be taken as an act of war 😀 Not unless you were looking for an excuse to return to war. The fact that the Tigers then attacked the IPKF and NOT the SL military which you calim had perpetrated your “act of war” makes your claim nonsensical. This point was put to you before, and you abandoned the argument. But lo and behold it returns again 😀

        “We are debating Niromi’s statement “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too,”. It was the LTTE’s perception that the war was still going on with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, because they were still conducting hostile operations against the LTTE. .”

        No, it is your perception. There were no hostile operations conducted against the Tigers (I have asked you for evidence of any, and you’ve failed to do so), and just one perfectly legal arrest conducted in line with the terms of the Accord.

        “Now if it was a simple arrest and Pulendran and co were handed over to civilian (police) custody like any other smuggler or lost fisherman, one could argue that it was simple arrest and LTTE was overreacting.”

        Since they were neither smugglers nor fishermen, why should they be treated as anything other than armed and dangerous terrorists?

        “So the LTTE saw it as the continuation of hostile activities. And thus Niromi’s statement “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too,”.”

        No, because even if the Tigers saw this as a continuation of hostilities, there is no evidence of any “fighting” between the Tigers and the SL military as Niromi claims; just of fighting between the Tigers and the IPKF.

        Try again, “Rational”man 😀 your struggles are so amusing.

      • Rationalman

        Oh David, do like the like your nonchalance, like “”Rational”man 😀 your struggles are so amusing” and “But lo and behold it returns again”. I hope someone somewhere is impressed by your efforts.

        I am sure you agree with many LTTE statements, but the fact is that the SL Navy was acting within the stipulations of the Accord, and the Tigers were in violation of it. Being then arrested under the rules of the Accord cannot be taken as an act of war 😀 Not unless you were looking for an excuse to return to war.

        (You are the only person I know who describes the capture of Pulendran as “arrest”. Everywhere else the incident as been described as “capture”, “apprehension”, or “intercept”).

        Sigh, I had quoted chapter and verse from the Accord, about the Sri Lankan Navy’s to right patrol the seas under the treaty and Dixit’s observations that Pulendran and the other LTTE cadre were ferrying weapons.

        “Being then arrested under the rules of the Accord cannot be taken as an act of war 😀 Not unless you were looking for an excuse to return to war”.

        That is the opinion of David Blacker in 2012. The opinion of Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, on October 4th, 1987 was that the apprehension/capture/arrest/intercept was an act of war.

        This is what I have been saying all along.

        And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match. But Lalith and co provided the gasoline. (January 3, 2012 • 5:16 am).

        ———————————

        Here we go again
        No, it is your perception. There were no hostile operations conducted against the Tigers (I have asked you for evidence of any, and you’ve failed to do so), and just one perfectly legal arrest conducted in line with the terms of the Accord

        No, that is David Blacker’s perception on Jan 10, 2012. LTTE’s perception on October 4, 1987 was that the apprehension was a hostile act.
        —————————————————-

        There were no hostile operations conducted against the Tigers (I have asked you for evidence of any, and you’ve failed to do so), and just one perfectly legal arrest conducted in line with the terms of the Accord.

        There is one hostile action (as the LTTE saw it, on October, 4, 1987).
        You are the one who is categorically stating that There were no hostile operations conducted against the Tigers . Not me. I have given you an incident, which you say is not hostile, but the LTTE considered hostile.

        The Pulendran interception set the seeds for the fighting with the IPKF. Its a historical fact.

        ———————-
        Now you ask why LTTE attack the IPKF instead of attacking the SL Armed Forces. They are two different question….

        1) They didn’t attack the Sri Lankan Army because Dear Henry, Dear Henry, they were confined to the barracks.

        2) If you have read the Accord (which I do not have with me now, but will be happy to post the reference later on) ) , you will know that the Indian Army and Navy was obliged to assist the Government of Sri Lanka to control militant activities if and when needed.

        There was no reciprocal agreement with the LTTE to assist them against the attacks of the Sri Lankan armed forces.

        The IPKF were not true peacekeepers in the UN Blue beret sense.

        On October 5th 1987, the Indian Army Commander K. Sunderji was in Palaly. Within the next few hours, the LTTE attacked and killed some Indian soldiers. On October 6th, Sunderji had ordered the commencement of Operation Pawan.

        Prabhakaran realized that the IPKF will turn against him and decided to attack first.

        If you do not know why the LTTE attacked the IPKF afer all these years, perhaps you should go back to the books!
        ——————————————————————–
        No, because even if the Tigers saw this as a continuation of hostilities, there is no evidence of any “fighting” between the Tigers and the SL military as Niromi claims; just of fighting between the Tigers and the IPKF..

        We have gone over this over and over again and will go over this many times I am sure about what Niromi meant till you get her book in your anxious little hands.

        You are unable to give me a single instance where she has claimed that she fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, just repeat that single statement from the Telepgraph over and over and over and over and over again, like my two year old who when asked why he does not like carrots says “’cause” over and over again. I have shown this thread to the little boy’s father and he does agree with me.

      • Off the Cuff

        “RationalMan”

        You wrote “OTC, I am glad to make you laugh but my question still stands, would you consider the Navy a part of the Government forces?”

        What relevance does your question has to Niromi’s Ambush?
        Did that Ambush occur on Sea or Land?
        Niromi says it was on Land.
        Are you now trying to say it was at sea and she could also walk on water, another miracle?
        Not an impossible claim, given her previous miracle of fighting the SL Army while it was confined to Barracks.
        So where does your question stand?
        Still arguing with yourself?

        Only an idiot would state that a Country’s defence forces are not her government forces. Why question the obvious when no one has denied it? Is that also an attempted smoke screen?

      • “(You are the only person I know who describes the capture of Pulendran as “arrest”. Everywhere else the incident as been described as “capture”, “apprehension”, or “intercept”).”

        Like I said “Rational”man, the day you actually do some reading will be the day you find this world to be a surprising one that you never knew existed before. Here are some of the people who think Pulendran was arrested:

        “two LTTE leaders, Kumarappa and Pulendran along with 12 others had been arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy and they were being held in the Army camp at Pallali.” — Tamil Nation (http://tamilnation.co/intframe/india/warcrimes/871010beginning.htm)

        “Many people including the former President J.R.Jayewardene, share the opinion that the turning point was the arrest and subsequent suicide of the 17 L.T.T.E. members” — University Teachers for Human Rights (http://www.uthr.org/BP/volume2/AppendixII.htm)

        “these 12 LTTE fighters were deceptively arrested and were about to be taken to Colombo” — Tamil Tigers Net (http://ttnet.bravehost.com/history/2005/his2005news1860.html)

        There are literally hundreds more references to the “arrest” on the net, “Rational”man, but I think you get the point. So shall we consign this point too to the dustbin where the rest of your arguments lie, and move on?

        “Sigh, I had quoted chapter and verse from the Accord, about the Sri Lankan Navy’s to right patrol the seas under the treaty and Dixit’s observations that Pulendran and the other LTTE cadre were ferrying weapons.”

        If you are in agreement with me, I’ll be happy to accept that you also agree with me that there were in fact no “machinations” by the GoSL as you earlier claimed, but legitimate action under the Accord; actions which were misconstrued by VP for his own purposes; primarily to go to war with the IPKF.

        “That is the opinion of David Blacker in 2012. The opinion of Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, on October 4th, 1987 was that the apprehension/capture/arrest/intercept was an act of war.”

        This cannot be logically deduced given that VP then went to war not against those who had committed the act of war, but the neutral peacekeepers, the IPKF. If VP considered it an act of war, isn’t it logical that he must retaliate against the perpetrators of the act and not a third party. Did the US attack Australia after the Japanese committed the act of war of bombing Pearl Harbour?

        “This is what I have been saying all along.And that intransigent fool, Prabaharan fell for these machinations hook line and sinker. I do agree that that idiot lit the match. But Lalith and co provided the gasoline. (January 3, 2012 • 5:16 am).”

        Again, I’ll accept that it is your illiteracy rather than your irrationality that makes you believe that to accuse the GoSL of “machinations” is to blame VP.

        “No, that is David Blacker’s perception on Jan 10, 2012. LTTE’s perception on October 4, 1987 was that the apprehension was a hostile act.”

        Given that the Tigers did not retaliate against this act of war but proceed to attack a neural third party who were innocent of such an act, this premise of yours is clearly nonsense.

        “There is one hostile action (as the LTTE saw it, on October, 4, 1987).
        You are the one who is categorically stating that There were no hostile operations conducted against the Tigers . Not me. I have given you an incident, which you say is not hostile, but the LTTE considered hostile.”

        Are you now deeming to speak for the LTTE and its former leader? Logic dictates that if they considered the arrest to be an act of war, they go to war with those committing the act; and not a neutral third party. I have pointed this out to you several times, but you hide and do not respond to it. Why, “Rational”man; no rational response? 😀

        “The Pulendran interception set the seeds for the fighting with the IPKF. Its a historical fact.”

        No it is the suicide of Pulendran & co that sparked the fighting; a suicide engineered by VP.

        “Now you ask why LTTE attack the IPKF instead of attacking the SL Armed Forces. They are two different question….”

        No, it is one question, but feel free to give two answers as you usually do 😀

        “1) They didn’t attack the Sri Lankan Army because Dear Henry, Dear Henry, they were confined to the barracks.”

        And why could these barracks not be attacked as has been done innumerable times in the war? 😀 Also, why was the SL Navy (which wasn’t confined) not attacked as has been done innumerable times? Is this seriously your rational reasoning, “Rational”man?

        “2) If you have read the Accord (which I do not have with me now, but will be happy to post the reference later on) ) , you will know that the Indian Army and Navy was obliged to assist the Government of Sri Lanka to control militant activities if and when needed.”

        I know of no such clause in the Accord; but even if onbe such existed, since the Tigers did not attack the SL military, and no such request was made to the IPKF by the GoSL, what exactly is your point? 😀

        “There was no reciprocal agreement with the LTTE to assist them against the attacks of the Sri Lankan armed forces.The IPKF were not true peacekeepers in the UN Blue beret sense.”

        Peacekeeping doesn’t require any such agreement with any of the warring parties to come to their assistance in order to establish authenticity. Neither under the UN mandate or any other agreement. The only mandate is to maintain the peace under the terms of whichever agreement governs the status quo. Even if what you say is true and the IPKF were not peacekeepers, this doesn’t explain how attacking them could be seen to be a legitimate retaliation to an act of war by the GoSL 😀

        “On October 5th 1987, the Indian Army Commander K. Sunderji was in Palaly. Within the next few hours, the LTTE attacked and killed some Indian soldiers. On October 6th, Sunderji had ordered the commencement of Operation Pawan.Prabhakaran realized that the IPKF will turn against him and decided to attack first.”

        So you acknowledge that it was the threat of attack by the IPKF that spurred VP to attack first, and not any nonsensical “act of war” by the GoSL? Thank you, “Rational”man, for even at this late stage managing to come to your senses.

        “If you do not know why the LTTE attacked the IPKF afer all these years, perhaps you should go back to the books!”

        But it was you that suggested that the Tiger attack on the IPKF was a result of the GoSL’s act of war. Yet now you say that your book says that it was in fact the threat of attack by the IPKF. Which book were you reading first — Donald Duck?

        “We have gone over this over and over again and will go over this many times I am sure about what Niromi meant till you get her book in your anxious little hands.”

        How can you be so sure? Which portion of Niromi’s book explains what she meant in the interview to not be exactly what it says? And didn’t you at the beginning of this argument say that you have not read Niromi’s book yourself? 😉

        “You are unable to give me a single instance where she has claimed that she fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, just repeat that single statement from the Telepgraph over and over and over and over and over again, like my two year old who when asked why he does not like carrots says “’cause” over and over again. I have shown this thread to the little boy’s father and he does agree with me.”

        That is the one sentence where she claims it “Rational”man, so why are you asking for another sentence? You yourself accept that she means the SL military “government troops” and go to great but futile length to prove that there was such “fighting” by citing Pulendran’s arrest to be a “fight”. Yet now you say again that she hasn’t mentioned the SL military 😀 You certainly are a confused man!

        “like my two year old who when asked why he does not like carrots says “’cause” over and over again. I have shown this thread to the little boy’s father and he does agree with me.””

        Just out of curiosity, as your familial life is your own business, are you saying that your 2-year-old was fathered by someone else? That must be a confusing situation for the poor boy, not to mention yourself. 😀

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote “You are unable to give me a single instance where she has claimed that she fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, just repeat that single statement from the Telepgraph over and over and over and over and over again, like my two year old who when asked why he does not like carrots says “’cause” over and over again. I have shown this thread to the little boy’s father and he does agree with me.”

        Of course it is conceded that you have the ability to make us laugh even by insulting yourself in the proces. quite admirable. But please spare the 2 year old and her mother.

        Seriously though, Niromi did utter the following in 2011, at an interview with Ms. Margaret Throsby of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), broadcast at 10:00am on Thu 08 Dec 2011.

        “When I joined, the Indian forces has arrived and the Tigers decided to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces ” (from 26:12 to 26:19)

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40656

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        ——————
        I am beginning to enjoy being ambushed by the the tag team of Blacker and OTC, the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of GV, .

        I have asked Tweedledum (who refuses to answer) and will now ask Tweedledee…..

        “Can you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces? directly.”

        And one more question which you still have not answered…

        “Has OTC read the book, “Tamil Tigress” by Niromi De Soyza”.

        —————————————-
        Once you answer that, can you tell us if you asserting that

        When Niromi said “We/LTTE ” were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too” implies that “a)”Niromi claimed that she was involved in a skrimish/battle/ambush and was fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces”?
        ——————————

      • Rationalman

        David,

        “This cannot be logically deduced given that VP then went to war not against those who had committed the act of war, but the neutral peacekeepers, the IPKF. If VP considered it an act of war, isn’t it logical that he must retaliate against the perpetrators of the act and not a third party. Did the US attack Australia after the Japanese committed the act of war of bombing Pearl Harbour?”

        I am surprised to think that you would consider Australia a third party. US was aiding Britain and its allies with the Lend Lease Act of March 1941. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease). 9 months before Pearl Harbor. Alongside the British and other Commonwealth troops, the Australians were fighting the Axis powers (sans Japan) in Europe and the Mediterranean.

        Japan simultaneously attacked Pearl Harbor (Dec 7, 1941) and Malaya (Dec 8 1941), declaring war on the British and Commonwealth forces?

        So why would the US attack Australia? By December 8th weren’t they both at war with Japan?

        Can you explain your logic?
        __________________________________________________________

      • Rationalman

        David,
        mea culpa! I did the same (Ltte + pulendran + arrest) google search and got pretty much the same results that you got including the UTHR report. What I meant to type came out differently. So I apologize. See, I admit my mistakes?

        As erroneous as my typing was, it was not germane to the point that I was trying to make. I know that this error will be brought up every time you get frustrated and tongue tied, so let me apologize a million times in advance.
        ____________________

        I am gratified that you had used the following quotes to support your point…

        “Many people including the former President J.R.Jayewardene, share the opinion that the turning point was the arrest and subsequent suicide of the 17 L.T.T.E. members” — University Teachers for Human Rights (http://www.uthr.org/BP/volume2/AppendixII.htm)

        “these 12 LTTE fighters were deceptively arrested and were about to be taken to Colombo” — Tamil Tigers Net (http://ttnet.bravehost.com/history/2005/his2005news1860.html)

        Do you agree with comments that the arrests were the turning point and that the 12 LTTE fighters were deceptively arrested?

        Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
        ________________________________________________________________

        If you are in agreement with me, I’ll be happy to accept that you also agree with me that there were in fact no “machinations” by the GoSL as you earlier claimed, but legitimate action under the Accord; actions which were misconstrued by VP for his own purposes; primarily to go to war with the IPKF

        I don’t know if it was legitimate or not. I am just quoting JN Dixit, the an who you deride as the Indian Machiavelli” and I will take him at his word.

        If I may try to help you refocus, we are not are debating is why LTTE went to war with the IPKF or it’s motivation. We are discussing why LTTE considered itself to be at war with the Sri Lankan Forces.

        And the President of Sri Lanka himself seems to have agreed that Many people including the former President J.R.Jayewardene, share the opinion that the turning point was the arrest and subsequent suicide of the 17 L.T.T.E. members”

        What do you think was the effect of the turning point?

        ———————————————

        So you acknowledge that it was the threat of attack by the IPKF that spurred VP to attack first, and not any nonsensical “act of war” by the GoSL? Thank you, “Rational”man, for even at this late stage managing to come to your senses.

        Oh, David, if I my try to refocus you again.

        We are talking about Niromi’s claim “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”.

        We are not talking about why the LTTE attacked the IPKF. I assume that you will agree that Niromi’s reference to the Peacekeepers is correct.

        You were asserted that Niromi’s claim that the “we were fighting the government troops” was flat out wrong. Or do you now deny that you said so such thing?

        ——————————————————————-

        Again, I’ll accept that it is your illiteracy rather than your irrationality that makes you believe that to accuse the GoSL of “machinations” is to blame VP.

        That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it. If you have not been able to grasp the facts after so many books and articles have been written about them, Poor little Rationalman will not be able to change your mind.

        I have given you JN Dixit’s descrpition of events..Lalith anticipated my hurried return from Delhi to Colombo and the likelyhood of Jayawardne thwarting his plans to create a crisis and took perniciously pre-emptive action.

        To be fair, to understand your point of you, I will go the extra step and ask you, why I am wrong? Were you there? What have you read about the incidents? Can you give me some reference materials?

        Thanks

        ——————————————————–

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Prof Roberts stated that “Niromi described the enemy forces as “government troops”.

        You have contested that by stating The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force” December 29, 2011 • 10:36 pm

        You further state that

        “You are unable to give me a single instance where she has claimed that she fought the Sri Lankan Armed Forces,”

        Your argument or rather obfuscation has relied on what Niromi meant when she used the words “government troops”

        This has been your Clarion Call throughout this thread.

        This is what Niromi says in her OWN voice, during an hour long interview that discussed her book “Tamil Tigress” with Ms. Margaret Throsby of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) broadcast at 10:00am on Thu 08 Dec 2011

        “When I joined, the Indian forces has arrived and the Tigers decided to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces ” (from 26:12 to 26:19)

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40656

        Are you deaf in addition to being selectively blind?

        The writer of the book has negated you in her OWN VOICE.
        What relevance does my reading or not reading her book has, in interpreting what she means by “government forces” when she has given the meaning herself?

        I have highlighted another Calculated Lie that Niromi has uttered in her Throsby Interview aired by ABC Network.

        She emphatically claim that the Tamils of Sri Lanka, live PREDOMINANTLY in the North and East of Lanka.

        What is the spin you can put on it to obfuscate?

        BTW I am not interested in “ambushing you”. But I note that you have been trying to do it unsuccessfully for quite some time as the frequency of you answering for my queries addressed to others indicate.

        However I have no problem in dealing with what you write.

      • Rationalman

        David, I said “That is the opinion of David Blacker in 2012. The opinion of Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, on October 4th, 1987 was that the apprehension/capture/arrest/intercept was an act of war.””

        And you replied This cannot be logically deduced given that VP then went to war not against those who had committed the act of war, but the neutral peacekeepers, the IPKF. If VP considered it an act of war, isn’t it logical that he must retaliate against the perpetrators of the act and not a third party. Did the US attack Australia after the Japanese committed the act of war of bombing Pearl Harbour?

        Elsewhere I have explained to you why US DID NOT ATTACK AUSTRALIA after Pearl Harbor. Me thinks you should hit the History books harder. Perhaps your misunderstanding of history is clouding your judgement about the events of October 1987.

        Here are some key words to google: The Lend Lease Act, The British Commonwealth, The Second Australian Imperial Force. Fall of Singapore, Gen Yamashita, 8th Division of the Australian Army.

      • Rationalman

        I said, If you have read the Accord (which I do not have with me now, but will be happy to post the reference later on) ) , you will know that the Indian Army and Navy was obliged to assist the Government of Sri Lanka to control militant activities if and when needed.”

        And you replied I know of no such clause in the Accord; but even if onbe such existed, since the Tigers did not attack the SL military, and no such request was made to the IPKF by the GoSL, what exactly is your point?

        Here is the relevant parts from the Indo Sri Lankan Accord of July 29, 1987

        (b) 2.16 (b) The Indian Navy/Coast Guard will cooperate with the Sri Lankan Navy in preventing Tamil Militant Activities from affecting Sri Lanka
        (c) In the event that the Government of Sri Lanka requests the Government of India to afford military assistance to implement these proposals, the Government of India will cooperate by giving the Government of Sri Lanka such military assistance as and when requested.

        Glad to be of help. As for the my point, the Government of India and its armed forces were not truly neutral.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        If the person who calls him/herself as K Thirukumaran is using Mobitel ISP and I use the same ISP the IP pool that both of us would be using is the same. Depending on Mobitel’s policy of IP assignment and renewal (this is a random assignment from Mobitel’s IP pool), over a time period, I would be using the identical IP that K. Thiru would have used sometime before and Vice versa. Hence IP cannot be used to differentiate between the two

        That is true, if the poster with the pseudonym T.Thirukumaran and you are both from the same geographical area and use the same ISP. That is a low probability as Thirukumaran could be posting from anywhere in the world, while you sound like you are Colombo based. That is why I specified in my first post that If both of you were from Colombo (which is a small market with ISPS like mobitel and infocraft, it would be a little bit more difficult but the groundviews editors (if they choose) would be able to check Thirukumaran’s usual email address with email address that you gave with the post..

        Because you would not know the usual fake or real email address given T. Thirukumaran and since you are required to put your email address to post in this site, you would put an incorrect one. (or are you claiming that you have the telepathic power to know the usual email address that is used by T. Thirukumaran.

        But since I will also be posting as K Thirukumaran and since I am not actually K Thirukumaran, I will be using K Thirukumaran as a Pseudonym but no one would know that it is a Pseudonym and will be deceived in to believing that it is also the same real person.

        I am going to be patient and try to explain blog etiquette to you, because from your posts, it is apparent that you are not used to the big time. In blogs etiquette, once a person takes a pseudonym, that person owns it. And to hijack it is considered bad manners. Because the pseudonym becomes attached to the persona.

        And hysterical behavior and name calling is usually not tolerated for example, Pardon me for deriding you again but you don’t leave me any alternative.

        I don’t take offence when you deride me!
        ____________________________________________

        I searched the whole of this web page for the word combination you attributed to me within the quotes and could not find any previous such combination.
        Is that a genuine error on your part or Dishonesty?

        Or could it be a third alternative, you just forgot?

        Off the Cuff
        January 11, 2012 • 2:08 pm (15th to the 18th line from the bottom)
        On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?
        Though you have attempted to read his mind, He has remained silent haven’t he?

        My GOD, OTC, SOMEONE MUST HAVE HIJACKED YOUR ‘HANDLE”!
        ——————-

      • Sorry, this should appear here, not above:

        “I am beginning to enjoy being ambushed by the the tag team of Blacker and OTC, the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of GV, .I have asked Tweedledum (who refuses to answer) and will now ask Tweedledee…..”

        In spite of your usual decent from foolishness to eventual name-calling, the fact is that Niromi has claimed several times over to be fighting the SL military. You can ignore the quotes both OTC and I have given if you like. I had assumed you to have some semblance of honesty and intellect, but it seems in this I was wrong.

        “I am surprised to think that you would consider Australia a third party. US was aiding Britain and its allies with the Lend Lease Act of March 1941. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease). 9 months before Pearl Harbor. Alongside the British and other Commonwealth troops, the Australians were fighting the Axis powers (sans Japan) in Europe and the Mediterranean. Japan simultaneously attacked Pearl Harbor (Dec 7, 1941) and Malaya (Dec 8 1941), declaring war on the British and Commonwealth forces?So why would the US attack Australia? By December 8th weren’t they both at war with Japan?Can you explain your logic?”

        There IS no logic to such an attack, which is why I presented it to you as a comparable parallel to the Tiger attack on the IPKF. Until the Accord, India was supplying and arming the Tigers, had invaded SL airspace to drop food, and had intervened to prevent SL defeating the Tigers. So ie, India was an ally of the Tigers. But yet, when SL carries out this so-called “act of war” of yours, the Tigers don’t attack SL, but instead attack India! 😀 I hope now that by your own admittance you see that your theory has no logic.

        You have also left out the part where you claimed that the reason for the Tiger attack on the IPKF was in fact and impending attack by the IPKF itself, and not any act of war nonsense by SL. So which is it now? 😀

        “mea culpa! I did the same (Ltte + pulendran + arrest) google search and got pretty much the same results that you got including the UTHR report. What I meant to type came out differently. So I apologize. See, I admit my mistakes?”

        Really? You Googled and found that almost everyone uses the term “arrest”, and yet you typed “by mistake” that NO ONE ELSE uses the term “arrest”. Hmm yes I believe you, “Rational”man. It sounds exactly like the basic mistake anyone would make. So of course, I don’t believe you to be a liar. Of course not 😉

        “As erroneous as my typing was, it was not germane to the point that I was trying to make. I know that this error will be brought up every time you get frustrated and tongue tied, so let me apologize a million times in advance.”

        I rarely see any writing of yours that is germane to any point, “Rational”man; and in this instance the point is whether Prof Roberts was right or wrong to point out that Niromi was being inaccurate in claiming to have fought the SL military. You have scuttled as far away from this point as is possible. But please continue. Your foolishness is indeed entertaining.

        “Do you agree with comments that the arrests were the turning point and that the 12 LTTE fighters were deceptively arrested?”

        But the UTHRJ doesn’t say that the arrests were the turning point; it says that the arrest AND SUICIDE was the turning point. Why are you adding to your list of lies? And how exactly is an arrest on arms charges deceptive? 😀

        “I don’t know if it was legitimate or not. I am just quoting JN Dixit, the an who you deride as the Indian Machiavelli” and I will take him at his word.”

        So since I had dismissed that quote a couple of weeks ago, shall we just move on from this too, back to the actual topic which is whether Prof Roberts is correct in his opinion on Niromi’s statement?

        “If I may try to help you refocus, we are not are debating is why LTTE went to war with the IPKF or it’s motivation. We are discussing why LTTE considered itself to be at war with the Sri Lankan Forces.”

        Admirable as your attempt to get out of this corner is, let me remind you that the reason behind the Tiger attack on India is quite important since that attack is in fact directly contrary to your claim that they considered themselves to be at war with SL. If they considered themselves thus, why did they not attack SL but instead India?

        “And the President of Sri Lanka himself seems to have agreed that Many people including the former President J.R.Jayewardene, share the opinion that the turning point was the arrest and subsequent suicide of the 17 L.T.T.E. members””

        I haven’t denied that this was the turning point. The debate is whether the arrest was an act of war that caused the Tigers to attack India, and moreover, whether this arrest was what Niromi was referring to when she claimed to be fighting against government troops. To any sane person, the answer is decidedly no.

        “What do you think was the effect of the turning point?”

        A turning point causes a change in direction; but a turning point is in itself an effect rather than a cause.

        “Oh, David, if I my try to refocus you again.”

        You mean if you may attempt to refocus yourself on the subject in question 😀

        “We are talking about Niromi’s claim “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”.”

        We certainly are; and so far you have attempted to avoid explaining how Niromi could have fought SL troops in late 1987.

        “We are not talking about why the LTTE attacked the IPKF. “

        Of course we are talking about why the Tigers attacked the IPKF, in the context of whether the Tigers considered the arrest of Pulendran an act of war, and whether this act of war was what Niromi was referring to when she said she was fighting government troops in 1987. I know that this all very difficult for you to follow, but since this is the twisted and deceitful path you have chosen, I’m afraid you must follow it to its inevitable conclusion.

        “I assume that you will agree that Niromi’s reference to the Peacekeepers is correct.”

        If by this assumption you mean Niromi’s claim to have also fought the IPKF along with the SL military, yes, her claim of fighting the peacekeepers is possible; though I have no idea if it is true.

        “You were asserted that Niromi’s claim that the “we were fighting the government troops” was flat out wrong. Or do you now deny that you said so such thing?”

        Do you mind not typing while drunk; I can barely understand your already poor English. If you are asking me whether Niromi’s claim of fighting government troops is inaccurate, yes, it is.

        “That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it. If you have not been able to grasp the facts after so many books and articles have been written about them, Poor little Rationalman will not be able to change your mind.”

        What books and articles? The facts are that VP unilaterally attacked the IPKF, pre-empting (according to you) an attack by the IPKF themselves. The “machinations” part is Dixit’s opinion, and your claim of the pre-emptive attack contradicts his opinion and rubbishes your simultaneous claim that SL engineered the attack. You can’t have it both ways.

        “I have given you JN Dixit’s descrpition of events..Lalith anticipated my hurried return from Delhi to Colombo and the likelyhood of Jayawardne thwarting his plans to create a crisis and took perniciously pre-emptive action.To be fair, to understand your point of you, I will go the extra step and ask you, why I am wrong? Were you there? What have you read about the incidents? Can you give me some reference materials?”

        While I have humoured your rambling upto now, could you explain what any of this has to do with what Niromi claimed; ie fighting government troops?

        “Elsewhere I have explained to you why US DID NOT ATTACK AUSTRALIA after Pearl Harbor. Me thinks you should hit the History books harder. Perhaps your misunderstanding of history is clouding your judgement about the events of October 1987.”

        It is not necessary for you to explain, since the reason I suggested the scenario was because such an attack was beyond explanation given that the act of war committed against the USA was by Japan, and it was the latter that the US retaliated against. In SL, the opposite occurred; you claim that SL committed an act of war against the Tigers, and the Tigers then attacked India who had been supporting and arming them for years, and who had intervened on their behalf short months ago. Simultaneously you claim that the Tigers attacked the IPKF pre-emptively to prevent an attack by the IPKF. Instead of suggesting I read history books, I suggest you stop smoking that stuff and actually read what YOU are writing 😀

        “Glad to be of help. As for the my point, the Government of India and its armed forces were not truly neutral.”

        Of course they were neutral. The Accord was between India and SL, and the Tigers were not signatories. So to suggest that a clause offering help to the Tigers was necessary to prove neutrality is inaccurate. The reason that offer of support was given by India was to guarantee to SL that peace would be maintained while the SL Army was in barracks. In turn, the Tigers had assured India that they would hand over their weapons. Without weapons they could not be attacked as terrorists by the SL troops, so they would require no help.

        Nevertheless, the IPKF’s neutrality isn’t a necessary requirement for them to be free of attack from the Tigers. They were a third party and unconnected to your nonsensical act of war by SL theory. So an attack on them could not be on the grounds of SL’s act of war. Add to that your simultaneous claim that the Tiger attack was pre-emptive, and you have no credence for your act of war.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote ““the who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds”

        The above is a reproduction of the statement you attributed to me by enclosing them between quotation marks in your post of January 11, 2012 • 7:46 pm

        You are now referring to a part of the following sentence

        Extract
        On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?
        End extract

        The ONLY consistency that you have shown throughout GV, is you ability to be DISHONEST.

        You have replaced the word “those” with “the” and naturally the computer cannot find that MODIFIED word combination except in your OWN Post.

        The computer does not compensate for your misquotes or misspellings while searching. As I said before, the above combination of words do not exist. Next time, either copy and paste the quote or check word by word to see whether you are quoting correctly.

        I have asked you a question but you have no answer.

        “NO matter how much mud slinging or analysis by pseudonymous pundits and Phds here” wrote Thiru.

        What was the basis for him to write that?

        Thiru has no answer.
        You have no answer.
        Pathetic.

        No wonder you need to pat yourself in the back by labelling yourself as “Rational”

        You ask “In real life, (where you meet actual people, not the anonymous posters who do not know you and vice versa), are you as brave and bold with the people who do not accept your version of the “truth” as you are behind the screen and keyboard?”

        In real life, I rarely meet people, who resort to spin, the way you do.
        Do you make use of such UNBRIDLED SPIN in real life too?
        Or is it ONLY when you hide behind Your K’ board and Monitor that you Lie so Brazenly?

        Truth has no versions.
        It simply is the Truth.
        Truth can be supported by FACTS.

        Spin has no facts behind it and it certainly has many versions.
        If you are talking of versions then it can’t be the truth.

        If you are guilty of lying, telling half truths, prostituting the truth, obfuscation, etc, then most certainly I will expose you for what you are and will call you a Liar to your face. If you are brazen enough to lie in public, then I have no problem in rising to the occasion, to name and shame you in public.

        Colonial Ceylon is no more. It is Sri Lanka now. Generally, Sri Lankan’s are hospitable and kind, irrespective of ethnicity. But they are not idiots as you seem to think. Taking advantage of their hospitality and kindness, to vilify them and spread hate, is a mistake.
        You are guilty of committing that mistake.
        So what do you expect?

        You write without supporting facts and that is Spin.
        Spin Doctors like you, went unchallenged in the Past.
        Probably you are used to being unopposed in your heyday.
        That was the mistake we did in the Past.
        Did you really expect your SPIN to go unchallenged today?
        Bad Mistake.

        Are you still patting yourself in the back?

        You wrote “That is true, if the poster with the pseudonym T.Thirukumaran and you are both from the same geographical area and use the same ISP. “

        If I am in UK and Thiru is also in UK and we both use BT then IP ID is not even remotely possible.

        If I am anywhere else in the world and I post via BT again IP ID is not possible not even remotely.

        If I am in UK and normally uses Virgin but posts via BT then again IP ID is not possible even remotely.

        All you have is SPECULATION.

        This scenario is limitless.

        You wrote “That is a low probability as Thirukumaran could be posting from anywhere in the world, while you sound like you are Colombo based”

        That is as silly as one can get.

        You assume that Thiru is from anywhere but I “SOUND” as if I am in Colombo.

        Another Rational explanation from Rational Man!!! ha ha haa…

        Pat yourself on the Back Rational Man, you are more Rational than I thought.

        You wrote “Because you would not know the usual fake or real email address given T. Thirukumaran and since you are required to put your email address to post in this site, you would put an incorrect one. (or are you claiming that you have the telepathic power to know the usual email address that is used by T. Thirukumaran”

        Why do we go round the Mulberry bush endlessly?

        Why don’t you read what is already posted Rationalman?

        Extract from my post of January 12, 2012 • 1:21 am

        Names are not unique and people with the same initials are in abundance. Hence that cannot be used to differentiate between the two. Email addresses are however unique but since names are not unique GV would see the two Thirukumarans as TWO different people who by coincidence has the same initials. Hence as far as GV is concerned, neither are fake.
        End extract

        Is understanding English a constant struggle for you?

        Your sarcasm is like a boomerang.
        They always return back to you.

        You wrote “I am going to be patient and try to explain blog etiquette to you, because from your posts, it is apparent that you are not used to the big time. In blogs etiquette, once a person takes a pseudonym, that person owns it. And to hijack it is considered bad manners. Because the pseudonym becomes attached to the persona”

        Sorry RationalMan, the argument is about Pseudonyms and whether a Real name is actually Real (the poster can prove that s/he is actually the person s/he claims to be) or is being deceptively pseudonymous on the web.

        Prove your case without preaching and going off on a tangent when cornered.

        BTW did you say name calling?
        Is that the Pot calling the Kettle black?

        By the way, Why are you posting all over this thread?

      • Rationalman

        Ha, Ha, Ha! That was a great catch!
        Mea culpa!
        “like my two year old who when asked why he does not like carrots says “’cause” over and over again. I have shown this thread to the little boy’s father and he does agree with me.””

        Just out of curiosity, as your familial life is your own business, are you saying that your 2-year-old was fathered by someone else? That must be a confusing situation for the poor boy, not to mention yourself.

        I meant to say my “two year old pal”. I baby sit the guy sometimes. One of my kid is a college grad and the other is graduating this year so no there is absolutely no confusion, at least when it comes to this matter!

        And yes, I am looking forward to your zinger!

      • Rationalman

        David,
        i>There IS no logic to such an attack, which is why I presented it to you as a comparable parallel to the Tiger attack on the IPKF. Until the Accord, India was supplying and arming the Tigers, had invaded SL airspace to drop food, and had intervened to prevent SL defeating the Tigers. So ie, India was an ally of the Tigers. But yet, when SL carries out this so-called “act of war” of yours, the Tigers don’t attack SL, but instead attack India! I hope now that by your own admittance you see that your theory has no logic.

        Good try to weasel out of the blunder.

        You are right in asserting “Until the Accord, India was supplying and arming the Tigers, had invaded SL airspace to drop food, and had intervened to prevent SL defeating the Tigers.”

        But you miss the 64000 rupee question. What happened AFTER the Accord? After July29, 1987 under 2.9 of the Accord, India was obliged to disarm the LTTE. This accord was negotiated and signed without the consent of the LTTE, one of the warring parties.

        On December 7, 1941, the United States was ARMING the British and their allies including the Australians under the Lend Lease Act.

        Where as India on October 4th 1987 was obliged to disarm the LTTE. That is why the comparison was so inept.

        And you stated that I know of no such clause in the Accord

        Here are the relevant parts from the Indo Sri Lankan Accord of July 29, 1987
        (b) 2.16 (b) The Indian Navy/Coast Guard will cooperate with the Sri Lankan Navy in preventing Tamil Militant Activities from affecting Sri Lanka
        (c) In the event that the Government of Sri Lanka requests the Government of India to afford military assistance to implement these proposals, the Government of India will cooperate by giving the Government of Sri Lanka such military assistance as and when requested
        .

        Since you do not seem to have all the facts about the accord, it is understandable that you think that was the beginning and the end.

        However I have to refer you to Exchange of letters
        between the President of Sri Lanka and the Prime Minister of India dated July 29, 1987 (http://tamilnation.co/conflictresolution/tamileelam/87peaceaccord.htm) which goes beyond the overflow of the Indian milk of human kindness towards the Tamils

        Let me give you some excerpts….
        Sri Lanka’s obigations
        I) Your Excellency and myself will reach an early understanding about the relevance and employment of foreign military and intelligence personnel with a view to ensuring that such presences will not prejudice Indo Sri Lanka relations.
        II) Trincomalee or any other ports in Sri Lanka will not be made available for military use by any country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests.
        III) The work of restoring and operating the Trincomalee Oil Tank will be undertaken as a joint operation between India and Sri Lanka.
        IV) Sri Lanka’s agreement with foreign broadcasting organisations will be reviewed to ensure that any facilities set up by them in Sri Lanka are used solely as public broadcasting facilities and not for any military or intelligence purposes.

        India’s obligations
        I) Deport all Sri Lankan citizens who are found to be engaging in terrorist activities or advocating separatism or secessionism.
        II) Provide training facilities and military supplies for Sri Lanka security services.
        4. India and Sri Lanka have agreed to set up a joint consultative mechanism to continuously review matters of common concern in the light of the objectives stated in para 1 and specifically to monitor the implementation of other matters contained in this letter.

        Now let me give you the definitions of —–neutral according to the Oxford Dictionary : not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/neutral.

        Under these circumstances India could not have been considered a neutral party after the accord as they certainly could not have been described as “not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement”.

        All this to explain to you the error of your statement . “So ie, India was an ally of the Tigers. But yet, when SL carries out this so-called “act of war” of yours, the Tigers don’t attack SL, but instead attack India!”, that India was an ally of the Tigers.

        It may have been true before July 29, 1987 but after the Indo Sri Lankan Pact was signed, not only India was not an ally of the LTTE but not even a neutral part.
        ———————-

        You say and found that almost everyone uses the term “arrest.

        I admit my mistake which was not correcting a earlier draft. Since I was right in predicting you will be chortling over this and apologized a million times in advance, I don’t think I will bother.

        The people who actually did the deed of intercepting/arresting/appending/capturing Puelndran and co were the men of the Sri Lankan Navy. On the official Sri Lankan Navy website they describe the incident as follows. SL Navy apprehended two LTTE leaders, Kumarappa and Pulendran, two deadliest terrorists responsible for massacring some innocent civilians too along with many other terror acts, when they were transporting a large consignment of arms and ammunitions and later it ensued in plunging the whole affairs into havoc as pulendran and Kumarappa swallowed cyanide..

        So if the term apprehension is good enough for the Sri Lankan Navy, it is good enough for me! Of course I will accept your definition, if you tell me that you were on the boat during the incident.
        ——————————————–
        I asked you “Do you agree with comments that the arrests were the turning point and that the 12 LTTE fighters were deceptively arrested?”

        You replied But the UTHRJ doesn’t say that the arrests were the turning point; it says that the arrest AND SUICIDE was the turning point.

        OK, were the arrest which set the stage for the suicides the turning point?

        You quoted the line to support your assertion that it was an arrest. “these 12 LTTE fighters were deceptively arrested and were about to be taken to Colombo” — Tamil Tigers Net (http://ttnet.bravehost.com/history/2005/his2005news1860.html)

        When I asked you if you think the LTTE 12 were deceptively arrested you retort “And how exactly is an arrest on arms charges deceptive?”.

        So if the line was wrong in one aspect (deceptive arrest) , then it could be wrong on the “arrest” description too, right?
        ———————————–

        “I haven’t denied that this was the turning point. The debate is whether the arrest was an act of war that caused the Tigers to attack India, and moreover, whether this arrest was what Niromi was referring to when she claimed to be fighting against government troops. To any sane person, the answer is decidedly no.

        This assumes that you have the expertise to assess the sanity of your fellow debaters. Do you have an advanced degree in psychology or psychiatry? If you do please tell us ! Please?
        ______________________________________

        You claim A turning point causes a change in direction; but a turning point is in itself an effect rather than a cause.

        OK genius, Lets cut to the chase. What was the end result of the change in direction?
        ——————————————-

        We certainly are; and so far you have attempted to avoid explaining how Niromi could have fought SL troops in late 1987.

        I have explained to you that she (Niromi) didn’t fight the SL troops,
        That is why I keep on asking you to give a single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?”

        Can I get a straight answer?

        ———————————————————————–
        Do you mind not typing while drunk; I can barely understand your already poor English. If you are asking me whether Niromi’s claim of fighting government troops is inaccurate, yes, it is.

        I apologize for my typing. I really don’t do much on the keyboard these days and I still hunt and peck.

        One very same post you ask me not to type drunk, you post this… (in the very same post that you asked me not to type drunk) ( David Blacker, January 12, 2012 • 6:09 pm) ,In spite of your usual decent from foolishness to eventual name-calling, the fact is that Niromi has claimed several times over to be fighting the SL military.

        A person who mistypes “decent” when meaning to type “descent” shouldn’t accuse someone else of being drunk, especially on the very same post, don’t you agree?

        ———————————————————
        I asked you That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it. If you have not been able to grasp the facts after so many books and articles have been written about them, Poor little Rationalman will not be able to change your mind.”

        And you reply What books and articles? .

        Yes, what books and articles indeed! Why cloud your opinion with facts?
        ————————————————
        I said.“I have given you JN Dixit’s description of events.Lalith anticipated my hurried return from Delhi to Colombo and the likelihood of Jayawardne thwarting his plans to create a crisis and took perniciously per-emptive action.To be fair, to understand your point of you, I will go the extra step and ask you, why I am wrong? Were you there? What have you read about the incidents? Can you give me some reference materials?”

        You summarily dismissed that there were machinations to disrupt the Accord. I gave you Dixit’s description of Athulathmidali’s actions.

        I ask you for the reasons for your dismissal. Tangentially this has something to do with Niromi’s claim that the LTTE was fighting the SL armed forces.

        But it’s a little more than that. It’s about Blacker’s knowledge. Blacker jumps in to a discussion with both his feel and expects his opinion to be taken at face value. He dismisses other points of view when it does not fit his narrative. But when challenged to provide the basis for his knowledge or supporting evidence for his opinion and the dismissal of opinions that he disagrees with , he pops and crackles like a bag of microwaved popcorn! He questions the sanity of others, He calls them illiterates, berates them.

        So Blacker, at least in this instance can you cite sources or if you were there, give us a firsthand account that refutes Dixit’s claims?
        Thanks.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        At the risk of causing you apoplexy again, I have to correct these line…..
        “If I am in UK and Thiru is also in UK and we both use BT then IP ID is not even remotely possible”.
        “If I am anywhere else in the world and I post via BT again IP ID is not possible not even remotely”.
        “If I am in UK and normally uses Virgin but posts via BT then again IP ID is not possible even remotely.”

        Here are some examples…

        IP Address: 86.173.208.250
        Hostname: host86-173-208-250.range86-173.btcentralplus.com
        IP Address Country: United Kingdom
        IP Continent: Europe
        IP Address City Location: London
        IP Address Region: London, City of
        IP Address Latitude: 51.5002,
        IP Address Longtitude: -0.1262
        Organization: British Telecommunications
        ISP: British Telecommunications

        IP Address: 81.130.111.78
        Hostname: host81-130-111-78.in-addr.btopenworld.com
        IP Address Country: United Kingdom
        IP Continent: Europe
        IP Address City Location:
        IP Address Region:
        IP Address Latitude: 54,
        IP Address Longtitude: -2
        Organization: British Telecommunications
        ISP: British Telecommunications

        IP Address: 213.143.133.140
        Hostname: 213.143.133.140
        IP Address Country: United Kingdom
        IP Continent: Europe
        IP Address City Location: Guisborough
        IP Address Region: York
        IP Address Latitude: 54.5333,
        IP Address Longtitude: -1.15
        Organization: xxxxxx
        ISP: Civica UK Ltd.

        I have listed three IP addresses from the UK. The first two are British Telcom issued IP addresses in the City of London region The third one is from Yorkshire.

        Even with BT, IPs ranges are attached to local areas. These local IP distributors (NOC) are identifieds as Hostnames and as you can see the local hostnames can be geographically identified,

        https://ipdb.at/ip/86.173.208.250

        https://ipdb.at/ip/81.130.111.78

        You cant seem to understand the basic fact that while the dynamic IPs are indeed dynamic, but only within the static IP ranges of the ISP or its NOC.

        “If I am anywhere else in the world and I post via BT again IP ID is not possible not even remotely”?

        Are you are aware that when you post from anywhere else in the world, you would not be using the BT Hostname IP , but the local host from the country where you are posting and the hostname can be identified.
        If you have friends outside Sri Lanka, use their email headers to check their whereabouts, not only will you have fun, but you will learn something new.

        ““If I am in UK and normally uses Virgin but posts via BT then again IP ID is not possible even remotely.”

        If T. Thirukumaran usually posts via his BT host, and you impersonate him by posting via Virgin and he complains that this handle has been hijacked by a person unknown, and put the wrong email address (fake or real, it doesn’t matter if Thirukumaran has been using a fake or real email, you will not know what it is) ), it would be apparent to the editors of GV as a fake.

        ——————-
        OTC demanded, “On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?” (January 11, 2012 • 2:08 pm )
        So I tried to explain to you on (January 9, 2012 • 2:31) am what I thought me meant by that comment. I don’t think he meant you, because you did not impugn DBJS’s character, only his work, which is fair.

        You rejected my comment with this zinger “(January 10, 2012 • 2:39 am)
        Is that an interpretation that uses the same logic as you used to interpret “government forces” in Niromi’s Fantasy? How did a general reference become a specific one? Try using Logic. Speculation seems to be your only Forte !!!

        Since you didn’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between attacking DBSJ ‘s character and his work, I let it go .
        You brought the subject again when I asked you Did Thirukumaran claim that he was on a Moral High Ground?”

        You replied On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds? Though you have attempted to read his mind, He has remained silent haven’t he?? January 10, 2012 • 8:27 pm

        So I asked you January 11, 2012 • 7:46 pm (admittedly with 2 typos) quoting your line “On what other basis did he deride the who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?

        ——————————————
        You responded January 12, 2012 • 1:21 am
        “I searched the whole of this web page for the word combination you attributed to me within the quotes and could not find any previous such combination.
        Is that a genuine error on your part or Dishonesty?”
        So I referred to your own quote…

        January 11, 2012 • 2:08 pm (15th to the 18th line from the bottom)
        On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?
        Though you have attempted to read his mind, He has remained silent haven’t he?

        So Now you chortle…( January 14, 2012 • 12:43 am) RationalMan, You wrote ““the who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds” The above is a reproduction of the statement you attributed to me by enclosing them between quotation marks in your post of January 11, 2012 • 7:46 pm
        You are now referring to a part of the following sentence
        Extract
        On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?
        End extract

        And you go on “The ONLY consistency that you have shown throughout GV, is you ability to be DISHONEST.
        You have replaced the word “those” with “the” and naturally the computer cannot find that MODIFIED word combination except in your OWN Post.
        The computer does not compensate for your misquotes or misspellings while searching. As I said before, the above combination of words do not exist. Next time, either copy and paste the quote or check word by word to see whether you are quoting correctly.

        Of course the computer does not compensate for my misspellings while searching. It is a nothing but a dumb machine. Because you had to depend on a dumb machine to do exact word searches for you, instead of using your common sense as 99.9999% of the people would have done to make the connection between your question “On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?”and my request for clarification which was the next line “ Who are you referring to when you say “the who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds””, you got stuck on the my typographical error and got all agitated. I apologize for missing the letters “o” and “s” when I intended to type the word “those” .

        Oh, by the way, when you typed “On what other basis did he deride those who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds? Though you have attempted to read his mind, He has remained silent haven’t he?”

        Since you seem to be very proud of your typing and grammar skills and presume to have the capacity to teach others, did you really mean to type “haven’t he” Just wondering?

        Now that you understand what I was asking, would you mind explaining exactly was being derided when you claim “On what other basis did he deride THOSE who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?”
        A simple answer would do.

        ————————
        “Is understanding English a constant struggle for you?”
        Not really but I will accept your help if you are offering. However, before we get going, I would like to know about your academic credentials. And did you really type “He has remained silent haven’t he?”.

        ————————-

        “Sorry RationalMan, the argument is about Pseudonyms and whether a Real name is actually Real (the poster can prove that s/he is actually the person s/he claims to be) or is being deceptively pseudonymous on the web.”

        I ask you again, is there rule about using real sounding names as pseudonyms. And how would you define real sounding names? If a person uses a real sounding name, does it automatically mean that is the person claiming to be a real person?

        Do you what “Thirukumaran” means?

        And you also seem to be sensitive to my pseudonym and have repeated umpteen times how you are proud you are of your handle “OTC”, without me even asking. When I reply “That’s nice”, you get offended again!

        ————————————————-
        You wrote “That is a low probability as Thirukumaran could be posting from anywhere in the world, while you sound like you are Colombo based”” I apologize if I have offended you.

        You also declare In real life, I rarely meet people, who resort to spin, the way you do. Do you make use of such UNBRIDLED SPIN in real life too?…. If you are guilty of lying, telling half truths, prostituting the truth, obfuscation, etc, then most certainly I will expose you for what you are and will call you a Liar to your face. If you are brazen enough to lie in public, then I have no problem in rising to the occasion, to name and shame you in public.

        But I should not be surprised that declaration from you, a person who defends a society where people in power behave like animals, where senior political leaders shoot and kill each other in public with impunity, where senior politicians murder and rape in public, where senior politicians tie public employees to trees and assault them , where respected journalists are abducted or murdered in broad daylight, where community leaders and abducted and murdered , where the commanding general of a victorious Army is arrested and incarcerated on trumped-up charges (and I am just limiting myself to the Sinhalese areas), declare with the “law of the jungle mentality” that “certainly I will expose you for what you are and will call you a Liar to your face. If you are brazen enough to lie in public, then I have no problem in rising to the occasion, to name and shame you in public!”, when one does not agree with your version of the “truth”.

        You must be fortunate to live in a colony of like minded folk and have the luxury of not having to go out and meet people with differing opinion, people who disagree with your version of the “truth”.

        That is why I was sure that you seem Colombo based. Because if you take your aggressive attitude to for example, a British pub where people debate politics, religion, sport and anything else in a respectful manner and start rising to the occasion, and try to name and shame people in public , you will not remain healthy for long.

        Colonial Ceylon is no more. It is Sri Lanka now. .

        You didn’t have to say it. Your behavior proves it!
        —————————————————————————————————

        I have asked you a couple of questions for which I am still waiting for an answers.

        I will repeat them again…..

        …Can you give me single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?

        Have you read the book “Tamil Tigress” by Niormi De soyza?

        A simple answer would do, Thanks.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Quote from Prof Michael Robert
        “Niromi’s platoon faced in December 1987 was a skirmish involving “government troops,” that is, soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).”
        Niromi described the enemy forces as “government troops”.

        Your first response on December 29, 2011 • 10:36 pm on this thread
        The good Prof. Michael comprehends it as ” soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army rather than soldiers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force” Perhaps the deficiency is with comprehending abilities of the man with the PHd than with the memories of a former LTTE cadre?

        My response on December 30, 2011 • 7:05 pm
        In view of Niromi’s own explanation of “government troops” that is an imbecile attempt at whitewashing a Lie. Your dart about Prof Robert’s English ability is misplaced but it describes you to a T! Please refer to her Daily Telegraph account in 2009

        Reproduced below is the sentence in the Telegraph that I was referring to.

        “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.
        end extract

        Niromi claims that the LTTE was fighting the IPKF and the SLA at the same time. Which is not possible as during the IPKF presence in Lanka, the SL Army was confined to barracks. The LTTE fought the IPKF and the IPKF alone with arms supplied by the Premadasa govt.

        Niromi had lied in the Telegraph. She misleads the reader and attempts to show that the SLA was involved in active offensive operations.

        That Niromi is a Liar is irrefutably proven when she claims that Tamils of Lanka live PREDOMINANTLY in the North and East (Throsby Interview)
        Refer you to my posts of January 11, 2012 • 5:09 pm

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40687

        and of January 10, 2012 • 10:20 pm

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40656

        Niromi’s Mother is an Indian origin Tamil.
        Indian Origin Tamils consists close to 50% of the TOTAL Tamil population in Lanka.
        Nearly all the Indian Origin Tamils live in the South amongst the Sinhalese on land dispossessed from the Sinhalese by the British.
        625,000 Lankan Tamils live in the South amongst the Sinhalese

        How can Niromi make the above claim without Lying?

        You wrote “You cant seem to understand the basic fact that while the dynamic IPs are indeed dynamic, but only within the static IP ranges of the ISP or its NOC.”

        Unfortunately the lack of understanding is at your end.
        The Network Operating Centre (NOC) would be static. The clients that connect to it will not be static but will be random from different geographic locations. All these clients will have the SAME Internet IP if the IP assigned by BT to clients are from a PRIVATE IP subnet.

        An outside party like GV, will be completely clueless, without access to confidential internal IP usage data of BT just like the case in Lanka.

        There is absolutely nothing that prevents me from having a BT IP from its dynamic IP pool on my UK machine that is connected on a Private IP subnet to my machines located in Canada, Lanka and USA. Thereby making use of the BT dynamic IP pool from any of those locations.

        The following coordinates defines a unique location in the world. The location where the access server is connected to the Internet. It does not give location information of the client who connects through that IP over the Internet. There could be 1000s of clients at random instances. So no ID is possible by GV, which is not Privy to BT’s Confidential internal network information.
        IP Address Latitude: 51.5002,
        IP Address Longtitude: -0.1262

        GV will see the same name which can be a coincident and a different but authentic email address. To GV both would be authentic and GV will recognise them as two separate individuals. You however, will be clueless and will not be able to differentiate.

        You wrote “Now that you understand what I was asking, …. “
        What are you asking? You have made nothing clear.

        You wrote “would you mind explaining exactly was being derided when you claim “On what other basis did he deride THOSE who use Pseudonyms and posses Ph.Ds?”

        Words missing?
        Have I claimed anything?

        This is K.Thirukumaran ‘s post of January 3, 2012 • 8:28 am

        At the stroke of a pen, what DBSJ endures validity and read by friends and foes, through today, that’s NOT about to change tomorrow, NO matter how much mud slinging or analysis by pseudonymous pundits and Phds here. How did DBSJ become what he is, to just look all the writings over the years, which stand by for truth and reality over the course of time. So keep this bandwagon rolling.

        Now with your excellent mastery of English, how would you interpret the emphasised text?
        As a Bouquet to those who have PhD’s and use Pseudonyms?

        In response to his post and as a pseudonym user I asked him the following

        extract
        In defence of Niromi, DBSJ is resting on his laurels and has avoided answering Prof Roberts main point. He deftly avoids it and instead writes an essay based on hearsay projecting it as personal knowledge and embellishing it with prose that has nothing to do with whether Niromi is lying or not. What has DBSJ written about Niromi’s time with the LTTE if any?

        BTW are you using a Pseudonym or your Real name?
        If I were to use K.Thirukumaran as my pseudonym do you have anyway of identifying it as a Pseudonym? Hope you see how childish your ill advised harangue really is.
        End extract

        But before he could answer, you answered for him. Apparently you could read Thiru’s mind.

        He has not answered yet, so I would not know what he had in his mind when he wrote what he wrote.

        K.Thirukumaran could not answer my question about DBSJ nor could he explain why he attacked those who have Ph.Ds or use Pseudonyms. He could not even prove that K.Thirukumaran is the person that he claims to be.

        Neither could you do any of the above. Hence without asking me dumb questions why dont you ask the writer K. Thirukumaran himself.

      • “I meant to say my “two year old pal”.”

        I am glad to see you’ve found friends of your own intellectual capacity.

        “Good try to weasel out of the blunder.”

        Why do I need to weasel out of YOUR blunder? 😀

        “But you miss the 64000 rupee question. What happened AFTER the Accord? After July29, 1987 under 2.9 of the Accord, India was obliged to disarm the LTTE. This accord was negotiated and signed without the consent of the LTTE, one of the warring parties.”

        And? The Tigers had accepted this clause as grounds for Indian intervention.

        “On December 7, 1941, the United States was ARMING the British and their allies including the Australians under the Lend Lease Act.Where as India on October 4th 1987 was obliged to disarm the LTTE. That is why the comparison was so inept.”

        The point was that Australia wasn’t responsible for an act of war on the US, just as India wasn’t responsible for an act of war against the Tigers. That is the relevance of the example. You are yet to explain therefore why the Tigers attacked India in retaliation for SL’s “act of war”. You also assert that the Tiger’s attacked India pre-emptively, thereby negating your previous claim that it was the arrest and suicide of Pulendran & co that was the instigation for the attack. So which is it (I ask in vain)?

        And you stated that I know of no such clause in the Accord

        “Now let me give you the definitions of —–neutral according to the Oxford Dictionary : not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/neutral.”

        Firstly, the clause providing Indian support against the militants, was only in the event of the violation of the Accord, which India had agreed to uphold. The Tigers had also agreed to disarm in exchange for Indian intervention. So how could India be not neutral, given that they had intervened on behalf of the militants and prevented their defeat? Nevertheless, the point (which I have already explained to you, and which you have characteristically avoided in favour of a point you find easier to argue against) is that India wasn’t responsible for the arrest of Pulendran, and were a third party to the conflict, and couldn’t be attacked in retaliation for any perceived act of war by SL.

        “Under these circumstances India could not have been considered a neutral party after the accord as they certainly could not have been described as “not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement”.”

        There was no conflict anymore. Indian support for the GoSL was in the event of an attack by the militants who had agreed to disarm. The militants hadn’t been confined to barracks; the SL Army had been. Therefore certain guarantees had to be given to the GoSL that there would be no armed actions taken by the militants in the absence of the SL Army.

        “It may have been true before July 29, 1987 but after the Indo Sri Lankan Pact was signed, not only India was not an ally of the LTTE but not even a neutral part.”

        See my previous comment on India’s neutrality, its lack of connection to the SL “act of war”, and you weaseling out of responding as to how an attack on a third party can be logically connected to the action of one of the other parties.

        “I admit my mistake which was not correcting a earlier draft. Since I was right in predicting you will be chortling over this and apologized a million times in advance, I don’t think I will bother.”

        Yes, not resorting to deceit is always a good plan. Be honest.

        “So if the term apprehension is good enough for the Sri Lankan Navy, it is good enough for me! Of course I will accept your definition, if you tell me that you were on the boat during the incident.”

        How will being on the boat change the definition? 😀 The term “apprehend” is interchangeably used in SL with the term “arrest”. Eg: Kirrillapone police apprehended “Rational”man for drunk and disorderly behaviour in public. So the term is the same as arrest. You, on the other hand, termed the arrest to be an offensive military action on par with an act of war, an act that Niromi was referring to when she claimed to be fighting the SL military; yet no one else (not even Voice of Tigers) term it that way, and no one claims that there was any such fighting during the arrest. The Tigers acceded meekly to the arrest. Perhaps you should apologize for this stupidity too so that we can move on.

        “OK, were the arrest which set the stage for the suicides the turning point?”

        Since the arrest only led to the suicide, how can the arrest alone be the turning point?

        “When I asked you if you think the LTTE 12 were deceptively arrested you retort “And how exactly is an arrest on arms charges deceptive?”. So if the line was wrong in one aspect (deceptive arrest) , then it could be wrong on the “arrest” description too, right?”

        If that website was the only one to use both “deceptive” and “arrest”, your suggestion would be logical; but given that the vast majority of sites use the term “arrest”, but ONLY that site uses the term “deceptive”, I think we can take it that only the term “deceptive” is in question. Keep trying, “Rational”man. Moreover, there is no question as to how the apprehension could be termed an arrest, since it was a peaceful one on both sides, sparked by a violation of law; however, there is a question as to how it could be “deceptive”, this being a descriptive. So how was it “deceptive, “Rational”man?

        “This assumes that you have the expertise to assess the sanity of your fellow debaters. Do you have an advanced degree in psychology or psychiatry? If you do please tell us ! Please?”

        Why this great desire to be part of a group, “Rational”man? You constantly say “we” instead of “I”, “fellow debaters” instead of just referring to your self, etc. Can’t stand on your own? 😀 I think anyone reading your comments would not need any advanced degree to assess your sanity.

        “OK genius, Lets cut to the chase. What was the end result of the change in direction?”

        Which change in direction?

        “I have explained to you that she (Niromi) didn’t fight the SL troops,That is why I keep on asking you to give a single example where Niromi has claimed that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, fired or been fired upon by member/s of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces or chased or have been chased by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces?””

        She claimed to be “fighting” the SL military, in several interviews. What then did she mean by “fighting”? I have asked you this repeatedly and you have failed to answer.

        “Can I get a straight answer?”

        If you answer the above, you will have answered yourself.

        “A person who mistypes “decent” when meaning to type “descent” shouldn’t accuse someone else of being drunk, especially on the very same post, don’t you agree?”

        So you have managed to find one typo in all our weeks of debate. Congratulations. Did this heinous mistake prevent you from understanding my meaning? On the other hand, your regular misspellings, grammatical errors, and general lack of punctuation or structure makes reading your comments a laborious task. Instead of arguing every point, you should just improve your grasp of the language.

        “Yes, what books and articles indeed! Why cloud your opinion with facts?”

        So you have no such books and articles? I thought not. Even your wit is second-hand, “Rational”man; that comment about facts was one I made to you already. Do you have anything pertinent to add?

        “You summarily dismissed that there were machinations to disrupt the Accord. I gave you Dixit’s description of Athulathmidali’s actions.”

        And I told you that Dixit’s opinion was not an objective one.

        “I ask you for the reasons for your dismissal. Tangentially this has something to do with Niromi’s claim that the LTTE was fighting the SL armed forces.”

        Then why bring it up; to muddy the waters of the debate and hide the fact that you have no justification for your claim that a) Niromi indeed fought the SL military b) did not mean that she fought the SL military?

        “But it’s a little more than that. It’s about Blacker’s knowledge. Blacker jumps in to a discussion with both his feel and expects his opinion to be taken at face value. He dismisses other points of view when it does not fit his narrative. But when challenged to provide the basis for his knowledge or supporting evidence for his opinion and the dismissal of opinions that he disagrees with , he pops and crackles like a bag of microwaved popcorn! He questions the sanity of others, He calls them illiterates, berates them.”

        The point isn’t about my knowledge, “Rational”man, but the necessity that you substantiate your claim that a) Niromi indeed fought the SL military b) did not mean that she fought the SL military; both claims of which you have variously argued in this thread.

        “So Blacker, at least in this instance can you cite sources or if you were there, give us a firsthand account that refutes Dixit’s claims?”

        Since Dixit’s is an opinion, not a fact, it is not necessary to cite counter-sources but to invalidate Dixit’s opinion for the previously mentioned reasons, namely the Machiavellian nature of India’s involvement in SL.

        Now, can you justify your original claim that Prof Roberts cannot understand simple English, but that you can, and that your claims about Niromi — a) she indeed fought the SL military b) did not mean that she fought the SL military — are true?

      • Rationalman

        David

        I have told you. Reading Niromi’s book will happen when I have the time (I have a backlog of books I am more interested in right now),
        .January 17, 2012 • 1:56 pm

        I fully support your desire to read more books. Who knows, if you have read enough and start writing sensibly again, DBSJ will start publishing your comments!

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        you claim “Indian Origin Tamils consists close to 50% of the TOTAL Tamil population in Lanka.

        Lets check your assertion with the numbers from the published numbers from the Census and Statistics Dept of Sri Lanka. (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/page.asp?page=Population%20and%20Housing)

        You must be at least aware that Sri Lanka consists of 25 districts.

        In 2001 the department published a Census report for 18 districts.
        Dues to the ongoing situation at that time there were no numbers published for for Trincomalee, Batticaloa, Jaffna, Mannar, Vavuniya, Killinochi and Mulliathivu.

        In 2007 there was a special census (Special Enumeration) for the following districts. Batticaloa, Ampara,Jaffna and Trincomalee. Ampara was also part of the original 18 from 2001.

        Todate ,there has not been a published census report for the uncounted area (Mannar, Vavuniya, Killinochi and Mulliathivu)

        Using the original 18 districts of 2001 and the 3 special enumerations of 2007 (Jaffna, Batticaloa and Trinco). These numbers do not include the predominantly four Ceylon Lankan Tamil districts of Mannar, Vavuniya, Mullithivu and Killinochi.

        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf
        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/Preliminary%20Reports%20Special%20Enumeration%202007/Basic%20Population%20Information%20of%20Batticaloa%20District%202007.pdf
        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/Preliminary%20Reports%20Special%20Enumeration%202007/Basic%20Population%20Information%20on%20Jaffna%20District%202007.pdf

        Acccording to the latest Sri Lankan Dept of Census and Statistics:

        The Total Sri Lankan Tamil Population (not inducing Mannar, Vavuniya,Killinochi and Mullaithivu). 1748784

        The Indian Tamil Population: 855704

        Total Tamil Population (not including Mannar, Vavuniya,Killinochi and Mullaithivu)= 2604488

        So the correct percentage of the Indian Tamil Population to the total tamil population (without the predominantly Ceylon Tamil populated Mannar,Mannar, Vavuniya,Killinochi and Mullaithivu) is 32.5

        When one adds the four the predominantly Ceylon Tamil populated Mannar,Vavuniya,Killinochi and Mullaithivu districts, the percentage will be much less.

        Since you can’t get this basic fact right, does it make you a liar, an (to use one of your favorite insults) imbecile or just plain lazy?

      • “Rational”man, I note that predictably you have abandoned your arguments in favour of personal jibes. Isn’t this how all our discussions end? 😀 Should I take it that you no longer think that a) Niromi fought the SL military nor b) that she didn’t mean the SL military when she claimed to be fighting government troops, and that you accept that her claim is inaccurate, and that Prof Roberts was correct to question the claim?

        BTW, since my comment to DBSJ was in regard to the quality of comments on his blog, how will my reading more books spur him to pay attention to such a comment?

      • Rationalman

        David you ask BTW, since my comment to DBSJ was in regard to the quality of comments on his blog, how will my reading more books spur him to pay attention to such a comment?

        I guess that is for DBSJ to know and you to find out.

        I was merely expressed my hopes and wishes about the once and future Blacker (a fellow for whom I used to very high regard) when I said “Who knows, if you have read enough and start writing sensibly again, DBSJ will start publishing your comments!”

      • “I guess that is for DBSJ to know and you to find out.”

        In other words, you can find no connection between your suggestion and what DBSJ has or has not done, and when called on it you hope DBSJ can figure out what you cannot? 😀 Thanks for confirming yet again that you are an idiot.

        “I was merely expressed my hopes and wishes about the once and future Blacker (a fellow for whom I used to very high regard) when I said “Who knows, if you have read enough and start writing sensibly again, DBSJ will start publishing your comments!””

        But DBSJ has always published my comments on his writing. So how will my reading more change my opinion on the semi-literates who comment on his blog (you included)? As for your claimed past regard for me, I must question that too, since all of our past exchanges have followed this very same pattern — you say something stupid, I ask you to substantiate it, you ramble on for weeks without success, resort to personal attacks and sarcasm, and then disappear for awhile. Perhaps you are impressed by such humiliations, but really — admiration?? Lol

      • Rationalman

        “But DBSJ has always published my comments on his writing”

        Thats wonderful. I am looking forward to seeing you on the web at DBJS’s site!

      • So why don’t you go satisfy your hopes over there instead of looking like a fool over here?

      • Rationalman

        And miss all the fun?

      • It would have been certainly fun (not to mention interesting) if you could actually substantiate even one of your claims instead of now having to sate your ego with the last (and stupid) word. What a pathetic display, “Rational”man. Never let it be said that you lack consistency. Just substance.

  • The Owl of Minerva

    Off The Cuff doesn’t get Rohan’s point — or does get it and wants to evade the issue;Have you and your cohorts submitted other wriitings on Sri Lankan historical writings and poitical writings to such close scrutiny?If not ,why not?What is it about this work that provokes such fury and venom, vindictive personal persoinal attacks and etc?

    • S.B.D

      Yes The Owl of Minerva, as you said at 2.58pm Jan 4:

      “I don’t understand all this agitation over certain inacuurate details in Niromis work — if there are any.
      Sri Lankans should be used to fictionalised works.”

      How true! Throw in 20 years of immunity and the sky is the limit.

    • Rohan

      Exactly… Thanks Minerva. You can wake those who sleep, not the pretenders

      • Off the Cuff

        Rohan,

        Are you not Man enough to make a direct reply to my challenge to your attempted obfuscation, rather than taking refuge behind Minerva’s skirts?

    • Off the Cuff

      Owl,

      And what point is that Minerva? Could you please elaborate?

  • When does this debate end? I’m sure that similar debates occurred after Dan Brown wrote his bestseller “The Da Vinci Code.” I also have a small book given to me by my crazy born-again-christian aunty called “Exploring the Da Vinci Code” by Lee Strobel and Garry Poole. This book tries to disprove everything in Dan Browns book by latching on to minor details similar to the ongoing debate as to whether Niromi was fighting the IPKF or the Humanitarian Army of Sri Lanka.

    But what is there to disprove? Mr.Brown himself stated that his book was fiction based on fact!And most of us just enjoyed reading the book knowing full well what was fact and what was fiction. I haven’t read Niromi’s book yet, but when I do someday, I will know how to read between the lines and not nit pick.

    • wijayapala

      Mr.Brown himself stated that his book was fiction based on fact!

      Did Niromi make a similar statement? We aren’t talking about Da Vinci Code here, get your topics straight Dunce!!

      And most of us just enjoyed reading the book knowing full well what was fact and what was fiction. I haven’t read Niromi’s book yet

      Sigh Dunce… if you haven’t read the book yourself, then you are hardly in a position to include yourself in “us” when discussing whether or not “us” enjoy the book and can discern what is fact and fiction. (sheesh you really try hard to live up to your handle don’t you?)

      And if you already know what is true and what isn’t before reading the book, then why read it??? What new material is to be learned?

      You are correct though that this pointless debate has dragged on far too long. Roberts and others were initially correct to question Niromi’s credibility given the inconsistencies in her book and her use of pseudonym. DBSJ then confirmed that Niromi had been a Tiger, but he himself conceded that he wasn’t evaluating her book. And he did not “name and shame” Roberts when debunking the idea that Niromi had fabricated her entire story that she was a Tiger. Therefore, Roberts’s “rebuttal” against DBS was largely misplaced and inappropriate.

      The irony that Roberts and many others have missed is that if you want the real story of what happened (or as close to it as you can get), you should read DBS’s series on Niromi (which is free on the internet) and avoid her own book.

  • wijayapala

    Perhaps you do not understand what federalism is. If so, you are joined in that misunderstanding by many in the Sinhalese far right.

    Not to mention virtually all of the pro-federalists in Sri Lanka, at least judged by the low quality of their written work on that topic.

  • Rohan

    http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3516

    WOW – Arun Ambalavanar and Michael Roberts are beaten up further.

    Muttukrihna Sarvantha is spared, because he had nothing of substance in his article/s (oops – research note). SJC87 Initiative goes stronger and stronger, with the government support.

    • Shereena Thava

      Muthukrishna Roberts and Ambalavanar doesn’t care about the battles. They do care the war. Let the German forces( DBSJ’s farces) deep into the russian hinterland.

  • Vijayaraghavan Sakthivel

    LoL as they say in these forums. From http://www.nation.lk/edition/feature-issues/item/997-are-you-saying-ltte-weren%E2%80%99t-a-lankan-force?

    “The LTTE were technically Sri Lankan Forces too. They are on record in non- Sri Lankan sources as having had amputations performed on people to stop them from leaving no-fire zones. A book, which announces that Sri Lankan forces amputated people’s limbs to stop them from leaving no fire zones will be technically correct too. One can issue statements explaining how the author did not write ‘Sri Lankan Government Forces’, merely ‘Sri Lankan Forces’ and what’s wrong with so and so’s comprehension that he fails to see that the LTTE were Sri Lankan Forces too.

    Luckily perhaps for our sanity, Niromi’s story in Sri Lanka stops in 1988 (in her own account she was shot of the LTTE as well as Sri Lanka by 1988). If the saga had gone on past 1989, we’d have to endure arguments that ‘for a young LTTE cadre to describe the LTTE as Government Forces would not be unusual at all as given the collaboration between the LTTE and the SL government against a common undesirable; the IPKF, the LTTE either considered themselves as an extension of the SL Government forces (or far more likely) considered the Government Forces as an extension of themselves.’ (The collaboration started somewhere in October 1989 according to General Kalkat in ‘India’s Vietnam’ …….”

  • Off the Cuff

    Who were the Government Forces that Niromi refers to?

    Was it the IPKF?
    or
    Was it the Sri Lanka Army?

    Does Niromi herself put that issue beyond debate?

    Niromi made the following WRITTEN statement in the Telegraph in 2009.

    “The war resumed, just as Prabhakaran had predicted, though now we were fighting not only the government troops but the peacekeepers, too.”

    Two years later, in 2011, she makes the following VERBAL statement during an interview that discussed her book “Tamil Tigress” with Ms. Margaret Throsby of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) broadcast at 10:00am on Thu 08 Dec 2011
    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/classic/mornings/201112/r867861_8404957.mp3

    “When I joined, the Indian forces has arrived and the Tigers decided to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces ” (from 26:12 to 26:19)

    A comparison of the two statements, one written and the other verbal and spaced TWO YEARS apart, leaves no doubt as to who Niromi’s “Government forces” were.

    DBSJ and Niromi’s defence, here on GV, are prepared to be her Character Witnesses. Strangely, ALL of them are Clueless about Niromi the Terrorist and writes SPIN about Niromi the Civilian School Girl based on Hearsay.

    (Note :- She makes several references to Government Forces throughout the Interview. “…. I am gonna die soon by random bombing by the “Government Forces” …….. “ (24:22 to 24:26). “…killing was random by the “government forces” …… the aerial bombardment was hardly accurate ……….. (28:42 to 28:52)

    Here is another canard by Niromi

    She claims that Tamils Predominantly live in the North and East.
    Strangely her Mother is an Indian Tamil and ALL Indian Tamils live in the South amongst the Sinhalese. She herself grew up amongst the Sinhalese in the South. The Indian Tamils consists of half the total Tamil population of Lanka. A considerable percentage of Northern and Eastern Tamils live in the South.

    When the MAJORITY of Tamils live amongst the Sinhalese in the South, Niromi Emphatically and FRAUDULENTLY claims that Tamils Predominantly live in the North and East (28:25 to 28:33).

    Who is she trying to deceive?
    Foreigners?
    Why the Deceit?

    Pulling at the heartstrings of a gullible Aussie Public, to get Tamil illegals in to Australia?

    • Rohini

      Off the cuff,

      I have a serious question about your comments. from the beginning you have been writing about a couple of words and have been spinning around the readers ” Government forces ” . Now you have been trying with playing a portion of the audio clip which mislead the listeners

      I would like to give a full audio clip for readers to listen http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/classic/mornings/201112/r867861_8404957.mp3

      As a reader of the book page by page, What I realised is she was a member, and trained by the LTTE. in her life journey she was at a point realised , violent is not the way to go and openly acknowleged in the book , left the movement , turned around a life and living a successful live in Australia and contributing back to the country she was born. I was told that along with Sri Lanka she contributes to the country welcome her ( Australia) , and the war affected children in Africa. It showed clearly she value the human being , wanted to do constructively beyond race, religion and culture and influencing positively to many youths not only Australia , but also across the globe. Her book has been chosen as a reference text book in some of the schools to teach subject .

      We Sri Lankan have to be proud of her rather nit-picking . We are in this pathetic state because of this attitude .

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Rohini,

        Thank you for your response.

        You wrote “I have a serious question about your comments. from the beginning you have been writing about a couple of words and have been spinning around the readers ” Government forces ”

        Since both of us are SERIOUS, Please let us know what YOU think, Niromi meant by the words, “government Forces”.
        Niromi says it was Sri Lankan forces.
        Are you refuting Niromi?
        Please explain.

        You wrote “Now you have been trying with playing a portion of the audio clip which mislead the listeners”

        Portion of an audio clip?
        I have provided the link to the FULL (almost hour long) interview with Ms. Margaret Throsby of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) broadcast at 10:00am on Thu 08 Dec 2011 including the Sinhalese Music that she starts the Interview with. How can listening to the complete Interview mislead the Listener? Do you think all who listen are idiots who can be easily mislead?

        Having provided the FULL interview, I have pointed to places in that interview where she interprets in her own voice, what she means by “Government Forces”. If you can contest what I wrote with regard to her interview, please indicate by giving Time Line references (as I have done) and placing your arguments for all to see.

        If you think it is a “Portion” why don’t you write to ABC asking them why they post only a “PORTION” on their web site as that is inimical to the Niromi Propaganda and revert back to GV with the FULL reply from them?

        You wrote “I would like to give a full audio clip for readers to listen”

        I reserve my observations on the sound clip that you have provided until after I have listened to it.

        You wrote “As a reader of the book page by page, What I realised is she was a member, and trained by the LTTE. in her life journey she was at a point realised , violent is not the way to go and openly acknowleged in the book , left the movement , turned around a life and living a successful live in Australia and contributing back to the country she was born. “

        I have no problem with whatever she writes, or how successful she is (in fact Prof Robert’s commends her writing skill). But she crosses the line when she Lies about Lanka. And she Lied about Lanka when she replaced the IPKF with Government Forces, meaning the SL Army.

        You wrote “I was told that along with Sri Lanka she contributes to the country welcome her ( Australia) , and the war affected children in Africa.”

        You are now admitting to Hearsay

        You wrote “ It showed clearly she value the human being , wanted to do constructively beyond race, religion and culture and influencing positively to many youths not only Australia , but also across the globe. “

        How?
        Based on Hearsay?

        You wrote “Her book has been chosen as a reference text book in some of the schools to teach subject “

        Then it is imperative to expose any Lies that she makes.

        You wrote “We Sri Lankan have to be proud of her rather nit-picking . We are in this pathetic state because of this attitude “

        What exactly is nit-picking in your view?

        Is pointing to a Fundamental Inaccuracy of supplanting the Sri Lankan Army, which was confined to Barracks, 5 months earlier than she claimed to have fought them and remained confined to barracks for the WHOLE PERIOD of Niromi’s experiment with the LTTE, nit picking?

        When you label this inconvenient fact as nit-picking, you are admitting to the existence of that error and your inability to Factually Refute the charge levelled at Niromi.

        Has Niromi issued a correction and apologised for the misrepresentation?

        Please Madam, debate using facts.

        In the Margaret Throsby 10 am interview, on Thu 08 Dec 2011, Niromi claims, Very Emphatically, that in Sri Lanka, Tamils live Predominantly in the North and East.

        Now Any Sri Lankan (including you) or Anyone familiar with Lanka KNOWS, that it is a Despicable Lie, because Tamils Live Predominantly in the SOUTH amongst the Sinhalese.

        Her Mother is an Indian origin Tamil.
        Half the Tamil Population in Lanka are Indian Origin Tamils.
        All Indian origin Tamils, live encircled by Sinhalese, on Sinhalese Land, dispossessed by the British from the Sinhalese.
        She herself, is a witness, to the fact that, she never felt an Ethnic issue during her Childhood, though they lived amongst the Sinhalese (listen to her interview).
        A large number of Lankan Tamils Live in the South amongst the Sinhalese
        These are irrefutable Facts.

        Then How can Niromi Claim that In Lanka, Tamils live predominantly in the North and East when the FACTUAL situation is the COMPLETE opposite?

        By Murdering the Queen’s English or by Lying without shame?

        Your Considered Views would be very much appreciated.

        Is she a Liar or Not a Liar?
        I have proven that she is.
        Can you disprove it?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        Rohini (Since that is a real name, is she taking the moral high ground?) states As a reader of the book page by page, What I realised is she was a member, and trained by the LTTE. in her life journey she was at a point realised , violent is not the way to go and openly acknowleged in the book , left the movement , turned around a life and living a successful live in Australia and contributing back to the country she was born.. At least she has read “Tamil Tigress”.

        Have you read the book? A simple “yes” or “no” would do.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        “By Murdering the Queen’s English or by Lying without shame?”

        Rohini has chosen not to respond to you. Since you brought up the subject of murdering “the Queen’s English”, are you going to chortle that he/she has remained silent haven’t he? as you about another poster on January 11, 2012 • 2:08 pm?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        You declare that Now Any Sri Lankan (including you) or Anyone familiar with Lanka KNOWS, that it is a Despicable Lie, because Tamils Live Predominantly in the SOUTH amongst the Sinhalese.

        Then How can Niromi Claim that In Lanka, Tamils live predominantly in the North and East when the FACTUAL situation is the COMPLETE opposite?

        Maybe she is claiming it because it is true?

        Here are the numbers from your own Government of Sri Lanka

        a)The Estimated Ceylon Tamil Population (2008) in the Northern Province
        (http://www.np.gov.lk/pdf/statistical_information_2009.pdf). Pages 38 to 46.

        Mullithivu 220,117
        Vavunya 157917
        Killnochi 195,386
        Mannar 95,560
        Jaffna 559,142
        TOTAL CEYLON TAMIL POPULATION IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCE: 1,817,563

        b)Ceylon Population in the Eastern Province: 2007 special Enumeration (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/page.asp?page=Population%20and%20Housing)

        Ampara 111,948
        Trincomalee 95,652
        Batticaloa 381,841

        TOTAL CEYLON TAMIL POPULATION IN THE EASTERN PROVINCE: 589,441

        c) Total Ceylon Tamil Population living outside the northern and eastern provinces. : 622,961
        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf

        d) Total Indian Tamil Population: 855,025
        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf

        Total Tamil Population in the whole of Ceylon (a+b+c+d): 3,295,549

        Percentage of the Total Number of Ceylon Tamils living in the North and East as a proportion of ALL Tamils Living in Sri Lanka. :(a+b)/d 55.15%

        OTC, So when you declare that Then How can Niromi Claim that In Lanka, Tamils live predominantly in the North and East when the FACTUAL situation is the COMPLETE opposite? are you lying or just plain ignorant of the facts?

        ————————————————————————————————————-
        You declare that Indian Origin Tamils consists close to 50% of the TOTAL Tamil population in Lanka..
        And Who is she trying to deceive?
        Foreigners?
        Why the Deceit?

        Pulling at the heartstrings of a gullible Aussie Public, to get Tamil illegals in to Australia?

        Actually the number is around 26% . (c/d)

        Who is the liar now? You or Niromi? Are you just plain ignorant of the basic facts about your own country?

        Since you are unable marshal basic facts about your own country, why should anyone regard to your attempts expose any Lies that she makes with anything other than sheer contempt? .

        OTC, please don’t thank me for straightening you out about the basic demographic information of the Tamils of Ceylon. I can honestly say that the pleasure was all mine!

    • Rationalman

      OTC, in response to Rohini’s comment “Her book has been chosen as a reference text book in some of the schools to teach subject “
      you declared Then it is imperative to expose any Lies that she makes.

      You should take up the challenge! Publish your point by point rebuttal. I will even go so far as to encourage you to go to Australia and wherever they are using “Tamil Tigress” as a reference text book. Perhaps by chance you may even visit my neighborhood!

      You advised me (January 14, 2012 • 12:43 am) “If you are guilty of lying, telling half truths, prostituting the truth, obfuscation, etc, then most certainly I will expose you for what you are and will call you a Liar to your face. If you are brazen enough to lie in public, then I have no problem in rising to the occasion, to name and shame you in public.”

      Put your money where your mouth is and start your holy crusade to prove Nirmoi a liar! Deride, expose ans shame those Australians of Sri Lanan and other origins who are pushing Niromi’s books in schools, bookstores, newspapers, TV and other outlets!

      I will be following your progress with great interest!

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote “You advised me (January 14, 2012 • 12:43 am) …. “

        Did I?
        Your inability to understand English is not my problem is it?

        You wrote “Put your money where your mouth is and start your holy crusade to prove Nirmoi a liar! Deride, expose ans shame those Australians of Sri Lanan and other origins who are pushing Niromi’s books in schools, bookstores, newspapers, TV and other outlets! “

        I have already proven that she is a Liar and you are hard pressed to prove otherwise.

        I have also exposed those who try to be character witnesses for Niromi without factual evidence. What I write has been already published. Hopefully you will be able to read and comprehend better, in the future.

        You wrote “Rohini (Since that is a real name, is she taking the moral high ground?) …

        Logic and Reasoning has an uncanny way of deserting you RationalMan.

        Rohini the name, is real enough and it’s also feminine and shared by the Sinhalese, Tamils and Indians. But can you prove that the writer has not assumed that name and that “Rohini” is even a woman?

        Let’s see you Factually proving that Rohini the author who posted on January 12, 2012 • 4:45 am is a woman and that her name in Real life is also Rohini.

        My apologies to you Rohini.
        No disrespect intended.
        “RationalMan” has irrationally brought an old argument that he lost in another thread, in to this discussion with you. He does not understand that a parallel does not exist between Thirukumaran and you. Just like his two year old, he keeps on repeating the same old thing. Probably a sign.
        He sure is a sore loser.

        You wrote “Rohini has chosen not to respond to you.“

        That is her prerogative isn’t it?
        Some have the intelligence to be silent when an argument cannot be broken with facts.
        Some squirm, wiggle and Lie to prove that black is indeed white.
        Hopefully, Rohini belongs to the first group that you don’t belong to.

        Did you Listen to the Hour long Throsby Interview with Niromi?
        Nice touch, choosing a serious Sinhala Song to commence the Interview with.

        BTW “RationalMan” slow down with your typing, lest you have a stroke.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, you claim that “I have already proven that she is a Liar and you are hard pressed to prove otherwise”.

        You don’t seem to have convinced too many people, even like minded people! Even David Blacker is not convinced enough call Niromi a “liar” like you do.

        I am looking forward to hearing about your crusade in Australia!

      • Why are you hiding behind me now, “Rational”man; you already tried to pick fights between me and DBSJ, and me and Niromi. If you’re not convinced by OTC, stand up like a man and tell him why instead of scuttling about like a weasel.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        You declare that Now Any Sri Lankan (including you) or Anyone familiar with Lanka KNOWS, that it is a Despicable Lie, because Tamils Live Predominantly in the SOUTH amongst the Sinhalese.

        Then How can Niromi Claim that In Lanka, Tamils live predominantly in the North and East when the FACTUAL situation is the COMPLETE opposite?

        Maybe she is claiming it because it is true?

        Here are the numbers from your own Government of Sri Lanka

        a)The Estimated Ceylon Tamil Population (2008) in the Northern Province
        (http://www.np.gov.lk/pdf/statistical_information_2009.pdf). Pages 38 to 46.

        Mullithivu 220,117
        Vavunya 157917
        Killnochi 195,386
        Mannar 95,560
        Jaffna 559,142
        TOTAL CEYLON TAMIL POPULATION IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCE: 1,817,563

        b)Ceylon Population in the Eastern Province: 2007 special Enumeration (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/page.asp?page=Population%20and%20Housing)

        Ampara 111,948
        Trincomalee 95,652
        Batticaloa 381,841

        TOTAL CEYLON TAMIL POPULATION IN THE EASTERN PROVINCE: 589,441

        c) Total Ceylon Tamil Population living outside the northern and eastern provinces. : 622,961
        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf

        d) Total Indian Tamil Population: 855,025
        http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf

        Total Tamil Population in the whole of Ceylon (a+b+c+d): 3,295,549

        Percentage of the Total Number of Ceylon Tamils living in the North and East as a proportion of ALL Tamils Living in Sri Lanka. :(a+b)/d 55.15%

        OTC, So when you declare that Then How can Niromi Claim that In Lanka, Tamils live predominantly in the North and East when the FACTUAL situation is the COMPLETE opposite? are you lying or just plain ignorant of the facts?

        ————————————————————————————————————-
        You declare that Indian Origin Tamils consists close to 50% of the TOTAL Tamil population in Lanka..
        And Who is she trying to deceive?
        Foreigners?
        Why the Deceit?

        Pulling at the heartstrings of a gullible Aussie Public, to get Tamil illegals in to Australia?

        Actually the number is around 26% . (c/d)

        Who is the liar now? You or Niromi? Are you just plain ignorant of the basic facts about your own country?

        Since you are unable marshal basic facts about your own country, why should anyone regard to your attempts expose any Lies that she makes with anything other than sheer contempt? .

        OTC, please don’t thank me for straightening you out about the basic demographic information of the Tamils of Ceylon. I can honestly say that the pleasure was all mine!

      • Rationalman

        David, you ask
        Why are you hiding behind me now, “Rational”man; you already tried to pick fights between me and DBSJ, and me and Niromi. If you’re not convinced by OTC, stand up like a man and tell him why instead of scuttling about like a weasel.

        When Off the Cuff, told me on “December 30, 2011 • 4:13 pm, Rational Man,David has given you a Very good History lesson., You didnt seem to mind that let alone accuse him of pick fights between you and me.

        No I realize that you only have an issue when poor insignificant Rationalman refers to you. So I apologize for taking your name in vain.

        So I will unweasel myself in your eyes, by withdrawing the line “Even David Blacker is not convinced enough call Niromi a “liar” like you do”.

        If if I just state “You don’t seem to have convinced too many people, even like minded people!”, I hope you will be satisfied..

        I hope this is satisfactory.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Though I posted my reply to yours of January 17, 2012 • 11:59 pm correctly, the GV system has published it elsewhere at this link.

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40956

        My apologies for the inconvenience caused.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        Lets honor the wishes of the Groundviews editors and try to maintain decorum.

        Firstly the Sri Lankan Tamil numbers are from the 2007 and 2008 estimates and publications. I have cited the documents.

        I apologize for a transposition Error which does not affect the final numbers. I used the Total Ceylon Tamil numbers on the Tamils in Northern Province row. However the Total Ceylon population living in the North and East is correctly calculated as 1,817,563 for the ratios.

        The question of lying does not arise as I have cited every single population number from the Government of Sri Lanka (gov.lk) sites and the 2007/2008 numbers.

        Total Tamil Population in the whole of Ceylon (a+b+c+d): 3,295,549

        Percentage of the Total Number of Ceylon Tamils living in the North and East as a proportion of ALL Tamils Living in Sri Lanka. 🙁 a+b)/d 55.15%

        A) Ceylon Tamils in the Northern Province Mullithivu 220,117
        Vavunya 157917
        Killnochi 195,386
        Mannar 95,560
        Jaffna 559,142
        Total Ceylon Tamils living in the Northern Province (2008) 1,228,122 (http://www.np.gov.lk/pdf/statistical_information_2009.pdf

        b) Ceylon Tamils living in Eastern Province
        Ampara 111,948
        Trincomalee 95,652
        Batticaloa 381,841
        Total 589,441
        (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/page.asp?page=Population%20and%20Housing)

        Total Ceylon Tamils living in the North and East 1,817,563

        c) Total Ceylon Tamils living outside the North and East 622,961 (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf) 622,961

        d) The Total number of Indian Tamils…. (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf) 855,025

        e) Total number of Tamils. 3,295,549

        Total Number of Ceylon Tamils Living in the North and East (a+b)/e
        = 55.15%

        And the percentage of Indian Tamils in relation to all Tamils is 25.94%

        However, Only an imbecile would use Disparate Census statistics without some form of Logical Statistical correction. I don’t see you applying any Logical statistical correction, unfortunately.

        You must be aware that the GOSL did not conduct an all island survey in 2001. For the north and east they did a special enumeration in 2007.

        My numbers are based on the 2007/2008 GOSL published figures which do not reflect your assertion that In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.

        Where did you get your million number? Can you cite the source? Or is it a logical statistical correction?

        In Lanka, 30 years on, in 2011, Tamils are not living PREDOMINANTLY in the North and East, as Niromi Falsely and Emphatically claimed in 2011.

        The Tamils are Predominantly living amongst the Sinhalese in the South.

        Do you have any statistical evidence?

        Thanks

      • Rationalman

        OTC, “in 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils.Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

        Do you still maintain that you were being truthful when according GOSL’s own statistics, the numbers are about 26%.

        Again I would like to you cite statistics from the people who would know, the GOSL. Thanks

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan

        I have already thanked you for you “Erudite” expose that you posted in a different thread on the same subject on January 18, 2012 • 12:48 am
        But Thank you again, nevertheless.

        My reply to the above post is available here
        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40956

        I have already apologised for the mispositioned post.

        You have now come up with a follow up post January 18, 2012 • 12:48 am but essentially committing the same Fundamental Error as in your previous posting. Hence your analysis is worthless and is an attempt at deceiving the GV readership using SPIN.

        Apples cannot be compared to Oranges.

        It is no different in Statistics.

        The ONLY FULL census data that is available is the 1981 data.
        This provides the complete demography of Lanka.

        It is Foolish, to say the least, to attempt to combine Census Data as DISPARATE as 9 years without any logical correction that accounts for that disparity. Even if such a correction is applied it still becomes an estimate which may or may not be correct or even close to reality. If that were possible realistically, we would be able to estimate when the First Tamil or First Sinhalese appeared on this island using the current population and the annual growth rate.

        In 1981 the Tamil population was 2,705,600
        Of that, 1,277,372 Tamils lived in the South amongst the Sinhalese
        This is 47.2%.
        Marginally below 50%.

        Since then, Emigration has created a 1 million+ Tamil Diaspora which is still on going.

        90.9% Indian Tamils lived in the South amongst the Sinhalese in 1981.
        Now that is predominance.

        In 2011, Thirty years later and after an unprecedented Emigration of Tamils, no sane person would claim that the Lankan Tamil Population Predominantly lives in the North and East.

        In 2011, Niromi Emphatically and FRAUDULENTLY claims that Tamils Predominantly live in the North and East (28:25 to 28:33). Vide the Throsby interview I linked in my post of January 10, 2012 • 10:20 pm

        You juggle with Census Statistics either Fraudulently or Ignorantly and tries to affirm the same claim not just once but twice.

        Niromi has a declared objective, which is to create a sympathetic environment for the illegal Tamil immigrants to Australia. She is also a Graduate in Law amongst others.

        It would be strange indeed, if she was not aware that, 90.9% of the Ethnic population her own Mother belongs to, is not living amongst the Sinhalese on Land dispossessed from the Sinhalese by the British.

        It would be strange for Niromi to be unaware of the gigantic Emigration of Tamils that occurred after 1981.

        It would also be strange for Niromi to be ignorant that even in 1981, over half a million Lankan Tamils lived amongst the Sinhalese in the South.

        Hence given her Academic Prowess, it is strange for Niromi to claim, that Tamils of Lanka live PREDOMINANTLY in the North and East.

        Listening to her unbridled emphasis during the interview, makes it clear to people who are aware of the TRUTH, that she is making this Fraudulent claim, to further her declared objective and that she has no interest in the Truth.

        This proves that she is prepared to subvert the TRUTH, if need be, to suit her devious objectives. She did so when she claimed to have fought the SLA which was confined to Barracks at the time. She has done so again with her fraudulent claim about where Tamils are Domiciled in Lanka.

        I wonder what your support of such calculated and deliberate Lies makes you.

        You wrote “Who is the liar now? You or Niromi? Are you just plain ignorant of the basic facts about your own country?”

        Smug aren’t you?
        But is it another off target Boomerang that has returned to knock you out?

        Good question.
        My answer is both You and Niromi.
        There is a Sinhala idiom that means a Dog’s tail cannot be straightened, even if it is kept in a cast for a long time.

        You wrote “Since you are unable marshal basic facts about your own country, … “

        RationalMan, I have provided facts and figures to the GV Readership that you cannot juggle around. But please do study facts about your own ethnic community even if you are ignorant about the country. I hope that is a sufficient answer to your subsequent query.

        You wrote “OTC, please don’t thank me for straightening you out about the basic demographic information of the Tamils of Ceylon. I can honestly say that the pleasure was all mine!”

        Ha ha haa, of course I thank you but that is for giving me the opportunity to expose Niromi and You, in more detail and destroying the basis of the “Traditional Homeland” hoax.

      • Off the Cuff

        To the GV Readership,

        Error Correction

        This is the correct paragraph.

        It would be strange indeed, if she was not aware that, 90.9% of the Ethnic population her own Mother belongs to, is living amongst the Sinhalese on Land dispossessed from the Sinhalese by the British.

        Please replace the relevant para in my post of January 18, 2012 • 11:31 pm with the above.

      • “When Off the Cuff, told me on “December 30, 2011 • 4:13 pm, Rational Man,David has given you a Very good History lesson., You didnt seem to mind that let alone accuse him of pick fights between you and me.”

        “Ooh, sir, OTC is also being naughty, no? Why only little me is being punished??????”

        Lol, how old are you “Rational”man? You claim to have adult children, but it sounds like you’re still in the third grade.

      • Rationalman

        Oh, David, I cannot compete with you in the game of childish taunts.
        You are the master of infantile zingers.

        The stage in all yours!

      • The tragedy, “Rational”man, is that you have been forced to abandon all your so-called arguments and resort to infantile zingers to which I have responded in kind. What happened to your attempts to prove Niromi did indeed fight the SL military as she claimed; and your attempts to simultaneously prove that she didn’t mean she fought the SL military when she said “I fought the SL military”? 😀

      • Rationalman

        David, The tragedy, “Rational”man, is that you have been forced to abandon all your so-called arguments and resort to infantile zingers to which I have responded in kind

        Even Dr. Roberts seems to have moved on. I have asked you many times to do your own research instead of repeating the same line over and over and over again like the man from Indostan who
        “no sooner had begun, About the beast to grope, Then, seizing on the swinging tail, That fell within his scope,“I see,” quoth he, “the ElephantIs very like a rope!”.

        With your current mindset, I don’t see interaction getting beyond about the elephant was of coir or nylon.

        I know you can do better than that!

      • The hand that writes and having writ moves on, “Rational”man. It is idiots like you who persist in spitting at the moon.

        What is it that I must research? Must I research your claims in order to substantiate what you cannot? 😀 Everything that I have claimed, I have substantiated. I still await your researched substantiation of these two claims that you have continued to make:

        1) Niromi did indeed fight the SL military as she claims.
        2) Niromi didn’t mean she fought the SL military when she claimed to have fought the SL military.

        Until then, all your tales of elephants and other such nonsense remains just that — the babbling foolishness of an egotistical and immature man who cannot bear to admit that he is wrong. Sadly, you are the quintessential pro-Tiger diaspora Tamil, who will not accept what history records. You persist in the belief that your useless mumbling makes sense, and that the noise alone will replace substance.

      • Rationalman

        Oh, David, David, David,

        “Sadly, you are the quintessential pro-Tiger diaspora Tamil”,(/i>,

        However did you come to that conclusion?

        Please tell me that you thought it up all by yourself and did not plagiarize from OTC’s “Even a Rational Minded, Die hard Eelamist, would understand what I say, despite your obfuscation, even if they wont admit it in public”.

      • “However did you come to that conclusion?”

        See my previous comment. I have stated clearly my reasons.

        “Please tell me that you thought it up all by yourself and did not plagiarize from OTC’s “Even a Rational Minded, Die hard Eelamist, would understand what I say, despite your obfuscation, even if they wont admit it in public”.”

        Since OTC credits the most die-hard Eelamist as being more rational and intelligent than you, how can my comment be a plagiarism when I said that you represent the lack of rationality and intelligence amongst the Eelamists? Were the words I used too long and complicated for you? 😀

      • Rationalman

        Oh David, David, David, I had been hoping you would come up a fresh insult than using OTC’s Eelamist” theme.

        In any event I would like you to expound on your hypothesis that I am the quintessential pro-Tiger diaspora Tamil”?

        Just because I don’t agree with you? Tsk, Tsk!

      • ” I had been hoping you would come up a fresh insult than using OTC’s Eelamist” theme.”

        And I had hoped that you would be able to substantiate your claims that Niromi fought the SL military 😀

        “In any event I would like you to expound on your hypothesis that I am the quintessential pro-Tiger diaspora Tamil”?”

        But I would first like you to substantiate your claim that Niromi fought the SL military.

        “Just because I don’t agree with you? Tsk, Tsk!”

        No, because you are uneducated and lacking in basic intelligence.

      • Rationalman

        Oh David,

        I have asked you repeatedly to give me one single example of Niromi claiming that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the SL Armed Forces and/or had ever fired or been fired upon by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.

        And yet you ask me And I had hoped that you would be able to substantiate your claims that Niromi fought the SL military 😀

        You saying But I would first like you to substantiate your claim that Niromi fought the SL military.

        Leaving aside the fact that I have been asking you to give me one single example of Niromi claiming that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the SL Armed Forces and/or had ever fired or been fired upon by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, you use the Sri lankan equivalent of the blood libel on me, by accusing me of a terrorist sympathizer and supporter .

        You remind me of the fellows who in July 1983 in Colombo (and I am sure in other areas as well), because of sheer envy or some imagined grudge against a successful tamil family, denounced them of being “kotis” to the rampaging Sinhalese mobs. A lot of Tamil families whose only fault was being more successful than their neighbors lost lives and limbs and had their property burnt and looted thanks to such irresponsible behavior.

        Perhaps you know some of these accusers? Of course if you can provide proof that I am terrorist sympathizer and supporter, I would love to hear it.

        You say No, because you are uneducated and lacking in basic intelligence.

        Do middle aged people in your circle actually talk like that? This is not the Colombo society that I know.

      • “I have asked you repeatedly to give me one single example of Niromi claiming that she was involved in a battle/skirmish/ambush with the SL Armed Forces and/or had ever fired or been fired upon by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.”

        But I had first asked you (Jan 4th) to substantiate your own claims first. Why should I attempt to substantiate something I have never claimed when you will neither substantiate your own claims nor admit your inability to do so?

        “You remind me of the fellows who in July 1983 in Colombo (and I am sure in other areas as well), because of sheer envy or some imagined grudge against a successful tamil family, denounced them of being “kotis” to the rampaging Sinhalese mobs. A lot of Tamil families whose only fault was being more successful than their neighbors lost lives and limbs and had their property burnt and looted thanks to such irresponsible behavior.”

        But why would I be envious of an unintelligent, immature, and egotistical individual such as yourself? What is there to envy?

        “Perhaps you know some of these accusers?”

        Which accusers?

        “Of course if you can provide proof that I am terrorist sympathizer and supporter, I would love to hear it.”

        Once you have provided proof that Niromi indeed fought the SL military, I will be happy to reciprocate.

        “Do middle aged people in your circle actually talk like that? This is not the Colombo society that I know.”

        No doubt you are more familiar with the sections of society more similar to you 😉

      • Rationalman

        David,

        you are absolutely right in saying “No doubt you are more familiar with the sections of society more similar to you 😉

        Colombo society that I remember did not accept the murders and disappearances of journalists and public citizens, civic leaders shooting each other in public, ministers tying public servants to trees and definitely did not tolerate the public murders of tourists and followed by public gang rapes of their companions.

        Yes, I find all this behavior strange as I am familiar with society similar to me.

        David, you say “But why would I be envious of an unintelligent, immature, and egotistical individual such as yourself? What is there to envy?

        I wonder the same thing myself. Why would you envy poor insignificant Rationalman? But yet, you persist in accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer/supporter.

        I can understand why a pack of obscure self referring canis aureus narias, would be jealous of Niromi’s book’s critical and financial success, but why poor old me?

        Why? Of course if you have any proof that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter, you should let the world know, shouldn’t you?

      • Off the Cuff

        Rationalman,

        You wrote “I can understand why a pack of obscure self referring canis aureus narias, would be jealous of Niromi’s book’s critical and financial success, but why poor old me?”

        She is welcome to fool the gullible Tamil terrorist flag wavers/sympathisers to become a financial success at their expense, just like Gordon Weis did before her. She wont be the last to grab that opportunity either.

        Unlike in the past, when the Terrorist Flag wavers and their sympathisers were unopposed on the Internet and had the freedom to spread their lies, no one will have a free ride when they try to slander Sri Lanka today.

        Niromi attempted to spread the canard that Tamils of Lanka PREDOMINANTLY live in the North and East. A propaganda ploy to misinform foreigners and reinforce the Eelamist claim to a traditional homeland.

        She attempted to show that she, fought the Sri Lankan Army which was confined to barracks during the whole period of her Purported stint with the Terrorists

        The pack of obscure self referring canis aureus narias, that attempted to defend her LIES with their own obfuscations and lies has now dwindled to a lone animal.

      • “Colombo society that I remember did not accept the murders and disappearances of journalists and public citizens, civic leaders shooting each other in public, ministers tying public servants to trees and definitely did not tolerate the public murders of tourists and followed by public gang rapes of their companions.”

        No, the society you are a part of accepted and even supported the massacre of women and children, the murder of clergy, the kidnapping and conscription of little children, the use of young women as human bombs, the extortion, torture, and terrorisation of innocents. Your society supports false accusations and outright lies. Your society believes it’s OK to insult educated academics instead of opposing them academically.

        “Yes, I find all this behavior strange as I am familiar with society similar to me.”

        I’m glad to finally see some honesty from you, “Rational”man.

        I wonder the same thing myself. Why would you envy poor insignificant Rationalman? But yet, you persist in accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer/supporter.I can understand why a pack of obscure self referring canis aureus narias, would be jealous of Niromi’s book’s critical and financial success, but why poor old me?”

        If logic does not support your conclusion, you must then accept that your conclusion is wrong. However, if you were capable of that, you would not have challenged Prof Roberts in the first place. And by the way, canis aureus naris is also known as the South Indian Jackal. Freudian, eh?

        “Why? Of course if you have any proof that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter, you should let the world know, shouldn’t you?”

        And if you have proof that Niromi fought the SL military, you should let the world know, shouldn’t you? 😀

      • Rationalman

        ”No, the society you are a part of accepted and even supported the massacre of women and children, the murder of clergy, the kidnapping and conscription of little children, the use of young women as human bombs, the extortion, torture, and terrorisation of innocents. Your society supports false accusations and outright lies. Your society believes it’s OK to insult educated academics instead of opposing them academically”.

        Yes, David, certain sectors of Colombo society did most of what you say and a lot more like burning and chopping people alive and destroying their property, burning libraries most notably in 1958, 1977 and 1983.

        But the people I moved around with considered them scum of the earth and did not mix with them. I can assure you that people in the circle I moved in Colombo in the 60s and 70s, , did not consider it OK to insult educated academics who wrote scholarly works or deride, berate or call names of academics or non academics.

        Your Colombo experience seems to have been very much different as it is apparent from your behavior.

        Since the late 70s except for a short period in the early 80s, I have not lived in Colombo for so I have to take your word about the social mores.

        If you say that “ the society you are a part of accepted and even supported the massacre of women and children, the murder of clergy, the kidnapping and conscription of little children, the use of young women as human bombs, the extortion, torture, and terrorization of innocents”.

        I take your word for it except for replacing “are part of “with “were part of” (I have been away for nearly 30 years) as the recent headlines from Colombo back your assertions.

        And if you have proof that Niromi fought the SL military, you should let the world know, shouldn’t you?

        So the mighty Blacker, who mightily accuses poor insignificant Rationalman of being a terrorist sympathizer/supporter is unable to backup his assertion and is hiding behind a spurious claim?

      • Rationalman

        David,
        “And by the way, canis aureus naris is also known as the South Indian Jackal. Freudian, eh?,.

        Why is it Freudian?

      • Rationalman

        David.

        ”No, the society you are a part of accepted and even supported the massacre of women and children, the murder of clergy, the kidnapping and conscription of little children, the use of young women as human bombs, the extortion, torture, and terrorisation of innocents. Your society supports false accusations and outright lies. Your society believes it’s OK to insult educated academics instead of opposing them academically”.

        Yes, David, certain sectors of Colombo society did most of what you say and a lot more like burning and chopping people alive and destroying their property, burning libraries most notably in 1958, 1977 and 1983.

        But the people I moved around with considered them scum of the earth and did not mix with them. I can assure you that people in the circle I moved in Colombo in the 60s and 70s, , did not consider it OK to insult educated academics who wrote scholarly works or deride, berate or call names of academics or non academics.

        Your Colombo experience seems to have been very much different as it is apparent from your behavior.

        Since the late 70s except for a short period in the early 80s, I have not lived in Colombo for so I have to take your word about the social mores.

        If you say that “ the society you are a part of accepted and even supported the massacre of women and children, the murder of clergy, the kidnapping and conscription of little children, the use of young women as human bombs, the extortion, torture, and terrorization of innocents”.

        I take your word for it except for replacing “are part of “with “were part of” (I have been away for nearly 30 years) as the recent headlines from Colombo back your assertions.

        And if you have proof that Niromi fought the SL military, you should let the world know, shouldn’t you?

        So the mighty Blacker, who mightily accuses poor insignificant Rationalman of being a terrorist sympathizer/supporter is unable to backup his assertion and is hiding behind a spurious claim?

        Note to Editors of Groundviews.
        I had posted the above comments earlier today and it has still not appeared on the site. Are the comments being censored?

        Please let me know. Thanks.

      • “Yes, David, certain sectors of Colombo society did most of what you say and a lot more like burning and chopping people alive and destroying their property, burning libraries most notably in 1958, 1977 and 1983.”

        Yes, the societ you claim to belong to.

        “But the people I moved around with considered them scum of the earth and did not mix with them. I can assure you that people in the circle I moved in Colombo in the 60s and 70s, , did not consider it OK to insult educated academics who wrote scholarly works or deride, berate or call names of academics or non academics.”

        So you are unique even amongst the scum?

        “Your Colombo experience seems to have been very much different as it is apparent from your behavior.”

        No argument there 😀

        “Since the late 70s except for a short period in the early 80s, I have not lived in Colombo for so I have to take your word about the social mores.”

        Where did I make any claim about Colombo social mores; that was your own claim.

        “I take your word for it except for replacing “are part of “with “were part of” (I have been away for nearly 30 years) as the recent headlines from Colombo back your assertions.”

        I am quite aware of your absence from SL (a factor we are all thankful for — the less idiots here the better), which is why your assumption that I was discussing Colombo is misplaced. As usual.

        “And if you have proof that Niromi fought the SL military, you should let the world know, shouldn’t you?”

        Where have I made such a claim? Indeed, it was you that did so.

        “So the mighty Blacker, who mightily accuses poor insignificant Rationalman of being a terrorist sympathizer/supporter is unable to backup his assertion and is hiding behind a spurious claim?”

        What assertion, and what claim? 😀 Been smoking up again?

      • Rationalman

        David,
        “Yes, the societ you claim to belong to”?.
        Are you now claiming that I am from a long line of Sinhalese thugs who set fire to that Tamils and their property in ’58. 77. and 83?

        “So you are unique even amongst the scum?”.
        Do you understand the difference between a scholarly work and an thinly sourced opinion piece? Is the lack of understanding making you call me a terrorist sympathizer/supporter?

        “No argument there”
        Thank you!

        Where did I make any claim about Colombo social mores; that was your own claim. and I am quite aware of your absence from SL (a factor we are all thankful for — the less idiots here the better), which is why your assumption that I was discussing Colombo is misplaced. As usual

        I was following up with my statement “Colombo society that I remember did not accept the murders and disappearances of journalists and public citizens, civic leaders shooting each other in public, ministers tying public servants to trees and definitely did not tolerate the public murders of tourists and followed by public gang rapes of their companions. . So perhaps you should get a mirror?

        “What assertion, and what claim? Been smoking up again?”?
        Doing the usual Blacker weaseling tactics again?

        So you still don’t have any proof that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter? Tsk, Tsk!

      • “Are you now claiming that I am from a long line of Sinhalese thugs who set fire to that Tamils and their property in ’58. 77. and 83?”

        I have no idea what your family tree is like, but since you now diverted this discussion away from your inability to prove your claim that Niromi fought the SL Military to one of our societal backgrounds (making this debate once more a personal one), I have shared my thoughts with you.

        “Do you understand the difference between a scholarly work and an thinly sourced opinion piece? Is the lack of understanding making you call me a terrorist sympathizer/supporter?”

        There is no lack of understanding on my part. It has long been clear exactly what you are. As for sources, since you refuse to accept the sources, you must provide your own. You have been unable to do so, making your foolish claim that Niromi fought the SL military scholarly proof of your idiocy. Your comments here are the proof of your character — a disgrace to both the school you claim to have attended, and the Boy Scouts you claim to have been a member of.

        “Thank you!”

        ROFL.

        “I was following up with my statement “Colombo society that I remember did not accept the murders and disappearances of journalists and public citizens, civic leaders shooting each other in public, ministers tying public servants to trees and definitely did not tolerate the public murders of tourists and followed by public gang rapes of their companions. . So perhaps you should get a mirror?”

        Are you accusing me of the above now?

        “Doing the usual Blacker weaseling tactics again?”

        No, just asking you to substantiate your accusation. Are you unable to?

        “So you still don’t have any proof that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter? Tsk, Tsk!”

        Oh, your comments are indeed the proof 😉 But what about your proof that Niromi fought the SL military? 😀

  • Rationalman

    David,

    I said, If you have read the Accord (which I do not have with me now, but will be happy to post the reference later on) ) , you will know that the Indian Army and Navy was obliged to assist the Government of Sri Lanka to control militant activities if and when needed.”

    And you replied I know of no such clause in the Accord; but even if onbe such existed, since the Tigers did not attack the SL military, and no such request was made to the IPKF by the GoSL, what exactly is your point?

    Here is the relevant parts from the Indo Sri Lankan Accord of July 29, 1987

    (b) 2.16 (b) The Indian Navy/Coast Guard will cooperate with the Sri Lankan Navy in preventing Tamil Militant Activities from affecting Sri Lanka
    (c) In the event that the Government of Sri Lanka requests the Government of India to afford military assistance to implement these proposals, the Government of India will cooperate by giving the Government of Sri Lanka such military assistance as and when requested.

    Glad to be of help. As for the my point, the Government of India and its armed forces were not truly neutral.

  • Rationalman

    David, I said “That is the opinion of David Blacker in 2012. The opinion of Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran, on October 4th, 1987 was that the apprehension/capture/arrest/intercept was an act of war.””

    And you replied This cannot be logically deduced given that VP then went to war not against those who had committed the act of war, but the neutral peacekeepers, the IPKF. If VP considered it an act of war, isn’t it logical that he must retaliate against the perpetrators of the act and not a third party. Did the US attack Australia after the Japanese committed the act of war of bombing Pearl Harbour?

    Elsewhere I have explained to you why US DID NOT ATTACK AUSTRALIA after Pearl Harbor. Me thinks you should hit the History books harder. Perhaps your misunderstanding of history is clouding your judgement about the events of October 1987.

    Here are some key words to google: The Lend Lease Act, The British Commonwealth, The Second Australian Imperial Force. Fall of Singapore, Gen Yamashita, 8th Division of the Australian Army.

    • I have responded to these two comments already. No need to scatter your responses, “Rational”man.

  • S.B.D

    Niromi de Soyza talking to Annie Warburton from ABC Hobart, 27th June 2011.

    http://tinyurl.com/7hre3ez

    Fighting IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force) was no fun.

  • Off the Cuff

    RationalMan,

    Thank you for your Erudite Expose.

    However, Only an imbecile would use Disparate Census statistics without some form of Logical Statistical correction. I don’t see you applying any Logical statistical correction, unfortunately.

    In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
    Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.

    There is also an Internal migration in and out of the Northern and Eastern provinces due to resettlement to and from the Southern Provinces (meaning all provinces excluding the N & E provinces). This also is ongoing.

    In 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils.

    Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

    In 1981, there were 530,318 Lankan Tamils in the South.

    Out of an Indian Tamil Population of 818,700 only 71,646 were living in the N & E provinces and 744,040 were living amongst the Sinhalese. Now, that is predominance.

    Hence in 1981 out of a Total Tamil Population of 2,705,600 there were 1,277,372 Tamils living in the South amongst the Sinhalese or 47.2%. Marginally below 50%.

    Since 1981 this changed drastically, with an unprecedented large scale Tamil Emigration and Internal migration out of the N & E provinces, away from the clutches of the LTTE.

    In Lanka, 30 years on, in 2011, Tamils are not living PREDOMINANTLY in the North and East, as Niromi Falsely and Emphatically claimed in 2011.

    The Tamils are Predominantly living amongst the Sinhalese in the South.

    Niromi Lied and you are trying to wash off the dirt with obfuscation.
    Unfortunately, by wallowing in the same cesspool, you are getting dirtied yourself.

    You wrote “Since you can’t get this basic fact right, does it make you a liar, an (to use one of your favorite insults) imbecile or just plain lazy? “

    A good description of yourself under the circumstances, don’t you agree?

    Boomerangs return to the thrower.
    Have you forgotten that “RationalMan”?
    Yet again you have been hit by one.
    Better get some advice from the Aborigines they invented the Boomerang.

    Have you now dropped your focus from attempting to reinterpret Niromi’s use of the words “government forces”? Or do you agree with what Niromi herself state as she repeatedly refer to the Sri Lankan Govt forces as “Government Forces”?

    You are posting all over this web page in different threads to confuse the reader.

    This post is a reply to the post you hid away in an unrelated thread at this link http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-40912

    Good luck

    • Really appreciate if everyone stuck to a higher level of debate than calling each other names. Thanks.

    • Rationalman

      OTC,

      In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
      Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.

      I did actually update (January 18, 2012 • 9:01 pm) the Sri Lankan Tamil statistics with latest numbers issued by the Sri Lankan Government (and linked them to the SL Govt Websites)

      I am looking forward to your response.

    • Rationalman

      OTC ”
      In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
      Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.

      Can you cite your source for the million migration?

    • Rationalman

      OTC.

      In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
      Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing

      Can you cite the source for this?

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote, “OTC. In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils…….”

        The Govt Census of 1981, the same source you used. Surprised?

        You wrote, “………Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.
        Can you cite the source for this? ”

        Today the wiki is blacked out for 24 hours. But if you are really contesting the above, just add the Tamil populations in the West and Australia as per the respective Govt data. They are not secrets are they?

        • Actually, if you disable Javascript on your browser, Wikipedia loads fine. Mobile version also loads fine. And thank you for keeping the conversation civil. We appreciate it.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, I am going to consolidate all my answers on one post. So please look for that.

      • Off the Cuff

        Groundviews,

        Thank you for the information about accessing the wiki.

        RationalMan,

        According to the wiki, the Tamil Diaspora of Lankan origin is estimated at 887,000.

        My post claimed it as 1 million+ as I did not have access to the Wiki at that time to verify it.

        The error is regretted, although it does not negate my statement that the MAJORITY of Tamils in Lanka live in the South amongst the Sinhalese.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        RationalMan, According to the wiki, the Tamil Diaspora of Lankan origin is estimated at 887,000. My post claimed it as 1 million+ as I did not have access to the Wiki at that time to verify it.

        Firstly, the 887,000 is a rough estimate (it fails your own standard of of apples and oranges). When and how was the number calculated?
        I live in a country with a large Tamil Diaspora, our government does not collect data based on natural origin, only by race.

        And to equate the 887,000 to total number of Ceylon tamils who left the country between 1981 and todate is absolute nonsense.

        My wife and I left the country in the mid eighties. We had two children who were born in the country where I live now. All four of us would be considered Tamil Diaspora of Lankan origin. Of the four of us only 2 (50% ) left Sri Lanka. And there was a substantial migration to the UK in the 60s and 70s. They would be considered Tamil Diaspora of Lankan origin, and their children and grandchildren.

        In any case, I have given you the Sri Lankan Government statistics for the Ceylon Tamils living in the Northern and Eastern Province in 2007. That alone acording to the GL Government is 1.9 million.

        So you have not proven anything!

        ————————————
        Since I have proven that according to the SL Goevt statistics and it’s own website. the Indian Tamils are =>30% of the Total Tamil Society.

        So do you admit that you were wrong in claiming that Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million + and This is still ongoing.In 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils, hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, sorry, the comment should read Since I have proven that according to the SL Goevt statistics and it’s own website. the Indian Tamils are <= 30%)(less than or equal to) of the Total Tamil Society.

        Do you admit that you are wrong?

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Please stop making multiple posts about the same subject all over this web page.

        My reply to our queries are available here

        http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-41016

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Your post of January 19, 2012 • 10:25 am refers.

        You wrote “And to equate the 887,000 to total number of Ceylon tamils who left the country between 1981 and todate is absolute nonsense. “

        This is why I have advised you to read my posts with care and attempt to understand what I have written before you attempt to challenge them.

        Have I equated the 887,000 to the total number of Lankan Tamils that left Sri Lanka? You would not be able to find such a claim within my writing.

        Of course what I have italicised above is absolute nonsense.
        But that is your interpretation not what I wrote.

        Read what I wrote again but this time slowly and carefully.
        You have a tendency to jump to the wrong conclusion.

  • Rationalman

    OTC,

    I am having difficulty posting this because of the hyperlinks so I have replaced the “.” with “_”.

    I agree that one can’t shouldn’t apples to oranges, neither should thy try to make fruit salads using three decade old data, unverifiable assertions and top it with non standard demographic information about countries one knows little about using wikipedia.

    In 1981 the Tamil population was 2,705,600
    Of that, 1,277,372 Tamils lived in the South amongst the Sinhalese
    This is 47.2%.
    Marginally below 50%.

    Since then, Emigration has created a 1 million+ Tamil Diaspora which is still on going.

    <i)Since 1981 this changed drastically, with an unprecedented large scale Tamil Emigration and Internal migration out of the N & E provinces, away from the clutches of the LTTE.

    In Lanka, 30 years on, in 2011, Tamils are not living PREDOMINANTLY in the North and East, as Niromi Falsely and Emphatically claimed in 2011.

    The Tamils are Predominantly living amongst the Sinhalese in the South.

    I usually go to the original sources but since you prefer Wikipedia which are always not reliable, I assure you that the numbers I am giving you are reflected in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_District

    Yes, I would challenge your assertions.

    I am going to use the Estimates of the Ceylon Tamil Population issued by the Northern ( http://www.np.gov.lk/)and Eastern Provincial Councils www_ep_gov_lk/.

    Here are the 2007 Census estimates issued by Eastern Provincial Council the see page 32, www_ep_gov_lk/Documents/Statistical-Information-2009/Population.pdf

    Ceylon Tamils in the Eastern Province in 2007.
    I had quoted the 07 Special Enumeration from the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka, but I will use the more uptodate figures published in 2009 in the future.

    Ampara 112006
    Batticaloa 381894
    Trincomalee 136783

    Total Ceylon Population in the Eastern Province according to the 2007 Estimates published in 2009 by the Government of Sri Lanka. is 630783

    Here are the 2007 Census estimates issued by Northern Provincial Council Www_np_gov_lk/pdf/Statistical-Inofrmation-2010.pdf

    Mullaithivu 220117
    Vavuniya 157917
    Mannar 95560
    Jaffna 608587
    Killinochi 195386

    Total Ceylon Population in the Northern Province according to the 2007 Estimates published in 2009 by the Government of Sri Lanka. is 1277567

    The Total Ceylon Tamil Population living in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka per 2007 Estimates as published by their respective provincial council is one million nine hundred thousand three hundred and fifty. (1,908,350)

    That is just for the Northern and Eastern Provinces in 2007. This number reflects all the migration out of the Northern and Eastern Province.

    So according to the SL Government’s 2007 estimates, twice as many people live in the Northern and Eastern Province as you claim as the Sri Lankan Tamil population living in all of Sri Lanka. As per your request, I have carefully not mixed data from different periods. These are all 2007 GOSL statistics.
    Because you did say “In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
    Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +
    and This is still ongoing.In 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils, hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.
    You on the other hand have taken a lot of liberties with your calculations! You have not taken to account any natural increase in population, and have pulled out a number of a million, unsupported by any GOSL stats and blithely make up your numbers from the 1981 basis.

    If you have alternate numbers, Please share your sources.

    I am especially interested in how you arrive at this conclusion ”In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
    Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.
    There is also an Internal migration in and out of the Northern and Eastern provinces due to resettlement to and from the Southern Provinces (meaning all provinces excluding the N & E provinces). This also is ongoing.
    In 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils.
    Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

    I am looking forward to your explanation without name calling and accusations!

    ————————————————————

    According to the GOSL website.(Gov_lk).

    Sri Lanka has a population of 18.5 million of whom the majority are Sinhalese (74%). Other ethnic groups are made up of Sri Lankan Tamils (12.6%), Indian Tamils (5.5%), Moors, Malays, Burghers (of Portuguese & Dutch descent) and others (7.9%).
    http://www.gov.lk/gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58%3Ademography&catid=25%3Athe-project&lang=en
    Even according to the GOSL website, the Indian Tamils consist of 30.3% of the total Tamil Population.

    Can you provide us with your source allows you to make this bold statement Half the Tamil Population in Lanka are Indian Origin Tamils.

    Especially when the GOSL numbers for the Ceylon Tamils living only in the North and East for 2007 is twice your estimate and twice the 2001 all island number for the Indian Tamils.

    I am really not interested in anecdotal data. Today the wiki is blacked out for 24 hours. But if you are really contesting the above, just add the Tamil populations in the West and Australia as per the respective Govt data. They are not secrets are they?

    If you mix data from different counties then you are truly mixing data not only are you stopping with comparing apples to oranges, you will be making fruit salads.

    So let’s stick to the GOSL numbers. Give us your proof!

    • Off the Cuff

      RationalMan,

      I would advice you to understand what I have written before you start contesting them.

      I have analysed the Ethnic distribution in 1981. The LATEST year, for which, Official Island Wide Demographic data is available. If you observe any mistakes please point them out and re interpret the 1981 data to arrive at an acceptable distribution for 1981.

      It is not possible to COMPARE or COMBINE data of disparate years, official or otherwise. It is also not possible to use ESTIMATES in Lieu of an Enumerated Census Data.

      Island wide ENUMERATED Census data is simply not available after 1981.

      The movement of people in and out of a given area during the intervening years means that they will be counted more than once if there is a GAP between Enumerations.

      An estimate is not a physical count and as the name implies it is just an estimate. After 1983, there was large scale movement of people which has continued even up to this day.

      Your analysis has a fundamental flaw, as pointed out above. That is why it is a fruit salad.

      You wrote “You on the other hand have taken a lot of liberties with your calculations! You have not taken to account any natural increase in population, “

      Are you claiming that the 1981 ethnic ratios would be drastically altered due to a natural increase by Tamils? Can you prove that by using Historical Data?

      I think you will be hard pressed to prove that the natural increase of Tamils was able to outrun the natural increase of the other Ethnic groups. For that to happen, the Tamils need to reproduce much faster than the other Ethnic groups. Has the sexual appetite of Tamils increased after 1981 for some unknown reason, causing a baby boom?

      Have they shown an abnormal increase of Sexual activity since 1981?
      Has their Birth Rate increased sharply?

      On the contrary, the LTTE forcibly recruited the Sexually productive age group and forbade them sex. Some people say, that some who disobeyed, were put to Death.

      Deaths of course have increased sharply, due to the war.
      But that only decreases the Tamil population, not increase it.

      You wrote “… and have pulled out a number of a million, ….. “

      The number is 887,000 (Wiki, please see subsequent post).
      It is a Fact that there is a Very Large number of Lanka Tamils overseas. They did not fall out of the sky but went from Lanka.
      Hence the Tamil population of Lanka would decrease.

      It wont decrease by 887,000 but by a reasonable figure that accounts for the current 887,000 overseas. That figure, would still be Very Large and would significantly alter the Ethnic Ratios in Lanka.

      In 1953 there were 884,700 Lankan Tamils GOSL census.
      In 1921 it was 517,300 GOSL Census

      Hence within a space of 32 years the Lanka Tamils increased from 517,300 to 884,700. An increase of 367,400 (GOSL Census).
      This accounts for the Normal Lankan Tamil Birth and Death rates.

      Even if we assume that due to the cold environment of the West, the Tamil Birth Rate Increased and they produced 400,000 new born overseas. Then they should have started out 32 years ago with a population of 487,000 to reach the current estimate of 887,000.

      Since we are looking at 1983 to 2011, the intervening period is not 32 years but 28 years. The Lankan Tamils, have never, in recorded History, produced 400,000 progeny in 28 years.

      Hence the above estimate of 400,000 accommodates a much higher birth rate than is Normal for the Lankan Tamils and will take in to account, a Rationally acceptable, abnormal increase of sexual activity, by them.

      487,000 is then, a Conservative Estimate, of Tamils, that left Sri Lanka after 1983

      You wrote “…..unsupported by any GOSL stats….. “

      Ah, I suppose All the Tamils went through Sri Lanka Emigration.
      Be real RationalMan, be real.

      Even a subsequent Island wide census cannot establish Tamil Emigration.
      Some foreign govts do not record Ethnic data in their Population Census. Hence even with official Data, from the countries where the Tamils Emigrated to, a complete profile of Tamil Emigration cannot be established. Even the International Referendum that the Tamil Diaspora carried out some time back, will not establish the Numbers that emigrated, as not ALL Tamils voted.

      The only way to even estimate the magnitude of Tamil Emigration, is to use reports that indicate it and is available in the public domain.

      That is what wiki has done.
      They have also given the sources.
      Which of them are you contesting?
      I would not trust Tamilnet which is the source used for France. ….. 50,000 Ezham Tamils….

      Wiki has not included Italy, Australia and USA as significant population centres, even though they are also popular Tamil Destinations. Hence the wiki estimate is prone to be Conservative.

      We are looking at Percentages and the Only reliable source is, the 1981 ISLAND WIDE GOSL Census.

      You wrote “…..and blithely make up your numbers from the 1981 basis. “

      You need to brush up your English.
      Quoting from the LATEST available GOSL Island wide Census cannot be Rationally termed that.

      The 1981 GOSL census establishes the following

      Lanka Tamils 1,886,900
      Indian Origin Tamils 818,700
      Indian Tamils in N & E provinces 74,616
      Tamils living in the South 530,318
      Total Tamils in the South 1,274,402
      Total Tamils Island wide 2,705,600

      Percentage of Tamils in the South is 47.1% in 1981

      After 1983
      About 487,000 Tamils left the country and they were not the Indian Origin Tamils. Thousands of Tamils fled LTTE controlled areas to the South. Again they were not Indian Origin Tamils.

      By what Rationale are you supporting Niromi’s Fraudulent claim about Tamil domicile in Lanka?

      Niromi Lied
      And you are obfuscating.

      BTW, though this post is addressed to you, my wider audience is the GV Readership. My aim is to reach out to them and show them the unadulterated Truth, as it is.

      Even a Rational Minded, Die hard Eelamist, would understand what I say, despite your obfuscation, even if they wont admit it in public.

      Data used

      1981 GOSL Census

      Sinhalese 10,979,400 73.95%
      Lanka Tamils 1,886,900 12.71%
      Indian Tamils 818,700 5.51%
      Lanka Moors 1,046,900 7.05%
      Others 114,900 0.77%
      Total 14,846,800 100.00%

      Provincial Data 1981, GOSL, Satistical Abstract 1997
      Northern Province
      SL Tamils 957,247
      Indian Tamils 63,759

      Eastern Province
      SL Tamils 399,299
      Indian Tamils 10,857

      Wiki,
      Estimated Tamil Diaspora
      887,000
      Significant populations
      1. Canada 200000 (2007)
      2. UK 120000 (2007)
      3. India 100000 (2005)
      4. France 100000 (2008)
      5. Germany 60000 (2008)
      6. Switzerland 50000 (2008)
      7. Malasia 24436 (1970)
      8. Netherlands 20000 (2008)
      9. Norway 10000 (2000)
      10. Denmark 9000 (2003)

    • Rationalman

      OTC,

      First you said In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
      Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.

      There is also an Internal migration in and out of the Northern and Eastern provinces due to resettlement to and from the Southern Provinces (meaning all provinces excluding the N & E provinces). This also is ongoing.

      In 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils.
      Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

      And now you change your tune….

      487,000 is then, a Conservative Estimate, of Tamils, that left Sri Lanka after 1983
      By holding your feet to the fire, I have been able get you to admit that you had a 500,000 error! That’s a good start but I see I have more to go.
      —————————

      Do you still declare that Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

      Or has the felis catus got your lingua? (Since wikipedia is working you should be able to get my gist!)

      I have analysed the Ethnic distribution in 1981. The LATEST year, for which, Official Island Wide Demographic data is available. If you observe any mistakes please point them out and re interpret the 1981 data to arrive at an acceptable distribution for 1981.
      It is not possible to COMPARE or COMBINE data of disparate years, official or otherwise. It is also not possible to use ESTIMATES in Lieu of an Enumerated Census Data.

      So add the total number of registered births and subtract the registered deaths by ethnicity by location and add the immigration and emigration stats by province by ethnicity since 1981 and you will have the latest numbers. The information is available here: OTC,

      First you said In 1981 there were 1,886,900 Lankan Tamils.
      Since then, External migration has created a Tamil Diaspora of one million +. This is still ongoing.
      There is also an Internal migration in and out of the Northern and Eastern provinces due to resettlement to and from the Southern Provinces (meaning all provinces excluding the N & E provinces). This also is ongoing.
      In 1981 there were 818,700 Indian Tamils.
      Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.

      And now you change your tune….
      487,000 is then, a Conservative Estimate, of Tamils, that left Sri Lanka after 1983
      By holding your feet to the fire, I have been able get you to admit that you had a 500,000 error! That’s a good start but I see I have more to go.
      —————————
      Do you still declare that Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population.
      Or has the felis catus got your lingua? (Since wikipedia is working you should be able to get my gist!)
      I have analysed the Ethnic distribution in 1981. The LATEST year, for which, Official Island Wide Demographic data is available. If you observe any mistakes please point them out and re interpret the 1981 data to arrive at an acceptable distribution for 1981.
      It is not possible to COMPARE or COMBINE data of disparate years, official or otherwise. It is also not possible to use ESTIMATES in Lieu of an Enumerated Census Data.
      So add the total number of registered births and subtract the registered deaths by ethnicity by location and add the immigration and emigration stats by province by ethnicity since 1981 and you will have the latest numbers.
      I will wait
      Please do not use numbers pulled from your nether area and mixed with unsourced Wikipedia cut and pastes.
      _———————————————————-
      Of course you can use the 2001 Stats for the 18 provinces of Sri Lanka (less Amapara) which we shall call Zone A and the special enumeration counts for the North and Eastern Provinces (including Amapara) Zone B as I have done. Of course are shifts in population between these two Zones due to the time differences. Since we are primarily concerned about the Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil Populations, we can extrapolate the growth in the Indian Tamil Population
      These statistics were not pulled out of random peoples’ nether areas nor were they compiled from unsourced Wiki cut and paste.
      Here is the introduction to one of the Special Enumerations done in 2007.
      D.B.P. Suranjana Vidyaratne
      Director General of Census and Statistics

      This publication has been prepared by the staff of the Population Census Division
      under the guidance and direction of Mr. H.R. Gunasekara, Director (Census) assisted by Mr.
      A.D.H. Gunathilaka and Mr. H.R. Dias, Deputy Directors.
      The analysis was carried out by Mr. H.R. Dias, Deputy Director and publication was
      organized by Mr. W.L.D.P.de.A. Goonatilleke, Senior Statistician. Compilation of statistical
      tables and the preparation of charts were done by Mr. V.T. Anuruddha, Statistical Assistant.
      Maps were prepared by Mr. R.D.M. Padmakumara, Data Entry Operator/Coding Clerk. Mr.
      P.V.D.T.L. Saparamadu, Statistician was responsible for some operational activities of the
      enumeration stage.
      Mr. L.S.J.de.S. Wijeratna, Deputy Director of the field operations division assisted in
      organizing field arrangements and Mr. D.G.S.G. Munasingha, Deputy Director of the
      industry, construction, trade & services division was responsible for overall coordination of
      the districts within Eastern Province.
      District statistical staff headed by Mr. A. Abulhuda, District Statistician of Ampara
      district was responsible in conducting and supervising the enumeration activities in the
      district.
      The report was printed by the printing division under the supervision of Mr. W.C.
      Weerawansa, Senior Statistician, Head of printing division.

      All highly experienced and qualified people (and not a single tamil among them, because if there had been one would have called that person a “Die hard Eelamist! ”,
      ————————————–
      The movement of people in and out of a given area during the intervening years means that they will be counted more than once if there is a GAP between Enumerations.
      This shows how much you know about the operations of the department of Census and Statistics. I suggest that you call them and ask how they account for the internal migration. And let us know what they say, with the same and the postion of the person you spoke with.
      I am familiar with the operations of the Dept of Census and Statics as a close relative of mine worked in a very senior capacity under the great W.T. Jayasinge in the early ‘60s. Istead of sitting
      ——————————————————————————————
      An estimate is not a physical count and as the name implies it is just an estimate. After 1983, there was large scale movement of people which has continued even up to this day
      Even in the most sophisticated nation in this planet uses estimates.
      http://www.census.gov/popest/about/index.html . I know through personal experience. But don’t take my word for it, call the Department of Census and Statistics.
      __________________________________________________________________
      Are you claiming that the 1981 ethnic ratios would be drastically altered due to a natural increase by Tamils? Can you prove that by using Historical Data?
      I think you will be hard pressed to prove that the natural increase of Tamils was able to outrun the natural increase of the other Ethnic groups. For that to happen, the Tamils need to reproduce much faster than the other Ethnic groups. Has the sexual appetite of Tamils increased after 1981 for some unknown reason, causing a baby boom?
      Have they shown an abnormal increase of Sexual activity since 1981?
      Has their Birth Rate increased sharply?

      What is an abnormal increase of Sexual activity? Twice a week, three times a week? —–Once a day and twice on weekends? I don’t know. You tell me from your experience?
      You are very good at being a good Wikipedia keyboard jockey. When Wiki is shut down, you are lost!
      The Wiki stats about the Diaspora are unsourced. I am willing to accept the numbers if they are attached to any reliable stats from the host governments.
      You cut and pasted the following
      ( Estimated Tamil Diaspora
      887,000
      Significant populations
      1. Canada 200000 (2007)
      2. UK 120000 (2007)
      3. India 100000 (2005)
      4. France 100000 (2008)
      5. Germany 60000 (2008)
      6. Switzerland 50000 (2008)
      7. Malasia 24436 (1970)
      8. Netherlands 20000 (2008)
      9. Norway 10000 (2000)
      10. Denmark 9000 (2003)

      Your numbers are sourced from 1970 (Malaysia ) to 2008. 1970 is well before 1983 right? Do you even read what you cut and paste from Wikipedia?
      The UK numbers include a significant pre 1981 Tamil population. You would have known it if you ever had to stop for gas at a Heron Station anywhere in London in the late 70s, Or at any decent Polytechnic!
      Please don’t use unverifiable crappy data (some of it falling well outside the 1983 starting date).
      ———————————————————————–
      Deaths of course have increased sharply, due to the war.
      But that only decreases the Tamil population, not increase it.

      Didn’t the Sri Lankan Government claim that number of deaths due to the war were small? What do YOU think the number of deaths were?
      487,000 is then, a Conservative Estimate, of Tamils, that left Sri Lanka after 1983
      You wrote “…..unsupported by any GOSL stats….. “
      Ah, I suppose All the Tamils went through Sri Lanka Emigration.
      Be real RationalMan, be real.

      No, most of them did! And any event it would have been reflected in the local enumerations of 2007.
      They have also given the sources Please cite the sources?
      In any even you don’t seem to know much about Wikipedia. It is basically an entertainment site, the data equivalent of a fast food restaurant. And
      Here are some articles on the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source from Wikipedia source.
      Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam. It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia.”
      Ordonez acknowledged that, given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia writing and editing, “there is no guarantee an article is 100 percent correct,” but she said that the site is shifting its focus from growth to improving quality, and that the site is a great resource for students. “Most articles are continually being edited and improved upon, and most contributors are real lovers of knowledge who have a real desire to improve the quality of a particular article,” she said.
      http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
      And some views about using Wikipedia as a research sources from members of American academia.
      http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/news/uwirenews20060402wikipedia.html
      College Departments Begin to Ban Wikipedia as Cited Reference (this is an exerpt from the orginal article exerpt)
      By Matt Reilly, Daily Orange (Syracuse)
      April 2, 2007

      (U-WIRE) SYRACUSE, N.Y. — With nothing more than a computer, Internet access and a cruel sense of humor, an Internet vandal edited the Wikipedia article of comedian Sinbad earlier this month, duping the world into thinking the actor had died. It took a while for the confusion to clear when Sinbad told The Associated Press:
      The Web site has seen rapid growth in recent years — there were 38 million users in the United States in December — and it was cited too often in academic essays for the history department at Middlebury College, a small liberal arts school in Vermont. The department’s decision in late February to ban the site as a cited source brought the criticism of the national news media, placing it at the center of a debate that has engulfed academia, journalism and legal studies.
      Tufts University, the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of Pennsylvania have also adopted similar policies.
      One professor who has taken the initiative during the past three years to make sure his students don’t reference the site is history professor Chris Kyle.
      “While Wikipedia is a tremendously useful source, it is not a scholarly or critical source of information,” he said. “The coverage is patchy, uneven.”
      The issue with using Wikipedia is that unlike peer-reviewed scholarly journals and critically-edited newspaper articles, there is not proper vetting, said Ian MacInnes, professor in the School of Information Studies. Vetting ensures that the article has been fact-checked and verified.
      “There is a danger in relying on Wikipedia,” he said. “You are going to have the potential to get information that isn’t reliable.”
      Strickland said he would rather students “use online sources that can be verified by print or archival sources elsewhere.”
      In his courses, Strickland said he finds the site problematic and has considered making a firm policy for his students. It is also the case that Wikipedia seems to be involved in cases of academic dishonesty in his classes — more often than not.
      Either way, Wikipedia, surprisingly, seems to support such policies throughout academia.
      In an interview with “NBC Nightly News,” Jim Redmond, a Wikipedia administrator and editor, said the ban at Middlebury “is a great idea. Students shouldn’t even be tempted to use Wikipedia as an original source.”
      And the site’s co-founder and chairman emeritus Jimmy Wales told The New York Times, “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopedia Britannica, either.”
      “It’s a dumb, dumb thing to do,” said Allen, an English textual studies and political science major, of including Wikipedia in a citations page. “I never assume anything I’m reading there is absolutely true.”
      The critical watch on Wikipedia is not limited to the academic realm. One Web site, Wiki Truth (www.wikitruth.info), is solely dedicated to revealing and exposing hoaxes and errors found on Wikipedia.
      It was an error in the Wikipedia article on Mary Queen of Scots that led Kyle to include the Wikipedia ban on assignment in his European history courses.
      “I’m having to punish, grade down students whom I know are capable of doing better work, because of source material,” said Kyle, reflecting on his decision to ban Wikipedia from his classes three years ago.
      While the problem is not unique to history departments, it is Middlebury’s history department that blacklisted Wikipedia, and the specific field has become the focal point of contention.
      “There are a tremendous amount of amateur history buffs out there,” said Kyle, of the range of historical information available on Wikipeda. They are “driven by personal passion; that is really their hobby.”
      No matter what the discipline, however, some articles are too contentious for Wikipedia to allow public editing. In these cases, users can still view the article, but the information is not editable. Other articles are marked as disputed when there have been repeated complaints of false or biased information.
      “Some articles will never have their disputes resolved, because they are based on ideology,” MacInnes said.

      So till you can cite original sources instead of crappy Wikipedia data or update old sourced data with available sourced interim data it would be very difficult to treat your screeds seriously.
      And please more specific when you ask questions like “Have they shown an abnormal increase of Sexual activity since 1981”? , What is abnormal for you may not be abnormal for the general public.
      ————————————
      And I am glad that by holding your feet to the fire, I have been able get you to admit that you had a 500,000 error!
      And I am very happy that I silenced you on your “that Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population”.
      It seems that I have a little bit more work, but till you start using the unreliable and unsourced Wikipedia as your safety blanket, I don’t hold much hope!
      I will accept your 1981 census and extrapolation, if you can update them with the updated numbers from the Sri Lanka Department Census and Statistics or other Sri Lankan Government source. I will not accept outsourced information pulled out of nether areas.
      So I challenge you. The information is available.

      Department of Census and Statistics
      P O Box 563, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Telephone: +94 112675297, Fax: 2697594 – Email:[email protected]

      I will wait

      Please do not use numbers pulled from your nether area and mixed with outsourced Wikipedia cut and pastes.
      _———————————————————-

      Of course you can use the 2001 Stats for the 18 provinces of Sri Lanka (less Amapara) which we shall call Zone A and the special enumeration counts for the North and Eastern Provinces (including Amapara) Zone B as I have done. Of course are shifts in population between these two Zones due to the time differences. Since we are primarily concerned about the Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil Populations, we can extrapolate the growth in the Indian Tamil Population

      These statistics were not pulled out of random peoples’ nether areas nor were they compiled from unsourced Wiki cut and paste.

      Here is the introduction to one of the Special Enumerations done in 2007.

      D.B.P. Suranjana Vidyaratne
      Director General of Census and Statistics

      This publication has been prepared by the staff of the Population Census Division
      under the guidance and direction of Mr. H.R. Gunasekara, Director (Census) assisted by Mr.
      A.D.H. Gunathilaka and Mr. H.R. Dias, Deputy Directors.
      The analysis was carried out by Mr. H.R. Dias, Deputy Director and publication was
      organized by Mr. W.L.D.P.de.A. Goonatilleke, Senior Statistician. Compilation of statistical
      tables and the preparation of charts were done by Mr. V.T. Anuruddha, Statistical Assistant.
      Maps were prepared by Mr. R.D.M. Padmakumara, Data Entry Operator/Coding Clerk. Mr.
      P.V.D.T.L. Saparamadu, Statistician was responsible for some operational activities of the
      enumeration stage.
      Mr. L.S.J.de.S. Wijeratna, Deputy Director of the field operations division assisted in
      organizing field arrangements and Mr. D.G.S.G. Munasingha, Deputy Director of the
      industry, construction, trade & services division was responsible for overall coordination of
      the districts within Eastern Province.
      District statistical staff headed by Mr. A. Abulhuda, District Statistician of Ampara
      district was responsible in conducting and supervising the enumeration activities in the
      district.
      The report was printed by the printing division under the supervision of Mr. W.C.
      Weerawansa, Senior Statistician, Head of printing division.

      All highly experienced and qualified people (and not a single tamil among them, because if there had been one would have called that person a “Die hard Eelamist! ”,
      ————————————–

      The movement of people in and out of a given area during the intervening years means that they will be counted more than once if there is a GAP between Enumerations.

      This shows how much you know about the operations of the department of Census and Statistics. I suggest that you call them and ask how they account for the internal migration. And let us know what they say, with the same and the postion of the person you spoke with.

      I am familiar with the operations of the Dept of Census and Statics as a close relative of mine worked in a very senior capacity under the great W.T. Jayasinge in the early ‘60s.

      ——————————————————————————————

      An estimate is not a physical count and as the name implies it is just an estimate. After 1983, there was large scale movement of people which has continued even up to this day

      Even in the most sophisticated nation in this planet uses estimates. http://www.census.gov/popest/about/index.html . I know through personal experience. But don’t take my word for it, call the Department of Census and Statistics.
      __________________________________________________________________

      Are you claiming that the 1981 ethnic ratios would be drastically altered due to a natural increase by Tamils? Can you prove that by using Historical Data?
      I think you will be hard pressed to prove that the natural increase of Tamils was able to outrun the natural increase of the other Ethnic groups. For that to happen, the Tamils need to reproduce much faster than the other Ethnic groups. Has the sexual appetite of Tamils increased after 1981 for some unknown reason, causing a baby boom?
      Have they shown an abnormal increase of Sexual activity since 1981?
      Has their Birth Rate increased sharply?

      What is an abnormal increase of Sexual activity? Twice a week, three times a week? —–Once a day and twice on weekends? I don’t know. You tell me from your experience?

      You are very good at being a good Wikipedia keyboard jockey. When Wiki is shut down, you are lost!

      The Wiki stats about the Diaspora are unsourced. I am willing to accept the numbers if they are attached to any reliable stats from the host governments.

      You cut and pasted the following
      ( Estimated Tamil Diaspora
      887,000
      Significant populations
      1. Canada 200000 (2007)
      2. UK 120000 (2007)
      3. India 100000 (2005)
      4. France 100000 (2008)
      5. Germany 60000 (2008)
      6. Switzerland 50000 (2008)
      7. Malasia 24436 (1970)
      8. Netherlands 20000 (2008)
      9. Norway 10000 (2000)
      10. Denmark 9000 (2003)

      Your numbers are sourced from 1970 (Malaysia ) to 2008. 1970 is well before 1983 right? Do you even read what you cut and paste from Wikipedia?

      The UK numbers include a significant pre 1981 Tamil population. You would have known it if you ever had to stop for gas at a Heron Station anywhere in London in the late 70s, Or at any decent Polytechnic!

      Please don’t use unverifiable crappy data (some of it falling well outside the 1983 starting date).
      ———————————————————————–

      Deaths of course have increased sharply, due to the war.

      But that only decreases the Tamil population, not increase it.
      Didn’t the Sri Lankan Government claim that number of deaths due to the war were small? What do YOU think the number of deaths were?
      487,000 is then, a Conservative Estimate, of Tamils, that left Sri Lanka after 1983

      You wrote “…..unsupported by any GOSL stats….. “
      Ah, I suppose All the Tamils went through Sri Lanka Emigration.
      Be real RationalMan, be real.

      No, most of them did! And any event it would have been reflected in the local enumerations of 2007. Call the Department of Census and Statistics P O Box 563, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Telephone: +94 112675297, Fax: 2697594 – Email:[email protected]

      They have also given the sources

      Please cite the sources?

      In any even you don’t seem to know much about Wikipedia. It is basically an entertainment site, the data equivalent of a fast food restaurant. And

      Here are some articles on the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source

      Wikipedia officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Wikipedia against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam. It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia.”
      Ordonez acknowledged that, given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia writing and editing, “there is no guarantee an article is 100 percent correct,” but she said that the site is shifting its focus from growth to improving quality, and that the site is a great resource for students. “Most articles are continually being edited and improved upon, and most contributors are real lovers of knowledge who have a real desire to improve the quality of a particular article,” she said.
      http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
      And some views about using Wikipedia as a research sources from members of American academia.

      http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/news/uwirenews20060402wikipedia.html

      College Departments Begin to Ban Wikipedia as Cited Reference (this is an exerpt from the orginal article exerpt)
      By Matt Reilly, Daily Orange (Syracuse)
      April 2, 2007

      (U-WIRE) SYRACUSE, N.Y. — With nothing more than a computer, Internet access and a cruel sense of humor, an Internet vandal edited the Wikipedia article of comedian Sinbad earlier this month, duping the world into thinking the actor had died. It took a while for the confusion to clear when Sinbad told The Associated Press:
      The Web site has seen rapid growth in recent years — there were 38 million users in the United States in December — and it was cited too often in academic essays for the history department at Middlebury College, a small liberal arts school in Vermont. The department’s decision in late February to ban the site as a cited source brought the criticism of the national news media, placing it at the center of a debate that has engulfed academia, journalism and legal studies.
      Tufts University, the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of Pennsylvania have also adopted similar policies.
      One professor who has taken the initiative during the past three years to make sure his students don’t reference the site is history professor Chris Kyle.
      “While Wikipedia is a tremendously useful source, it is not a scholarly or critical source of information,” he said. “The coverage is patchy, uneven.”
      The issue with using Wikipedia is that unlike peer-reviewed scholarly journals and critically-edited newspaper articles, there is not proper vetting, said Ian MacInnes, professor in the School of Information Studies. Vetting ensures that the article has been fact-checked and verified.
      “There is a danger in relying on Wikipedia,” he said. “You are going to have the potential to get information that isn’t reliable.”
      Strickland said he would rather students “use online sources that can be verified by print or archival sources elsewhere.”
      In his courses, Strickland said he finds the site problematic and has considered making a firm policy for his students. It is also the case that Wikipedia seems to be involved in cases of academic dishonesty in his classes — more often than not.
      Either way, Wikipedia, surprisingly, seems to support such policies throughout academia.
      In an interview with “NBC Nightly News,” Jim Redmond, a Wikipedia administrator and editor, said the ban at Middlebury “is a great idea. Students shouldn’t even be tempted to use Wikipedia as an original source.”
      And the site’s co-founder and chairman emeritus Jimmy Wales told The New York Times, “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopedia Britannica, either.”
      “It’s a dumb, dumb thing to do,” said Allen, an English textual studies and political science major, of including Wikipedia in a citations page. “I never assume anything I’m reading there is absolutely true.”
      The critical watch on Wikipedia is not limited to the academic realm. One Web site, Wiki Truth (www.wikitruth.info), is solely dedicated to revealing and exposing hoaxes and errors found on Wikipedia.
      It was an error in the Wikipedia article on Mary Queen of Scots that led Kyle to include the Wikipedia ban on assignment in his European history courses.
      “I’m having to punish, grade down students whom I know are capable of doing better work, because of source material,” said Kyle, reflecting on his decision to ban Wikipedia from his classes three years ago.
      While the problem is not unique to history departments, it is Middlebury’s history department that blacklisted Wikipedia, and the specific field has become the focal point of contention.
      “There are a tremendous amount of amateur history buffs out there,” said Kyle, of the range of historical information available on Wikipeda. They are “driven by personal passion; that is really their hobby.”
      No matter what the discipline, however, some articles are too contentious for Wikipedia to allow public editing. In these cases, users can still view the article, but the information is not editable. Other articles are marked as disputed when there have been repeated complaints of false or biased information.
      “Some articles will never have their disputes resolved, because they are based on ideology,” MacInnes said.

      So till you can cite original sources instead of crappy Wikipedia data or update old sourced data with available sourced interim data it would be very difficult to treat your screeds seriously.

      And please more specific when you ask questions like “Have they shown an abnormal increase of Sexual activity since 1981”? , What is abnormal for you may not be abnormal for the general public.
      ————————————

      And I am glad that by holding your feet to the fire, I have been able get you to admit that you had a 500,000 error!

      And I am very happy that I silenced you on your “that Hence the Indian Tamil Population is now almost equal to the Lankan Tamil population”.

      It seems that I have a little bit more work, but till you start using the unreliable and unsourced Wikipedia as your safety blanket, I don’t hold much hope!

      I will accept your 1981 census and extrapolation, if you can update them with the updated numbers from the Sri Lanka Department Census and Statistics or other Sri Lankan Government source.

      So I challenge you. The information is available. Call D.B.P. Suranjana Vidyaratne
      Director General of Census and Statistics, Department of Census and Statistics
      P O Box 563, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Telephone: +94 112675297, Fax: 2697594 – Email:[email protected]

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Population ratios do not change drastically without reason.

        Lankan and Indian origin Tamils have been separately enumerated since 1911 and together from 1881 to 1901. There are 8 sets of Island wide Census data available from 1911 to 1981

        The Lankan Tamil percentage has remained within 10.93% and 12.86%
        Indian Tamil percentage show drastic changes from 5.51% to 15.43%

        .__,___ % Lanka Tamils.___,___ % Indian Orig Tamils
        1911_______12.86_________________12.93
        1921_______11.5__________________13.4
        1931_______11.29_________________15.43
        1946_______11.02_________________11.73
        1953_______10.93_________________12.03
        1963_______11.01_________________10.61
        1971_______11.22_________________9.26
        1981_______12.71_________________5.51

        Any Rational argument as to why a growth trend of the Lankan Tamils spanning a period of 70 years should exhibit a sharp rise after 1981?

        The only reasons would be a Higher Birth rate or a Lower Death rate.

        Did the Lankan Tamils produce more children due to an increase of Sexual Activity? Did the Death rate fall due to Longevity?
        There is no evidence of either.

        You wrote “And please more specific when you ask questions like “Have they shown an abnormal increase of Sexual activity since 1981”? , What is abnormal for you may not be abnormal for the general public.”

        It took 32 years for the Lanka Tamils to grow from 517,300 to 884,700. An increase of 367,400 (GOSL Census). That reflects Normal sexual activity and death.

        The question was based on Normal Tamil Growth Rates, as evidenced by historical data. Anything beyond that is Abnormal and below is Subnormal.

        Hence I have asked the question again.

        Is there ANY evidence of an Abnormal Rise in Tamil Sexual activity?

        Up to 1953 there were MORE Indian Tamils in Lanka than Lankan Tamils. Then the Lankan Tamils were a Minority amongst the Tamils. The Indian Tamil population started dropping due to Repatriation back to India.

        It was the Lankan Tamils that were predominantly affected as a direct result of war. The Indian Tamils were minimally affected as about 90% live in the South amongst the Sinhalese.

        Since 1983 there has been large scale Tamil Emigration.
        The war has drastically effected the Lanka Tamil community rather than the Indian Origin Tamil community.

        What Rational reasons exist to indicate that Large scale Emigration and Higher Deaths due to war did not lower the Lankan Tamil growth rate?

        In disproving Niromi’s statement, the focus is on Tamil Domicile within Lanka

        Lanka Tamils_________________________1,886,900
        Indian Origin Tamils ________________818,700
        Indian Tamils in N & E provinces_____74,616
        Tamils living in the South___________530,318
        Total Tamils in the South____________1,274,402
        Total Tamils Island wide_____________2,705,600

        Percentage of Tamils living in the South in 1981 was 47.1% according to GOSL.

        Do you agree?
        If you don’t please present your counter analysis.

        Yes I have made an error in how I have presented my argument about the Lankan Tamils being almost equal to the Indian Tamil population and apologise unreservedly for the error.

        I stated that Niromi Lied when she claimed that Tamils live predominantly in the North and East.

        Up to 1963, Tamils lived Predominantly in the South.
        It changed due to Repatriation of Indian Tamils to India.
        It changed again due to Lankan Tamil Emigration and the War in the North and East.

        You wrote “So I challenge you. The information is available.”

        If that is so, please present it to the GV Readership, instead of your empty challenges.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        “Yes I have made an error in how I have presented my argument about the Lankan Tamils being almost equal to the Indian Tamil population and apologise unreservedly for the error.”

        Of course you did, only after I held your feet to the fire get you to backup that ridiculous assertion! Someone who is unaware of such basic facts, should not venture into topics like demographics, which are better suited to trained professionals with years of experience and advanced degrees like the men and women of the Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka.

        Your actions remind me of a poem I read when I was a child. I have included it for your edification.

        “It was six men of Indostan
        To learning much inclined,
        Who went to see the Elephant
        (Though all of them were blind),
        That each by observation
        Might satisfy his mind.

        The First approach’d the Elephant,
        And happening to fall
        Against his broad and sturdy side,
        At once began to bawl:
        “God bless me! but the Elephant
        Is very like a wall!”

        The Second, feeling of the tusk,
        Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
        So very round and smooth and sharp?
        To me ’tis mighty clear
        This wonder of an Elephant
        Is very like a spear!”

        The Third approached the animal,
        And happening to take
        The squirming trunk within his hands,
        Thus boldly up and spake:
        “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
        Is very like a snake!”

        The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
        And felt about the knee.
        “What most this wondrous beast is like
        Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
        “‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
        Is very like a tree!”

        The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
        Said: “E’en the blindest man
        Can tell what this resembles most;
        Deny the fact who can,
        This marvel of an Elephant
        Is very like a fan!”

        The Sixth no sooner had begun
        About the beast to grope,
        Then, seizing on the swinging tail
        That fell within his scope,
        “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
        Is very like a rope!”

        And so these men of Indostan
        Disputed loud and long,
        Each in his own opinion
        Exceeding stiff and strong,
        Though each was partly in the right,
        And all were in the wrong!

        MORAL.

        So oft in theologic wars,
        The disputants, I ween,
        Rail on in utter ignorance
        Of what each other mean,
        And prate about an Elephant
        Not one of them has seen!”

        http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

        As Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) once said its “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”.

      • Off the Cuff

        Rationalman,

        Pathetic attempt my friend.

        Niromi Lied and you have failed to prove otherwise.

        Tamils PREDOMINANTLY lived in the South amongst the Sinhalese.
        Niromi lied when she claimed the opposite.
        Despite your long winded ramblings, You have failed to defend her Lies.

        You have Absolutely no counter to the Fact that Niromi claimed to have fought a SL Army that was confined to Barracks during her purported stint with the Terrorist LTTE. Your obfuscations were laid to nought by Niromi herself “in her own voice”.

        You have no defence of a Pseudo Tiger Terrorist who does not know who her adversaries were.

        You pontificate about Computer networking with minimal or no knowledge of the subject.

        You throw empty challenges and cows down when that challenge is thrown back at you.

        You wrote “So I challenge you. The information is available.”
        If that is so, please present it to the GV Readership, instead of your empty challenges.

        Yet you try to inflate your EGO on an unconditional apology that I tendered?

        Pathetic.

  • Off the Cuff

    RationalMan,

    Please let go of your habit of making multiple posts about the same subject all over this web page.

    My reply to our queries are available here

    http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-41016

  • Rationalman

    So you can find people who have agreed with you in writing that Gamini Disanayake was duped, but you just wont share it with us?

    Cool!

    • Off the Cuff

      Are you trying to hide your post from David by posting all over the web page again?

      Why do you post all over the web page instead of in the relevant thread?

      • Rationalman

        OTC,
        Here is a Wikepedia link for you to read and think about!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician,_heal_thyself
        Enjoy!

      • Off the Cuff

        Oh Thank you “Rationalman”.

        Nice to note that you are using Wiki as a crutch.

        I hope you read the link yourself and found food for thought.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, surely I deserve an original insult? Not just a repetition?

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Oh that is not an insult.

        It is an observation of fact.
        You are using Wiki as a crutch to limp along.

      • Rationalman

        Not very long ago you said, Off the Cuff
        January 19, 2012 • 1:53 am

        According to the wiki, the Tamil Diaspora of Lankan origin is estimated at 887,000.

        My post claimed it as 1 million+ asI did not have access to the Wiki at that time to verify it.

        And now you say You are using Wiki as a crutch to limp along.???

      • “No, you didn’t provide proof that I was a terrorist/sympathizer supporter. If you have gleaned any such conclusions from my posts, please give us some examples.”

        I didn’t need to, since you provided the proof yourself 😀

        “And I am pleased to note that you are sensible enough to understand that any involuntary white van excursions for people like me, would be a wise idea.”

        Where have I said such a thing?

        “As you give us your cost/benefit criteria for offering involuntary rides, was the cost of petrol worth the rides offered just yesterday to Ramasamy Prabakaran on February 11th 2012? For for that matter rides given to to Traki Sivaram or Pattani Razak or Prageeth Eknaligoda?”

        Are you claiming to be in the league of Taraki and Prageeth now? 😀 What delusions of grandeur.

    • Where have I said anything like that, “Rational”man? Reread my comment on Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka and why I suggested you read it 😀

      • Rationalman

        David,
        I had asked Now if you could just link or cut and past the parts where he agrees with you that Gamini Dissanayke was duped.
        Thanks

      • I know what you asked, so let me repeat what I asked as well: where have I claimed that Rohan Gunaratna thinks the Dissanayakes were duped? 😀

      • Rationalman

        ——————————-
        Rationalman
        January 16, 2012 • 8:25 pm
        OK let me rephrase my comments…….
        a) on what factual basis do you dismiss them as “being duped”?

        David Blacker
        January 17, 2012 • 11:40 am
        I asserted that the Dissanayakes were duped in response to your claim that their letter to Dixit somehow substantiated your opinion of the latter being an objective commentator on SL affairs. The fact is that India’s tampering with the Sinhalese/Tamil conflict actually exacerbated the situation and contributed to the instability and bloodshed. I suggest you read Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka by Rohan Gunaratna, which is a good counterpoint to Dixit.

        Rationalman
        January 17, 2012 • 11:04 pm
        Finally, we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the Rohan Gunaratna reference. Now if you could just link or cut and past the parts where he agrees with you that Gamini Dissanayke was duped.

        David Blacker
        January 18, 2012 • 11:35 am
        Where did I claim that Gunaratna agreed with me about the Dissanayakes?

        Rationalman
        January 20, 2012 • 3:42 am
        So you cannot find anyone of importance who agrees in writing with you that Gamini Disanayake was duped?

        David Blacker
        January 20, 2012 • 2:29 pm
        I didn’t say I couldn’t.

        Rationalman
        January 23, 2012 • 10:44 pm
        So you can find people who have agreed with you in writing that Gamini Disanayake was duped, but you just wont share it with us?

        David Blacker
        January 24, 2012 • 11:44 am
        Where have I said anything like that, “Rational”man? Reread my comment on Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka and why I suggested you read it

        Rationalman
        January 24, 2012 • 11:01 pm
        David,
        I had asked Now if you could just link or cut and past the parts where he agrees with you that Gamini Dissanayke was duped.

        David Blacker
        January 25, 2012 • 10:53 am
        I know what you asked, so let me repeat what I asked as well: where have I claimed that Rohan Gunaratna thinks the Dissanayakes were duped?
        ————————————

        What a lot of “ducking”! Here a quack, there quack, everywhere a quack quack!

      • 😀 Thanks for cutting and pasting the conversation, “Rational”man, and once more showing us how you need no opponent in order to lose a debate; you could do that all by yourself.

        So, where exactly in that conversation have I claimed that Gunaratna backs up my opinion that the Dissanayakes were duped? I told you to reread my comment and understand why I pointed to Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka. You have done neither; instead you have cut and pasted it here in the hope that it will be explained to you again so that you will have something to argue about now that you have abandoned the argument to prove Niromi fought the SL military.

        I could right now point out where once more your inadequate grasp of the language has led you astray; but I won’t just yet. You said this was fun, so let’s enjoy the fun a bit longer before we bring down the axe 😉

        So quote me, if you can, saying that Rohan Gunaratna claims that the Dissanayakes were duped. The only thing related to ducks here is your duck-like head off which reason flows like water.

      • Rationalman

        David, why are you getting all agitated? And cant you do better that repeating the “duck” theme to deliver a devastating putdown?

      • Why would jokes agitate me? 😀 It was you that brought up the ducks, not me.

      • Rationalman

        I am glad that you are not agitated. Perhaps you would tone down your Sri Lankan equivalent of “Blood Libel” of calling me “the quintessential pro-Tiger diaspora Tamil”? Or provide proof that I am “the quintessential pro-Tiger diaspora Tamil”?

      • Why do I need to present any more proof than your foolish comments here over the last weeks? 😀

      • Rationalman

        And that’s your proof?

      • Do you have any other evidence of your character other than your online comments on this and other blogs?

      • Rationalman

        David,

        You ask “Do you have any other evidence of your character other than your online comments on this and other blogs?”

        I am touched that after announcing to the world that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter, you want to know more about my non bloggy self!

        When I land at BIA the next time, should I expect a welcome committee of muscular men to take me out on unsolicited ride in a white van?

      • I couldn’t care less about who or what you are, frankly; but since you asked me a question, I answered it. As for your white vans and other delusions of grandeur, why would anyone waste petrol on you? 😀

      • Rationalman

        Oh David,
        you say “I answered it. As for your white vans and other delusions of grandeur, why would anyone waste petrol on you”.

        No, you didn’t provide proof that I was a terrorist/sympathizer supporter. If you have gleaned any such conclusions from my posts, please give us some examples.

        And I am pleased to note that you are sensible enough to understand that any involuntary white van excursions for people like me, would be a wise idea.
        As you give us your cost/benefit criteria for offering involuntary rides, was the cost of petrol worth the rides offered just yesterday to Ramasamy Prabakaran on February 11th 2012? For for that matter rides given to to Traki Sivaram or Pattani Razak or Prageeth Eknaligoda?

        Pray tell!

      • “All the work that OTC has done cutting and pasting from Wikipedia hasn’t convinced you? But you are convinced that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter by just a few posts?”

        I have already answered this. Why are you still repeating the question?

        “I don’t think OTC will be too happy to hear that Blacker finds Rationalman more convincing than the passionate and self righteous OTC?”

        If your intention was to convince me of your terrorist sympathies, then certainly you have been more successful than OTC; but if that wasn’t your intention, how can you claim credit for having convinced me?

  • Rationalman

    OTC, you ask “Yet you try to inflate your EGO on an unconditional apology that I tendered?”.

    The problem here is not my ego. Its your utter ignorance of basic facts!

    “You throw empty challenges and cows down when that challenge is thrown back at you.”

    No cows are down, neither are any goats, chickens or any farm animals.

    Still cant get through to the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka?

    • Off the Cuff

      RationalMan,

      Your responses are becoming increasingly pathetic with puny attempts at avoiding issues for which you have no “Rational” answers.

      You wrote “The problem here is not my ego. Its your utter ignorance of basic facts!”

      Of course it is not ONLY your Ego that is the problem “RationalMan”, but it is a combination of many other characteristics. Ignorance, dishonesty, the inability to understand the English Language and of course your Ego.

      “Cow down” does not refer to a cow or any other farm animal (not unless you believe you are one) but refers to backing down or withdrawal or a slimy retreat but then English has always stood in your way of rational discussion.

      The British converted the Lanka Tamils to a MINORITY amongst Tamils by importing Indian Tamils. 90% of Indian Origin Tamils live OUTSIDE the N & E. Many Lanka Tamils also live in the South.

      Hence till some of the Indian Tamils were repatriated, Tamils lived predominantly in the South.

      After 1983 the war and large scale emigration reduced the Lanka Tamil population without affecting the Indian Tamil population.

      http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-41090

      In 1981
      Lanka Tamils living in North & East Province — 1,356,546
      Indian Tamils living in N & E provinces ———– —74,616
      Total Tamils living in N & E ———————— 1,431,162
      Indian Tamils living OUTSIDE he N & E ——– 1,274,438

      Percent of Tamils OUTSIDE N&E —- 47.1%

      The LTTE conscripted all the Youth and prohibited Love.
      The penalty was a Cruel Death.
      During the War many Lanka Tamils died in the N & E Provinces
      Around 500,000 Emigrated.
      This resulted in the reduction of the percentage of Tamils in Lanka’s population.

      Out of a Northern Province Tamil population of 1,021,006 in 1981 approx 400,000 came out in 2009. Even without allowing for population increase in the intervening 28 years there is a difference of 600,000. Reinforcing the fact that at least 500,000 emigrated from the North.

      As I said before, Niromi Lied
      Tamils live predominantly OUTSIDE the North & East.

      You Lied when you tried to prove that Niromi meant the “Indian forces” when she used the words “government forces”

      You wrote “Still cant get through to the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka?”

      Ha ha haa …. acting the baby?

      This was your challenge “So I challenge you. The information is available.”

      This was my counter

      If that is so, please present it to the GV Readership, instead of your empty challenges.

      Apparently you did make an empty challenge as your impotence shows.

      We are waiting for you to contact them and to post the Data that you claimed was available.
      Having trouble doing that “RationalMan” ?

  • Rationalman

    My dear, dear, dear OTC,

    when you say ““Cow down” does not refer to a cow or any other farm animal (not unless you believe you are one) but refers to backing down or withdrawal or a slimy retreat but then English has always stood in your way of rational discussion.”

    Did you mean “cowed down?

    As in the weak, puny and illiterate Rationalman trembles before the righteous wrath of the all mighty OTC?

    Why didn’t you say in the first place?

    And didn’t you denounce the person who caused you apoplexy “By Murdering the Queen’s English or by Lying without shame?.January 14, 2012 • 2:08 am

    Shouldn’t someone who demands the Queen’s english from others, aspire to use at least the Queen’s cook’s english?

    By the way, have you ever heard of an “eggcorn”?

    • Off the Cuff

      RationalMan,

      Have you accepted that Niromi is a Liar?

      If you were not bluffing when you said “So I challenge you. The information is available” why can’t you deliver the information that you claimed was available a week ago?

      If you are you not a Liar like Niromi, substantiate your claims?

      If you have not Lied, why have you given up defending Niromi’s and your own utterances?

      Niromi could not have fought the SLA as it was confined to Barracks during her PURPORTED stint with the terrorists.

      Tamils in Lanka are NOT predominantly domiciled in the Northern and Eastern Provinces as Niromi claimed.

      Are you attempting to hide by shifting focus?

      Cow is not only a noun it is also a verb.
      We can do a comparative analysis of your English and mine after you finish defending Niromi and yourself.

      So kindly stay focused on what Niromi and You said, without Ducking and Quacking ha ha haa.

      Pathetic my friend.

      • Rationalman

        OTC, Yes I said, “So I challenge you. The information is available”.

        Have you contacted called the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka yet? Surely, they could not have been closed the whole week?
        I will give you their address again…Department of Census and Statistics
        P O Box 563, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Telephone: +94 112675297, Fax: 2697594 – Email:[email protected]

        And have you figured out what an “eggcorn” is? If I may be bold enough to recommend that you do a google search for the key words “Cow down” and “eggcorn”.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Same old crap again.

        Ducking and Quacking over and over.

        What happened to your Defence of Niromi’s and your own LIES?

        Why the Deafening Silence?

        Pathetic performance my dear friend.

        Yes we know the contact numbers and Email addresses and so do you. Have you been unable to phone or email them for so long?

        It was you who claimed that the information was available over a week ago. I threw your empty challenge, back at you long ago.

        If you have any backbone, take up the challenge and deliver.

        Is English standing in your way of understanding what I wrote in my earlier comment?

        Extract
        Cow is not only a noun it is also a verb.
        We can do a comparative analysis of your English and mine after you finish defending Niromi and yourself. So kindly stay focused on what Niromi and You said, without Ducking and Quacking
        End extract

        Are you Finished with defending Niromi and Yourself?
        Are you accepting that both You and Niromi Lied?

        You are still out of focus and Ducking and Quacking my friend….. ha ha haa.

      • Rationalman

        Oh, OTC, OTC, OTC,
        Are you accepting that both You and Niromi Lied?

        You can’t even seem to convince your fellow travelers (including certain people named after the slayers of Philistines warriors) to declare that Niromi lied! Shouldn’t you convince your own side first?

        Niromi seems to be doing well in Australia. Her publishers Allen and Unwin are backing her to the hilt! She seems to have become an international media celebrity. I very much doubt if she cares about some hysterical ranting by an obscure fellow in Colombo.

        As for me, I have enjoyed being the pin to your hotair balloon! The Dutch historian Pieter Geyl once said, “History is indeed an argument without end.”. And honest people have and continue disagree about history without childish taunts and accusations.

        But unfortunately you don’t seem to be capable of that. And your credibility is also in question. Of the three statements you made about the Tamil population in Sri Lanka, two have been to put it kindly have been proven to be grossly in error.

        I am giving you a chance to redeem yourself by proving your assertion is correct and have shown you the means. The Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka.

        Go forth and redeem yourself!

      • Still wriggling and squirming, “Rational”man? 😀 Is it so hard to admit you’re wrong and accept that error like an adult? Do you feel a personal loss in losing a debate? Oh dear, what a troubled creature you must be. Why are you still trying to hide behind me?

        OTC, Roberts, and others have indeed made a convincing case to show Niromi to be a liar. Why is it that you refuse to admit that you have no further substantiation for your ridiculous statements? You have been thrashed to a standstill on every single point.

      • Rationalman

        David
        on January 17, 2012 • 1:56 pm, you said “ I have told you. Reading Niromi’s book will happen when I have the time (I have a backlog of books I am more interested in right now), but that won’t change my opinion, because I have never claimed that Niromi is lying.

        Now you claim, “OTC, Roberts, and others have indeed made a convincing case to show Niromi to be a liar.”

        Have you been convinced by Roberts and more importantly OTC that “Niromi is a liar”?

      • If I relied on blog comments to make up my mind, I would indeed be convinced.

        Meantime, when are you going to substantiate your claim that Niromi didn’t lie, and that she did ion fact fight the SL military? That is what this debate has been about after all.

      • Rationalman

        David,
        you say, “If I relied on blog comments to make up my mind, I would indeed be convinced.”

        Earlier you said “(January 31, 2012 • 2:56 pm) Why do I need to present any more proof than your foolish comments here over the last weeks? 😀 “

        So when it is convenient, you relied on blog comments to accuse me of being a terrorist supporter/sympathizer!

      • As I asked you before, is there any other proof of your character, or even your existence outside of your comments? Similarly, are OTC’s comments the only opinion on the subject of Niromi? If you could anser those questions for yourself, you wouldn’t waste time looking like an idiot.

        Meantime, how about substantiating your claim that Niromi fought the SL Military? 😀

      • Rationalman

        David,

        you ask “Similarly, are OTC’s comments the only opinion on the subject of Niromi?

        All the work that OTC has done cutting and pasting from Wikipedia hasn’t convinced you? But you are convinced that I am a terrorist sympathizer/supporter by just a few posts?

        I don’t think OTC will be too happy to hear that Blacker finds Rationalman more convincing than the passionate and self righteous OTC?

    • Off the Cuff

      RationalMan,

      [Edited out] Nothing but long winded empty Rhetoric.

      10 days have gone by and yet you can’t produce the Statistics that you claimed were available.

      Niromi Lied.
      She claimed to have Fought the SLA when they were confined to Barracks.
      She also claimed that Tamils live Predominantly in the N & E provinces when they were not.

      You Lied in defending the above.
      Now you avoid the issue and go in circles.
      You have proven your ineptness beyond doubt.
      What a Pity.

      [Edited out]

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        I wonder what the editors of Groundviews edited out?

        I held your feet to the fire and got you to admit that you were wrong on two of the three “facts” about the Tamil Population in Sri Lanka that you brought up to support your hypothesis!

        Two out of three! That is 66.6666666%. A blowout! I have given you enough opportunities for you were at right at least, 33.3333333%, by getting stats from the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka.

        But you avoid the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka, like rabid canis lupus familiaris, avoids dihydrogen Monoxide

        Since you seem to be so fond of barnyard sounds, I wonder why are not doing the “moo, moo” like a down cow?

        You have proven your ineptness beyond doubt

        Perhaps, perhaps not! But, I also exposed your abject ignorance of the basic facts about your own country!

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You wrote “I wonder what the editors of Groundviews edited out? ………….. Since you seem to be so fond of barnyard sounds, I wonder why are not doing the “moo, moo” like a down cow? “

        Yes I too was surprised as it was you who brought out the Ducks to support your arguments in the first place.

        Lest you have forgotten, I am quoting from your own post of January 26, 2012 • 1:54 am http://groundviews.org/2011/12/28/clouds-of-deception-jeyaraj-anoints-and-cloaks-niromi-tigress/#comment-41195

        Quote
        “What a lot of “ducking”! Here a quack, there quack, everywhere a quack quack! “
        Unquote

        Barn yard sounds indeed. You may add the Moo Moo, it’s very appropriate, ha ha haa.

        You wrote “I held your feet to the fire and got you to admit that you were wrong on two of the three “facts” about the Tamil Population in Sri Lanka that you brought up to support your hypothesis!”

        I am not amenable to torture. But unlike you, I have the ability to admit and apologise for my mistakes as I have done in the past and will do so in the future.

        What hypothesis are you writing about?
        From the time the British brought Indian Tamils to work in Lanka, they formed the MAJORITY Tamil Population in Lanka to the chagrin of the Lanka Tamils.

        The Lanka Tamils were a Minority amongst the Tamils till 1953. The overwhelming majority of Indian Tamils were resident in the Hill Country, amongst the Sinhalese, on Land Dispossessed from the Sinhalese, by the British.

        That is an indisputable Fact not a Hypothesis.

        Look up the word Hypothesis in an English dictionary if you are not sure of it’s meaning.

        .__,___ % Lanka Tamils.___,___ % Indian Orig Tamils
        1911_______12.86_________________12.93
        1921_______11.5__________________13.4
        1931_______11.29_________________15.43
        1946_______11.02_________________11.73
        1953_______10.93_________________12.03

        (Census statistics of the GOSL)

        Even if ALL Lanka Tamils lived in the North and East (which of course wasn’t the case), the fact that the Tamils were PREDOMINANTLY living amongst the Sinhalese in the South even into the mid 1950s is inescapable.

        In 1963 the percentages were Lanka Tamils 11.01% and Indian Orig Tamils 10.61% .

        Again, with the number of Lankan Tamils who lived in the South, more than half the Tamil population were living amongst the Sinhalese even in the mid 1960s.

        In addition to the near totality of Indian orig Tamils, 530,318 Lankan Tamils were living amongst the Sinhalese in the South even in 1981 (govt census).

        After 1983, there was large scale emigration that has resulted in a 850,000+ Lankan Origin Tamils outside Lankan borders today. Such a Tamil population in less than three decades, requires an original seed population of about 500,000.

        Even when taken together, Lanka Tamils and Indian Orig Tamils have not shown a population growth above 71% over a period of 32 years (517,300 to 884,700 in 32 years an increase of 370,000 vide Gov Census stats).

        Yet Niromi and you claim that Tamils in Lanka, Predominantly live in the North and East Provinces.

        That has been proven to be a Lie.
        Niromi Lied about Fighting the SL Army
        You have given up defending that Lie with your Lies, after I posted Niromi’s Throsby interview on GV.

        You wrote “But you avoid the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka, like rabid canis lupus familiaris, avoids dihydrogen Monoxide”

        Ha ha haa, I have been using the latest full census stats of the gov of SL available in the public domain and the complete set of 8 full census data published since the inception of enumeration in 1911. However you claimed that newer statistics were available. I called your bluff and threw your own challenge back at you 12 days ago and you have been struggling since then, to get those elusive Census Data from the Dept of Census and Statistics of Lanka. Ha ha haa what an intellectual!!

        Sprinkling your comments with a smattering of foreign words does not confer them with respectability. What is needed is Substance, Logic and Coherent argument. That has been painfully rare within your posts, from the inception.

      • Rationalman

        OTC,

        As I told you earlier, You can’t even seem to convince your fellow travelers (including certain people named after the slayers of Philistines warriors) to declare that Niromi lied!

        When I asked your buddy Blacker “Have you been convinced by Roberts and more importantly OTC that “Niromi is a liar”, he replied “If I relied on blog comments to make up my mind, I would indeed be convinced”.

        Blacker refuses to confirm or deny that he is convinced by your blog comments and cutely claims that if he relies on blog comments to make up his mind, he would indeed be convinced.

        The 64000 Rupee question is, does Blacker rely on on your supercalifragilisticexpialidociously wonderful blog comments?

        I on the other hand seem to have convinced him that I am a terrorist supporter/sympathizer purely with my blog comments. When I asked him to provide any proof that he has that I am a terrorist supporter/sympathzier, he said (January 31, 2012 • 2:56 pm) Why do I need to present any more proof than your foolish comments here over the last weeks? . And he admits he knows very little about me when he asks February 1, 2012 • 3:05 pm “Do you have any other evidence of your character other than your online comments on this and other blogs?”

        So Blacker at times does rely on blog comments to make up his mind!

        Don’t you want to know if Blacker relies on yoursupercalifragilisticexpialidociously wonderful blog comments? Why don’t you ask him directly to back you up on your assertion that Niromi is a liar?

        David, you can jump in if you like!

      • Rationalman

        OTC
        “Sprinkling your comments with a smattering of foreign words does not confer them with respectability”.

        Haven’t you been writing all this time in a foreign language?

        Yes I too was surprised as it was you who brought out the Ducks to support your arguments in the first place.

        Thanks, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Red herrings do not detract me from my objective of exposing the LIES that you and Niromi tried to propagate. Why have you abandoned Niromi?

        You can try your juvenile antics of Tale Carrying but other than exposing you intellectual bankruptcy they would be as ineffectual as your attempts at supporting Niromi and yourself.

        You wrote “The 64000 Rupee question is, does Blacker rely on on your supercalifragilisticexpialidociously wonderful blog comments? “

        Sorry irrelevant and juvenile question.

        These are the correct ones. Are you able to answer them instead of braying?

        Can you support your answers with Facts?

        1. How did Niromi the Terrorist fight the SL Army, when, during the whole period that she PURPORTEDLY was in the Terrorist LTTE ranks, the SLA was Confined to Barracks?

        2. How can Niromi claim that the Tamils of Lanka LIVE Predominantly in the N & E Provinces when HISTORICALY they have been living OUTSIDE the N & E provinces amongst the Sinhalese?

        3. Is it not true that 90% of the Tamil population that her mother belongs to, LIVE and Work amongst the Sinhalese, on Land Dispossessed from the Sinhalese, by the British?

        You wrote “I on the other hand seem to have convinced him that I am a terrorist supporter/sympathizer purely with my blog comments”

        Niromi is a Self Declared Terrorist.
        You are supporting her.
        What else remains to be said about where your sympathies are?

        13 days and counting …… Are you still struggling to get those elusive Census Data from the Dept of Census and Statistics of Lanka? Ha ha haa

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        You ask “Haven’t you been writing all this time in a foreign language?

        Why do you have to confirm yet again, that your intellect is not what your pseudonym attempts to convey?

        You wrote “Thanks, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

        Sure I used your Ducking and Quacking statement. Glad to see you patting yourself on the back. Good for your Ego

        This is another of your statements “Since you seem to be so fond of barnyard sounds, I wonder why are not doing the “moo, moo” like a down cow? “

        This was my response
        Barn yard sounds indeed. You may add the Moo Moo, it’s very appropriate, ha ha haa.

      • Still trying to hide behind me and hope I will fight OTC on your behalf? 😀 What a pathetic excuse of a man you are. I don’t rely on blog comments, but in your case, your comments are the only proof of your existence, so I must rely on your comments to form an opinion of you (and not on OTC’s opinion of you, as you mistakenly claim). OTC’s comments here are not the only opinions on the subject of Niromi’s book, so I don’t need to rely on them.

      • Rationalman

        David and OTC,
        Still trying to hide behind me and hope I will fight OTC on your behalf?

        No, I really dont want to you two to fight. It will be like two fisherwomen fighting at the Mariakde Fish market. This website will be blanketed with words like “liar, idiot, pathetic, terrorist, juvenile”.

        You fellows cant seem to get over the fact that Niromi DeSoyza’s book has met with such critical and financial success. Her publishers are now in the process of releasing it in the western hemisphere on May 12, 2012. Even your closest allies seem to have walked away from their initial criticism. No one is listening to your braying at the moon anymore!

        So in sheer frustration you attack all and sundry, like calling poor meek Rationalman a terrorist sympathizer and supporter. If that provides you some consolation, like expelling bodily gasses against thunder and lightning, I will not deny you that.

        As for OTC, I have proven you a ignoramus on two out of the three statistics about the Tamils Population in Sri Lanka.

        When you make a statement like “The movement of people in and out of a given area during the intervening years means that they will be counted more than once if there is a GAP between Enumerations” (January 19, 2012 • 10:06 pm) , you display your breathtaking ignorance of the operations of the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka.

        I suggest that you contact the Department of Census and Statistics P O Box 563, Colombo, Sri Lanka – Telephone: +94 112675297, Fax: 2697594 – Email:[email protected] and learn about their methodology.

      • “No, I really dont want to you two to fight. It will be like two fisherwomen fighting at the Mariakde Fish market.”

        We really aren’t too interested in hearing about your family reunions, “Rational”man. Haven’t you diverted this debate far enough?

        “You fellows cant seem to get over the fact that Niromi DeSoyza’s book has met with such critical and financial success. Her publishers are now in the process of releasing it in the western hemisphere on May 12, 2012.”

        And I wish her all the very best as an author. Nowhere have I attacked Niromi nor begrudged her any success. You, on the other hand, with your ignorant challenge of Prof Roberts have invited far more criticism on Niromi than there was before, and have unfortunately aired a substantial amount of evidence to prove her work inaccurate. Congratulations.

        “Even your closest allies seem to have walked away from their initial criticism. No one is listening to your braying at the moon anymore!”

        I don’t know who you mean by close allies; but if you mean Prof Roberts, he has made his view clear and moved on, unchallenged by your idiocy. If no one is listening anymore, it’s because any clear debate was over weeks ago with your failure to substantiate your claim that Prof Roberts was wrong and that Niromi had in fact fought the SL military. Since then, all you’ve treated us to is the pathetical spectacle of a grown man desperately throwing personal attacks at all who disagree with you.

        “So in sheer frustration you attack all and sundry, like calling poor meek Rationalman a terrorist sympathizer and supporter. If that provides you some consolation, like expelling bodily gasses against thunder and lightning, I will not deny you that.”

        Frustration at what? And who is this all and sundry? 😀 I have neither attacked Niromi nor anyone else in spite of your ludicrous efforts to hide behind others and set people up against each other like a schoolyard wimp. You certainly are a terrorist sympathiser and no doubt a supporter, but that is just more evidence of your inability to let go of a lost battle.

      • Off the Cuff

        RationalMan,

        Ha ha haa …… crawled out after weeks ……?

        You wrote “As for OTC, I have proven you a ignoramus on two out of the three statistics about the Tamils Population in Sri Lanka.”

        You have proven NOTHING other than the fact that you are like an empty vessel. Generates a lot of noise when struck but empty within.

        28 days and counting …… Are you still struggling to get those elusive Census Data from the Dept of Census and Statistics of Lanka to counter what I wrote? Ha ha haa