Time and Distance

Photograph courtesy JDS

Towards the end of the 12th century, a man named Temujin would create an empire that would grow into the largest empire there ever had been. Even up to now it is second in size only to the British Empire. This empire would follow policies that would encourage trade and communication, and will become one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse empires in history. All in all, many people would view this man as a great man; someone who helped to advance the human civilization by setting up conditions that would allow it to prosper. If the man’s name sounds unfamiliar, that’s because he’s better known by another name – Genghis Khan, and the empire he found is the Mongolian Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history.

Time has the interesting effect of making it harder for people to empathise; to feel the pain of those who suffered. When people talk about Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan, when they talk about how great these men were, how brilliant they were, how glorious were their victories, how much good they’ve done to the world as a result of their actions, people often forget that these men caused immense suffering to many people. No one really knows how many people the Mongolians killed. The estimations vary from 10 million to 17 million. This number could be even bigger than the number of people that the Nazis killed. When Mongolians said they’d kill you if you don’t surrender, they really meant it. They would come to your country, to your city, kill every single man, woman and child and burn the city. People would be so paralyzed with fear that Mongolian soldiers would rape women in front of their fathers, husbands and brothers and no one would raise a sword. The Mongol sacking of Baghdad alone is said to have killed about one million people. And yet, when you read this, is it horror that you feel for your fellow human beings, or are you simply fascinated and awed by the scale of things?

Just like time, distance too has the interesting effect of making it difficult for people to empathise with other people. Towards the end of the Second World War, the Americans would destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs. These bombs would kill 90,000 to 160,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 in Nagasaki. This was a great horror, but people miss the larger picture when they talk about it. The truth is, these bombings were not much worse than what was already happening. The allied forces conducted air raids in Japan and killed close to 900,000 people with firebombs in horrible ways, perhaps even more horrible than the atomic bombs. Many of those who died were civilians. The allied forces also bombed the German city Dresden and killed about 25,000 people, again many of them civilians. Many of the officials of the allied forces knew that they would be held accountable for war crimes had they lost.

The important thing to note here is that none of that would have happened if aircrafts had not been invented. This was 20th century modern world, not 12th century Mongolian Empire. People actually had a better sense of morality. But aircrafts made it easier to kill civilians, and sometimes even necessary. This was 1940s and the technology needed to target with precision simply wasn’t there. You had to hit everything to hit anything. Towards the end of the war, there might have been the technology to do that kind of targeting. But they kept doing what they were doing because it was working for them. There were indeed military facilities that were targeted by the atomic bombs. It’s just that there was no attempt made to limit the collateral damage. Basically, anything was okay as long as there was some military facility that would get destroyed because of it.

The thing is though, if you get one of those pilots who dropped the bombs on civilians, and tell them to kill 200,000 men, women and children with a knife by cutting their throats, even if this was physically not impossible, I don’t think they’d do it. It’s essentially the same thing. In fact, dying this way is perhaps better than dying because your lungs burst out, or dying because of Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Still, the closeness makes killing more difficult. It’s difficult to dehumanize a person when you can see that person’s face, up close. In fact, I don’t think those higher raking officials would have given orders to kill 200,000 men, women and children if it meant cutting their throats with a knife, instead of dropping bombs on them from air.

There’s an even more fundamental cause that makes it hard for people to feel other people’s suffering, and time and distance are special cases of it. It’s the idea that a certain group of people do not belong to your group of people. The only reason it is acceptable for many people to eat beef is because cows don’t belong to their group. The pain and suffering it causes is acceptable because it’s not they who are the subject of that pain and suffering. Similarly it’s acceptable for many people to do certain things that might inflict pain and suffering on another group of people if it serves a greater cause. Ends indeed do justify the means, unless you are Kantian or religious. But you are far too willing to accept pain and suffering on a group of people that is not yours than if it was yours.

It is often said that the Tamil Tigers used Tamil civilians as a shield during the final stages of the war. This is often used to justify attacking them, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths. This might very well be a good enough justification. But those who think this way must be honest to themselves and imagine that the venue was Colombo instead of North, and the civilians were Sinhalese people you know instead of Tamil people you don’t know. Would you still think it is okay to attack them if the LTTE was using them as cannon fodder? This is a question you have to ask yourself, but I can guess the answer you’d give if you thought about this really hard and was honest to yourself. You wouldn’t like the idea. I know this by looking at how the Tamils feel right now. They don’t like it. You wouldn’t either.

You have already picked your sides. Whether war crimes happened in a large scale or not is irrelevant. What matters is which side you belong to. You have started with the conclusion and worked backwards. There might be some people who’ve genuinely come to the conclusion that war crimes never happened after carefully examining the evidence. There might be some people who’ve genuinely come to the opposite conclusion after carefully examining the evidence. But the vast majority of people haven’t actually read the UN report, haven’t actually watched Callum MaCrae’s documentaries and don’t even know what reputable foreign media say about these things. The vast majority of people who protested MaCrae when he came to Sri Lanka hadn’t watched his programme. Yet they behaved as if they had. They have already reached the preferred conclusion. It’s made easier by the fact that those who might have suffered did not belong to their group. You would notice that except for a very few people who are on the government payroll, no one really protests when foreign organisations ask about Ekneligoda or Lasantha Wickrematunga or Poddala Jayantha. It’s difficult to justify bad things being done to people when it is difficult to exclude those people from your group of people.

Such is human nature.

  • ram2009

    None of the great empire builders did so for altruistic reasons. They were individuals after self-glorification and avarice beyond compare. They were hardly builders, but destroyers.
    Even today the US is following exactly the same pattern, invading directly, and via proxies, destroying and leaving the remainder to be fought over by those left behind in the ruins. Yet they are written of as great and noble men of vision. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    The events in Sri Lanka were very different. They were to protect the national integrity in the face of terrorism, with several foreign fingers in the pie waiting to feed on the carcase. Today, when we moan the death of the greatest HUMAN being to have lived in our lifetimes, who fought for the liberation of his countrymen from an apartheid regime, we MUST celebrate that such a regime was prevented from being imposed on a part of Sri Lanka by Ethnic Cleansing.

  • V M

    According to my knowledge there was no military target in Hiroshima, what source do you base your info on ? The only militaries in Hiroshima that was killed was 7 US prisoners of war. The use of the atomic bombs were the biggest terrorist acts ever. Besides this error, a very interesting article, thanks!

    • Sharanga Ratnayake

      The target committee had four targets in mind – Kyoto, Hiroshima, Niigata, and Kokura. There were reasons to select each of those targets. The reason given for choosing Hiroshima was “This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target).”

      You can find the original Target Committee minutes here – http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

      But you are right, it was a terrorist act and had they lost they’d have been accused of committing war crimes. You can read that document I’ve linked to and right there there is evidence of a war crime being done, which is why I maintain that those who did it should have been tried. What’s even worse is that the things they (both sides) did before that were even worse. The firebombings for example were especially cruel.

  • Ray Francis

    What happened in the detention camps run by the Rajapaksa brothers were worse than the Vanni war itself.
    The International community blamed LTTE for holding back the civilians. I would blame the international community for all the murders, rapes and torture that took place after the war in these camps.

    Even today in 2013, people in the North are getting murdered by the armed forces and yet women are being raped and Rajapaksa’s law does not apply to the Tamils. One can do anything to a Tamil in Sri Lanka and get away with it.

    This is what is called 21st century democracy. Welcome to paradise!

    • srivanamoth

      This is precisely Rajapakse Law where anything goes when it comes to Tamils, Muslims and even some handpicked Sinhalas! Rather, welcome to devil’s island.

  • Obamasal

    The great soul Nelson Mandela fought against injustice and oppression imposed on an unarmed people because of their ethnicity born out of colour. The regime in Sri Lanka are symptomatic of that evil regime in that language was used to discriminate a group of people. Having crushed all sorts of opposition military rule is imposed to seize lands and houses from the oppressed community to settle their own people. Now temples, churches and mosques are demolished to build their religion and worshiping viharas and dagobas.

    The white regime bribed whoever could be bought with ministerial posts and perks. The same tactics are used in Sri Lanka too to bribe MPs from minority parties to divide and rule. The colonisation is imposed with viceroy style governors who wouldn’t even allow the heads of provinces of the oppressed- Chief Ministers – even to appoint their own personnel to key positions within the provinces.

    Abductions, torture, rape and extra judicial killings and impunity to the perpetrators of those crimes are used to silence the journalists, human rights defenders and opposition politicians including MPs.

  • mahinda

    You forgot one thing still tamils support LTTE as if they were their brothers supporting them. Others support it by continued silence. If they don’t mind LTTE using the Tamil civillians as human shields, why should we care? I say Do it all over again if we have to.

    • http://sharanga.blog.com/ Sharanga Ratnayake

      This is a rather bizarre statement. From your moniker I assume you are Sinhalese. So imagine that you were brutally murdered and it so happens that everyone who would’ve cared about you are already dead, and the Sinhalese people who are still alive just don’t care about you and instead support your murderers who are also Sinhalese. Is it therefore morally permissible for the rest of the people to not care about your death and worry whether a generally accepted code of conduct was breached?

  • srivanamoth

    Time is ticking by. March 2014 is fast approaching. Only the truth shall set us free.Om!

  • Off the Cuff

    Dear Sharanga,

    You say “It is often said that the Tamil Tigers used Tamil civilians as a shield during the final stages of the war. This is often used to justify attacking them, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths”

    The Civilian Shield was not used as a justification for attacking the LTTE.
    The terrorism perpetrated by the LTTE on the 20 million population of Lanka was the justification.
    To say otherwise is calculated misrepresentation which perhaps was needed to start with your conclusion to reverse engineer the argument.

    You say “But the vast majority of people haven’t actually read the UN report, haven’t actually watched Callum MaCrae’s documentaries and don’t even know what reputable foreign media say about these things”

    But their are people who have read that UN report that says the LTTE did not commit the War Crime of using a Human Shield. This calls in to question the integrity of the writers of that report and the value of the report itself.

    Their are also people who have watched Callum Macrae’s so called documentaries and have wondered about the inexplicable, complete absence, of LTTE Dead or wounded in the ONLY Hospital available to the LTTE in the war zone. The war in the war zone of Puthukkudiyiruppu had killed and injured only Civilians going by the visuals of these so called “documentaries”! Defies all Logic.

    I trust you would group the BBC amongst that reputable foreign media.

    Here is an exchange I had with Mr Charles Haviland of the BBC. http://groundviews.org/2012/06/04/gotabhaya-rajapaksa-on-ethnicity-in-northern-sri-lanka-post-war/#comment-1002150603

    OTC – BBC does not have the word terrorists in its vocabulary when reporting on Lanka (don’t know whether it used that word when reporting on the London bombs or 9/11). But for certain he is adept at distorting the truth, that is for sure.

    ————–
    BBC’s Charles Haviland’s response – http://groundviews.org/2012/06/04/gotabhaya-rajapaksa-on-ethnicity-in-northern-sri-lanka-post-war/#comment-1002150625

    I’ve just seen Off the Cuff’s remarks here and also on the transcript of my interview with Sarath Fonseka. In reply:

    - when Mr Fonseka said “Everyone knows xxx” and this is summarised by “Mr Fonseka said he believed that xxx” I think most people would agree this is a fair usage in reported speech. In fact I did not write that report myself (you may note that it does not have my byline) but I would defend the wording.

    - I reject your contention that I am “adept at distorting the truth” or your implication that I am a “terrorist supporter”. BBC usage is not to use the word “terrorist” in any of our reporting on international outlets. You do not need me to explain the reasons why. The BBC HAS traditionally used the word in its domestically oriented outlets, mainly with reference to the IRA in Northern Ireland, although many BBC staff do not agree with this discrepancy. And the word did also slip into even our international coverage after 9/11.

    —————-
    My response to the above has not received a reply for two years!

    http://groundviews.org/2012/06/04/gotabhaya-rajapaksa-on-ethnicity-in-northern-sri-lanka-post-war/#comment-1002150626

    OTC – Let’s examine how your contention stands up to scrutiny. A summary is not a license for distortion. It must contain the essence of what was said.

    This was your question. On the subject of the war – we’ve referred to it already – a panel appointed by Ban Ki-Moon said there might have been up to 40,000 civilian casualties – civilian casualties on a mass scale. The government absolutely rejects that. Where do you stand on this?

    This was SF’s answer. I totally reject, refuse the numbers given that thousands of civilians died. Because I knew exactly how the battle was fought. How the military was moving forward. The reaction of the civilians. What were the civilians doing. Of course a certain amount of casualties would have been there because everybody knows the civilians were also manning the LTTE bunker lines. Civilians – there were pictures and the video footage to show that even elderly women aged 60 or 70 going through weapon training. So there is no question – of a few civilians getting killed obviously but you can’t blame the military for that – because civilians were given weapons and put in the front line, it would not be possible for the military to identify such people. But the large figures of 30,000, 40,000, dying, it was not practicable. The way we conducted the war, the type of weapons systems we used, the manuals we made, we were always concerned about the security of the civilians.

    SF rejected the high figure of 40,000 that you quoted by stating that
    1. He KNEW exactly how the battle was fought.
    2. He KNEW the reaction of the civilians
    3. He KNEW what the civilians were doing
    4. He and everybody KNEW that civilians were manning LTTE bunkers

    All the above statements are definitive statements of his knowledge, there is no room for anyone to interpret them as a belief. A belief is not definitive knowledge. The word belief conveys absence of definite knowledge and its use was designed to devalue what he said.

    This is what the BBC web stated. “He said that he believed civilians were given weapons and put on the front line by rebels and as a result the army would not have been able to tell them apart”

    Where did he say anything about belief? He said he knew.
    What was the necessity to avoid using the word “Knew” in favour of the word “belief”?

    The word count in the summary would have been the same. But the meaning would have been different.
    How can you term the BBC version of the summary Fair Comment when it was deliberately corrupted?

    I understand that your byline has not been used but the story quotes you and you have declared that you stand by the wording. In the case of the SF interview, Truth had been distorted.

    “BBC usage is not to use the word “terrorist” in any of our reporting on international outlets.
    The BBC HAS traditionally used the word in its domestically oriented outlets, mainly with reference to the IRA in Northern Ireland, although many BBC staff do not agree with this discrepancy. And the word did also slip into even our international coverage after 9/11, something which many staff were equally unhappy about and a usage which I think has largely ended “

    What you are really saying Sir, is that if the LTTE attacked a civilian transport it would either be labelled as Terrorist or Rebels depending on whether that attack took place in the UK or Sri Lanka.

    To the BBC, the IRA are Terrorist but the World’s most ruthless terrorist group (recognised as such by the world) is not. Is this not support for the terrorist cause as long as it does not happen in the UK or USA?

    No wonder that right thinking people within the BBC itself object. This brings hope for the future, a hope that the BBC will stop even indirect support for any Terrorist cause.

    Just because it is BBC style it does not become right.

    It is unfortunate to see journalism being corrupted in this way, by an establishment that preaches to others.
    ————————

    Who or what then are “Reputed” foreign media?

    • Sharanga Ratnayake

      Your comment is excruciatingly long. Nevertheless, I’ll address the main points you make.

      1. The Civilian Shield was not used as a justification for attacking the LTTE.

      This was not what I said. What I said was that the civilian shield was used as a justification for attacking the civilians. Sorry if the language was ambiguous.

      2. But their are people who have read that UN report that says the LTTE did not commit the War Crime of using a Human Shield. This calls in to question the integrity of the writers of that report and the value of the report itself.

      This is a strange statement. Whether the report was credible or not does not depend on what people who read it say about the subject matter. It depends only on what the reports actually says and to what extent it corresponds to reality. Assuming that war crimes indeed were committed by both sides, it doesn’t matter if some people who read the report say that only one side committed war crimes. What matters is whether the report itself recognizes that both sides committed war crimes. This the report does.

      “In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

      3. Their are also people who have watched Callum Macrae’s so called documentaries and have wondered about the…

      I don’t mean any disrespect, but I’ve debated before with people who think the moon landing was a hoax. This discussion isn’t going anywhere so I’m not going to try.

      4. BBC does not have the word terrorists in its vocabulary when reporting on Lanka…

      I don’t have to defend any particular media organisation, but in fairness to the BBC, they didn’t use the word “terrorist” to describe the Kenyan mall attack, and instead used terms such as “Islamic militants.” The BBC as well as many other media outlets are left of centre organisations obsessed with being politically correct. As Harviland himself says, they don’t use the word “terrorist” [without attribution] in their international outlets (perhaps due to all that nonsense about one man’s terrorist being another’s hero). This of course doesn’t make it right, as you correctly pointed out. Haviland himself says as much. But it shows that they were not being unfair or biased. It’s standard practice that is wrong. They didn’t bend it only for this particular case so that that they can favour the LTTE.

      Now, as for the rest of your argument with Haviland, you’re wrong. If someone says “everybody knows X happened”, it’s fair to say “he believes X happened”. Even if someone says “I know X happened”, it’s still fair to say “he believes X happened” because when you are writing about it in third person it’s rarely ever said “he knows X happened.” This is not epistemology. In fact, most philosophers will tell you that all propositional knowledge indeed is belief (as opposed to perception). But this is ordinary journalism and you hardly ever say “he said he knows JFK was assassinated by Russians.”

      5. My response to the above has not received a reply for two years!

      Yes, I’m sure Charles Haviland was left speechless.

  • Sharanga Ratnayake

    I’m sorry, at this point I have to Charles Harviland you. The reason must be obvious to you. I’m completely decimated, just like Harviland, Burning Issue, and all the other people on Groundviews who apparently do not engage with you in argument anymore out of embarrassment. Unlike them, I admit that I’m defeated, utterly and completely. Here are what used to be my opinions, which are clearly wrong.

    First, if you are writing a book review about a 500 page long book, you don’t write a 600 page long review, do you? Articles and comments usually have a similar kind of relationship, won’t you agree? Anyway, that used to be my opinion.

    Second, as for whether I said whether I meant it was used as justification for attacking LTTE, or whether I meant attacking civilians……….I honestly don’t know where to begin…There’s such a thing as context and the context in this case is clear even if individual words and sentences may not be clear. I thought, foolishly I might add, that it was clear the meaning of that passage was may be the government isn’t justified in attacking when so many civilians lives were at risk. I thought by replacing Tamil civilians with Sinhalese civilians, I was making this point. But how foolish am I to think that when I say attacking civilians people would not think that I mean intentionally attacking civilians with them being the target (I mean I thought it was clear that I didn’t mean the government was going for a genocide), but rather that I meant the government may not be justified in taking the huge risk of getting so many civilians attacked anyway. In my utter foolishness I thought this was obvious, and the comments except yours reinforced that wrong belief. Not anymore. From your comments it is clear that though it might have been obvious to some people, it’s not obvious to everyone. I apologize for that.

    As for the UN report and human shield issue, I am extremely sorry for not realizing that you meant Rule 97, which sets up a pretty high standard. This was due to the fact that I thought when you said human shields, you meant it the same way I meant it – the way a non-lawyer might mean it. I thought that since the article wasn’t a technical document about international laws regarding human shields, it was clear that I had a common sense definition, not a technical definition. From here on I shall be careful to write every article as if it was a UN Report. I will specifically mention that the UN found there were credible allegations that the LTTE broke Rule 23 and 24, but not 97.

    As for the Callum McCrae video, I’ll only talk about this when I know for certain that the moon landing wasn’t hoax.

    Thank You!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Sharanga,

      Their are many people with different opinions on Groundviews. Some rely on factual argument and others rely on anything but fact. Some try intimidation and others try sarcasm hoping to embarrass the opposition. Yet some others even attempt to redefine well known concepts of Justice and say that the Bully is Right.

      A reread of your two articles and responses to challenges will show where your arguments have gone.

      You, like Burning Issue, cannot accept a proven event when that event goes counter to your preconceived position. You are not after the Truth. Burning Issue tried to prove that a Buddha Statue erected in Trinco town had the protection of the Constitution. Which of course was proven wrong. Then he tried to establish that the former CJ Sarath Silva who was the judge in the case became a Buddhist Monk. That is the History behind BI though there are many more things that he tried to establish when the evidence said otherwise. Your performance is similar or perhaps worse than BI as when confronted with evidence that upsets your position you go looking for Moon Landings instead of making a logical argument. You wrote two articles trying to establish a spurious civilian death toll in an environment where Terrorists were fighting in civilian clothes in large numbers. It was foolish to use clothing as an identifier in such an environment. Yet you went on and on without providing a logical and foolproof methodology of identification. That was a Cardinal Mistake.

      In your last article you tried to establish 40,000 Civilian deaths but you had no answer to the question how the Soldiers could differentiate from a Terrorist in Civilian Clothes and a genuine Civilian.

      LTTE used child soldiers hence age could not be used as an identifier.
      LTTE used women hence sex could not be used as an identifier.
      LTTE fought in civilian clothes hence clothes could not be used as an identifier.
      Your only answer was to call me a fanatic though that was countered.

      Your first article referred to the UN’s Darusman report but attempted to block any discussion on it. Your current article even brings out the Channel 4 Videos that have been extensively discussed on GV and have been shown to include gross fabrications.

      You ask “First, if you are writing a book review about a 500 page long book, you don’t write a 600 page long review, do you?”

      Trust you to make irrelevant arguments. Your language confusion is resurfacing. A Review and a Debate are unrelated and entirely different things. Just look it up in a standard dictionary.

      Those who comment are not reviewing your articles they are either challenging or agreeing with what you have written. Those who challenge what you write bring new material to the debate. That material might be even lengthier than your article. As long as that material is relevant to the debate an honest debater would respond. This is an adult discussion and childish complaints should have no place in it. But than that’s up to the debater.

      You say “Second, as for whether I said whether I meant it was used as justification for attacking LTTE, or whether I meant attacking civilians……….I honestly don’t know where to begin…There’s such a thing as context and the context in this case is clear even if individual words and sentences may not be clear.”

      It is the CONTEXT that is the problem. It should have been clear to you when the TOOL used by the Terrorist was replaced by an inanimate tool. Do not blame others for your language confusion.

      You say “I thought, foolishly I might add, that it was clear the meaning of that passage was may be the government isn’t justified in attacking when so many civilians lives were at risk”

      Please slow down you are getting garbled. We cannot read your mind. We can only read what you write. And what you wrote is already in print and it certainly is not what you are writing now.

      You say “As for the UN report and human shield issue, I am extremely sorry for not realizing that you meant Rule 97,”

      The language confusion to the fore again. I only quoted the relevant section of the UN’s Darusman report. So whatever is written is authored by Darusman who used Rule 97 or rather corrupted it to exonerate the LTTE.

      You say “This was due to the fact that I thought when you said human shields, you meant it the same way I meant it – the way a non-lawyer might mean it. I thought that since the article wasn’t a technical document about international laws regarding human shields, it was clear that I had a common sense definition, not a technical definition”

      We are discussing the UN report which is Technical not your article. You are trying to confuse the reader. You have forgotten that you have already QUOTED from the UN’s Darusman report. To quote you had to read and when you read it you knew that the report used Legal Language. What is clear is that you are floundering like a fish out of water.

      Please refer back to your article where you wrote “But the vast majority of people haven’t actually read the UN report, haven’t actually watched Callum MaCrae’s documentaries ….. The vast majority of people who protested MaCrae when he came to Sri Lanka hadn’t watched his programme. Yet they behaved as if they had”

      You behave as if you have read the UN report and watched the CH4 videos. You even quoted from the UN report to justify your view. Hence you knew that the UN report was written in Legal Language.

      Now when confronted with irrefutable evidence of attempts to absolve the LTTE of a serious war crime, you do a complete about turn and try to feign ignorance and unashamedly claim that you had a “common sense definition of a human shield”. It makes one wonder about that common sense, when you make such a foolish blunder, after quoting from the TECHNICAL report, which you could not have done without reading it.

      Your intellectual honesty is also now in question.

      You say “As for the Callum McCrae video, I’ll only talk about this when I know for certain that the moon landing wasn’t hoax”

      Too late in the day to do that, because you have already written about it without waiting for the moon landing proof!

      Are you pretending to have watched Callum Macrae and reading the UN report to create an aura of a well read man? Or having watched the CH4 Video and having read the UN report are you Feigning ignorance though you are well read? Because if you had watched you would have already seen that the LTTE controlled Puthukkudiyiruppu Hospital visuals embedded in Macrae’s CH4 Video did not have a SINGLE LTTE Casualty or Dead. Perhaps you should wait until a man lands on Mars!

      I can understand the squirming as you have no way to introduce LTTE cadres into the video and no way to change the ignominious content in the UN’s Darusman report.

      Best Regards