A final comment, Groundviews.

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

No, this is just wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

As I’ve noted earlier in the comments,

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

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

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

Blustering on seems your forte. Kindly desist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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