this along with that insane, insensitive plan of burning qurans to stop the mosque going up probably the highest low point of this whole episode which was only stopped when robert gates pleaded saying the actions will endanger us troops…has shown the real feelings inside US. after one attack on US, in retaliation they attacked 2 countries destroyed those nations – took revenge and still… harbor ill feelings towards communities associated with that attack. when will the world finish paying the dues for 9/11? how much more debt left to pay??

in a sri lankan context, people are all so quick to attack parties like JHU in SL when it clearly doesn’t represent the majority sri lankan views and try to make it look like all sri lankans are like that. you do this all the time. your logic goes something like JHU = mad monks = sinhalese = racists.. lol.. but when it comes to the US, you can conveniently extricate the tea partiers and faux news saying it doesn’t represent the US. my whole aim was to identify how only in sri lanka “its not acceptable” standards we have to put up with. mad monks in sri lanka may have taken to the streets and protested (a legal right) various things but them or no other sinhala nationalists have ever stooped to the levels of protest we have seen lately in the US by the conservatives. they only always shouted for one thing, the unity of sri lanka, the nation!

anyway it’s time US have a good look at them selves, and their conduct before judging other countries that suffered much greater wrath of terrorism and took action to defend them selves. i think any independent observer would see why we feel like they’re class A hypocrites. look its not even washington’s fault, they just play along with the lobbyists…

That is the normal public reaction. Every organization has to deal with publicity. Negative publicity has brought down quite a few important personalities. The media in the USA is much more powerful than the media in S. Lanka. Basically, CNN and 60 minutes can ruin anyone’s career in just 5 min…. no one in the USA is immune. So with that said, it is unfair for you to say that the mosque plans had to be changed because of adverse publicity. You have to deal with the consequences of publicity in any kind of highly volatile situation. In this case, the negative publicity is actually beneficial… lots of Muslims will probably end up contributing to the mosque fund. You have to wonder if the mosque planners intentionally exploited the publicity for their own benefit.

What in the world are you on about? If the Muslims want to build the mosque on that site, they can still do it. The Courts have told them they can do so. Just because people protest against the construction of the mosque doesn’t mean its not a democracy. In fact, the whole point of a democracy is that people are allowed to protest peacefully. You really need to check your definitions! The democracy ends and the dictatorship begins when people are not allowed to protest and the government can interfere to no end. But the American government never told the Muslims they can’t build the mosque. Neither did the Courts! So once again, what’s your point?

FYI huh, there has been protests against mosques outside NY as well in various other states!!! So this is not just near ground zero.”

This mosque is in a unique situation….you might be correct that there are a FEW protests outside of mosques outside of new york. But you obviously did not look at the statistics I posted. Hate crimes against Muslims are EXTREMELY LOW DESPITE THE MEDIA Trying to say otherwise! And btw, although 63% of new yorkers do not want the mosque to be build near ground zero that SAME percentage wants it to be built, in GENERAL. So your basic assertion that most Americans and new yorkers are anti-islamic does not hold water at all. They are protesting because, well, frankly, this is a unique situation. And your referencing fox news and the tea partiers is completely out of place int his context. Although those groups are certainly against the mosque being built, they are NOT the majority of the people protesting against this mosque. The VAST majority of people protesting against this mosque are NEW YORKERS, perhaps THE most liberal big city in the country. The president made a big misstep in his original speech in defending the mosque in the spirit of freedom of religion–that’s his fault. He, like you, made the mistaken assertion that the majority of those new yorkers protesting were doing it because they are anti-islamic.

Well I can tell you that Alqueda did not bomb in the name of Islam, but their own sick, twisted interpretation. Just like LTTE did not bomb in the name of Tamil’s freedom, but for their own sick dictatorial, hijacked purposes. I’m sure most Muslims will find what you just said quite offensive!
Targeting Dalada Maligawa was in fact taking it to the religious level. They wanted to show their hate to the majority Sinhalese’ religion. Otherwise why else target it? Because it would hurt them! Otherwise there are plenty of other places to kill innocent civilians right? I didn’t see the LTTE bomb a Hindu kovil to make their point did they? Did anyone else see that?

huh, you’re no different to Heshan, all’s well when it suits your agenda! turning a blind a eye and even worse defend even when it’s bleeding obvious its not.

Here is the lesson to all you kids out there (according to huh): Yes the constitution guarantees rights, buuuttt, if greater America thinks it’s a bad idea, you better shut up and go underground or just move the heck away, cuz otherwise you won’t know what’s coming ur way. Fox & co, republicans, tea partiers, and the whole gang. You better be ready to take the brunt cuz not even the president is going to stand up for you! Great odds aint it when you’re a minority?

FYI huh, there has been protests against mosques outside NY as well in various other states!!! So this is not just near ground zero.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/06/inconvenient-truth-10-times-more-hate-crimes-against-jews-muslims

War would not have ended in 20-30 years. Absurd logic! VP groomed the next level of tigers who were much more ruthless, educated and politically savvy than the first generation.

You are missing my point. I said that VP had an 80s mindset… he could not understand how the fate of the Tigers was essentially sealed after Sept 11, 2001. That in fact, no country would come to the rescue of the LTTE. VP did not understand that Sonia Gandhi’s India would not come to his rescue – e.g. no paripu drop or IPKF resolution. VP didn’t really understand what the loss of the East (Karuna defection) meant. He probably thought the Tigers could actually regain the East. If VP had comprehended all of these things, he would have fled the country long before the Nanthikadaal Fiasco. Also of importance: VP didn’t understand how advances in technology worked against the Tigers… now, one need not physically patrol the Palk Strait to cut off the Tiger supply line – very good intelligence can be gathered from outer space. In fact, it was this kind of intelligence (gathered by India and passed on to SL) that resulted in the crippling of major LTTE mother ships. The “next” level of Tigers were not much different from the first. They still wore rubber slippers to the battlefield – many of them were forcibly conscripted. In fact, the first generation of hardcore fighters was probably superior to the first.

By now LTTE has a well developed international arm. In another 20-30 years that would be even more powerful, if the LTTE survived for so long.

You forgot that there is an global economic recession going on… the Western governments have their hands full with domestic affairs and would be unlikely to lend much support to a group like the LTTE.

Given the garage beginning of the LTTE 28 years ago and where it was in 2005, in another 30 years it would be unthinkably big, had the LTTE survived.

How would it have been bigger? The loss of the East meant a drastic reduction in manpower, which meant offensive battles for the LTTE were impossible. Whatever remaining manpower they had would have to be conserved.

The war “victory” is quite and achievement. But it is not enough.

As I have said on this forum before, Rajapakse ignored all the standard norms involved in war. Having thrown all of the resources of the island into the war effort, he was able to extract a “favorable” resolution via brute force alone. But before you call that an achievement, realize that Rajapakse is using similar tactics of absolute terror to ensure that his family stays in power indefinitely. So perhaps it is an achievement for Rajapakse alone; whereas for the country it is an overall loss: (+1) + (-1) = 0.