Thank you Groundviews for highlighting the Clustor Bomb use. You can add to it the limited use of phosphorus bombs. During the last phase of the bombings in the war I received information on both devices being used. I informed us state dept of this. They did not make any observations on this. They wanted to stop the war if Ltte surrendered to the ICRC and the civilians to be in the Vanni under the protection of UNHRC.
In 2010 August I have helped victims of such atrocities and one of the person whose right ear and the skin of the right armed was burnt. She wore white medicated Sleeve from shoulder to wrist.

If and when the Hybrid tribunal becomes a reality the witnesses and victims will come out. I doubt whether they would to a Domestic mechanism.

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/1/38096_space.html

“The bomb casings exhibited as belonging to Russian Cluster Bombs do in fact belong to a different class of Russian munition. This range of bombs are called `Low Drag Blast Fragmentation` weapons. `OFAB` in Russian stands for `Oskolochno-Fugasnaya`, `Fragmentation/HE` (H).

Comparing the two sets of images (L & M) clearly show that the weapon recovered is a Russian `ODAB` series `Fuel-Air Explosive` munition, and not a Russian Cluster Bomb.”

Salient points from the Geneva Convention regarding civilian casualties, applicable to our little war:

1. “The presence of a protected person [i.e. civilian hostages] may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.“4th Geneva Convention, Article 28.

2. The armed forces are not liable where injury to civilians results from unavoidable collateral damage, provided it is proportionate to the military gain expected of the attack.
The military gain was the total destruction of the LTTE. A very necessary and laudable aim, no?

3. “Civilians do not enjoy absolute immunity. Their presence will not render military objects immune from attack for the mere reason that it is impossible to bombard them without causing injury to the non-combatants.” Oppenheim’s ‘International Law’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Sanchez

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101001/bs_yblog_upshot/cnn-fires-host-rick-sanchez-over-controverial-remarks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh1ef3DM76s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laptaCg0BHA

lol standards…. You probably think Fox news is really “fair & balanced” as well! LMAO…

haha Heshan, is that the method through which US provide transparency to its conflicts? by means of scandals? that was a good joke. and i’m pretty sure i have brought up the wikileaks case here before to point out how they jailed the person responsible for wikileaks. Bradley Manning. so I guess the lesson from the story is, who ever dares shed some transparency into US engagements can expect to be jailed? Deja Vu? Did I hear someone say SF? Except the only difference is that SF leaked nothing. He has nothing to leak! He admitted that he had no first hand knowledge of any war crimes but only some information provided to him by a journalist. Allegation from a journalist? But, but I thought all the journalists were banned from the conflict zone. Hey you can’t have it both ways when it’s convenient for your narrative 😉 I find that very hard to believe provided that he was the freaking army commander! How can there be any information regarding violations of rules of engagement that is not privy to him?? Was he not in control of his forces? Straight away shows his disingenuity and that he was simply lying to serve his political ambitions at the time. YES this may come as a surprise to you, but politicians do LIE! he deserves what came his way. I believe even his one time media ally Fredrika Janzs who helped stir up the pot later had said a thing or 2 about the validity of his allegations bringing serious doubt into the whole fiasco…I suggest you go and check the sunday leader editorial archives.

CNN definitely has standards

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/excnn-reporter-network-censored-footage-iraq-war-crime/

hmmmm……

Good if you consider taking ‘comprehension lessons’ as this Blacker guy suggested. I too came to the same conclusion after reading your posts on the thread on “Peace and Reconcilliation…..”. Sudden disappearance seems to be your favourite tactic when you have no argument to offer..like an Octopus! Then you slowly come back into the scene and repeat the same old stuff! I think the reason for your apparent brain damage is the lack of Oxygen at birth (Birth Asphyxia) rather than physical injury to the brain as Blacker suggests! Were you born at a very high altitude?

“There is nothing to disprove because nothing has been proven yet! One who asserts must prove. So the burden of proving 30,000 (or whatever the number) deaths, rests with the one who says so.”

In a court of law, yes, the burden of proving rests with the prosecution. That “burden” can only be taken up if facilities of investigation are provided. That is why prosecution of crime is linked to police facilities. If investigating facilities are dammed up, then the “burden” reverts to those who make objective investigation impossible. In particular, where those who control facilities of investigation are precisely the ones being accused, then these accused must be presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

I see that these heathens David Blacker and rajivmw are doubting your proven military genius. They clearly do not appreciate that you are part of the Lord’s Resistance Army. Fear not- Singularity strikes down all non-believers, such as the fig tree.

Here is your chance for the Final Word, as that seems to be your concern.

The UI terminology irked you somehow (the “puhul hora” analogy to apply here?) and prompted your observation that the use of idiot term was some how inappropriate and self-defeating. Now, I am glad you have conceded, in the “thorn-by-thorn” context it was apt, and (DJ) was indeed deserving.

Here is the one outstanding issue.

In reference to your absolute faith in DJ’s intellect (substantiated by your later “nuff said” comment) I asked if the society should hold intellects to a higher standard in appropriate use of language in communication.

There are three possible responses that seem exhaustive:
• Yes, intellects have that higher responsibility of leading by example
• No, it is wrong for the society to expect that higher ground from the intellects
• Or your initial meek, knee-jerky response, “as for responsibility, I don’t know…” which I charachterise as weaseling-out: unable to take a stand, having had the initial bravado to offer unsolicited wisdom. “All talk – but no …”

Of course you do have a fourth option – dodging having to take a stand using some excuse or other and not take this golden opportunity for your coveted “final word”.