http://www.upworthy.com/ever-hear-about-the-lady-that-spilled-coffee-on-herself-at-mcdonalds-then-sued-for-millions?c=ufb2

In Sinhala there is a saying that “giya nuvana Athun lava wath addawanna baha”. We should not hope to hire elephants to rectify our follies committed based on “”fantasized”_ “cooked versions”” rather than on facts.

A fiction could be more interesting than facts, still its a fiction. We should not get swayed away by the beauty of fictions.

Dear Sitrundi,

Sharanga and I have exchanged views long before you came on the scene.

The current discussion is not about prejudices but about a dubious number of civilian deaths advanced first by Mr Gordon Weiss Who has now backtracked on his statements. Subsequently the UN’s Darusman and co picked it up. Einstein is a great man but quoting him inappropriately is not wise.

If you have facts to establish that the dubious civilian death figure of 40,000, please read my posts and contest them else sit back and enjoy the discussion.

The “words” I write have meanings and facts embedded within. If you find it overwhelming it is because I have a lot of facts to write about. I can easily afford to refrain from Ad Hominems but you don’t seem to be able to do that.

Please do make a factual and compelling argument to establish your views. I will certainly enjoy reading it and so will the GV readership.

Dear Sharanga,

It is the strategy of some to resort to name calling and pseudo indignation when they have been cornered in a debate. I did not expect you to descend to that level though.

Your latest post has nothing to do with establishing what you wrote.

The following para of my last post deals with your argument head on.

Deaths occurred of Civilians and terrorists. Terrorists fought in Civilian Clothes. Hence there is no fool proof method of identifying civilians from terrorists using clothing. It is known that Children were forced conscripted by the Terrorists. The UN says during the final months forced conscription exceeded 200 children a month (they claim it was just the tip of an iceberg only 11% visible). Hence you cannot identify a terrorist using age as a criteria. We know that both female and male terrorists existed. Hence you cannot use sex to identify a terrorist.

Subsequently I asked you to share your wisdom.

Please explain how you or anyone else can differentiate a terrorist from a civilian under the above circumstances.

Apparently you have no answer for that either and no wisdom to share.
Now in the absence of a logical defence, where does your contentions stand?
In the rubbish heap?

The following paras used your own arguments to demolish your premise.

About 20,000 terrorists survived and crossed over to govt areas. 14,000 of them were identified during screening and others escaped the IDP camps before screening. Hence you cannot claim there was no mortal danger to the troops.

A PRIMARY factor that you brought in to the argument was (in your own words) “Since the right to life is the most fundamental and important right of all, there’s no other right that could trump it except the right to life itself”

Since the Army personnel were exposed to mortal danger from Gun wielding terrorists in Civilian Clothes, the right to life of the soldiers trumps that of the terrorists in Civilian clothes as per your argument.

You have no answer because you expected your arguments to be unassailable but that expectation was incorrect. Your own arguments have boomeranged on you.

Then you came out with a convoluted idea of Justice but that too has been sent to its Just grave with the following observation.

Justice is the application of relevant Law, without fear or favour. A basic principle of Justice is that Everyone is Equal in the Eyes of the Law. Justice is symbolised by a Blindfolded lady, holding an Even Scale in one hand and a Sword in the Other. I hope there is no need to explain anything further.

If you can contest any of the above factually and logically you are welcome to try.

Sharanga’s theoretical knowledge/understanding about arguments is correct.

There are two ways to challenge conclusion of an argument, as he correctly explains.
1. Challenging the premise(s) of the argument.

2. Challenging the logical form of the argument.

We can extend his explanation a little bit further.

There can be four different outcomes (alternatives) in such a process of challenging.

(i). Premise is incorrect and logical form is correct, where the conclusion is invalid and untrue.

(ii). Premise is correct and logical form is incorrect, where the conclusion is valid but the conclusion is untrue.

(iii). Premise is incorrect and logical form is incorrect, where the conclusion is invalid and conclusion can be true or untrue but not logical.

(iv). Premise is correct and logical form is correct, where the conclusion is valid and true.

Now according to Sharanga’s statement,

“There are two ways to challenge a conclusion drawn from such an
argument. One, you can challenge the premises of the argument. Two, you
can challenge the logical form of the argument. That is, you can argue
that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. It is this second
type that the article is interested in. It acknowledges that the first
path is available, but doesn’t focus on it. It focuses on the logical
form of the argument.”

he accepts that the premise of his argument is possibly incorrect, but lauds that his logical form of the argument.

Therefore, his argument fall into the category of (i). above and hence his conclusion of his article is untrue, or possibly untrue.

So, is it correct for me to conclude that Sharanga wanted to argue to arrive at an untrue conclusion?

Oh goodness…you really are a fanatic, aren’t you? To understand this think about syllogisms, which is a simple kind of logical arguments. Here, conclusion is inferred from two or more premises. If you take a categorical syllogism, one of them is the major premise, and the other is the minor premise. From these premises, a conclusion is drawn.

There are two ways to challenge a conclusion drawn from such an argument. One, you can challenge the premises of the argument. Two, you can challenge the logical form of the argument. That is, you can argue that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. It is this second type that the article is interested in. It acknowledges that the first path is available, but doesn’t focus on it. It focuses on the logical form of the argument.

Now, the definition of a fanatic is someone who just can’t change the subject. I’ve said over and over, both in the article and in the comments that you can indeed challenge the premises, but this article doesn’t focus on the premises, but rather the logical form. So if you still want to keep on ranting about how false the premise is, be my guest.

Dear Sharanga, you are discovering what many here in the community have known for some time. Off the cuff is post copious amounts of “words” but is in denial of the atrocities committed against the minorities by the majority. [Edited out – please attack the ideas violently, but go gentle on the individuals. Kindly read out submissions guidelines.]

“What a sad era when it is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice.”
? Albert Einstein

Dear Sharanga,

You ask “Why do you keep on trying to engage me in a debate when I clearly said I won’t be debating here. Whether the UN Panel Report is credible or not is a different discussion and is clearly out of the scope of the article. ”

Unfortunately that’s not how it works.
You opened the door to inquiry by using the UN Panel’s report. Saying you will not go there and treating it as a God given fact is a ploy that will not work as it is part of your argument’s foundation. Remove the reference to the Darusman report and then try to build your argument which of course will be a failure.

Gordon Weiss was the first person who manufactured the 40,000 civilian death toll (after he got sacked from the UN spokesperson’s job in 2009) which was picked up by Darusman and now by you. Weiss has already back tracked Re the “Credible Sources” that he claimed existed. Darusman does not disclose their “credible sources”. Perhaps that source was Weiss or Weiss’s sources.

Here is an extract from the UN report (Darusman report) that you have fondly quoted in developing your argument.

1. Using civilians as a human buffer

237. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: Credible allegations point to a violation of Common Article 3’s ban on the taking of hostages insofar as they forced thousands of civilians, often under threat of death, to remain in areas under their control during the last stages of the war and enforced this control by killing persons who attempted to leave that area. (With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study)
End Extract

This is what the ICRC state

It can be concluded that use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
End extract

The LTTE was a military objective and the LTTE tried to prevent targeting that military objective by intentionally collocating civilians amongst themselves. Hence in Law that amounted to the use of a Human Shield which is a War Crime not withstanding the perverted interpretation given by the UN’s Expert Panel, the Darusman Panel.

As you can see the Darusman UN Expert Panel’s report is full of “Credible Evidence” that it could not find.

It ties itself in knots by losing sight of the ICRC interpretation and attempting to redefine it in order to exonerate the LTTE of a War Crime. They claim that in the eyes of the Law no Human Shield existed.

Obviously someone has got to the Darusman Experts.

On 11/4/2013 Ms Yasmin Sooka a member of the UN panel wrote an article on GroundViews where she repeated the 40,000 claim and upped the ante by quoting the 70,000 claim of a subsequent UN report (Petrie report) and thought it fit to give credence to a more staggering figure of 147,000 She says “The Catholic Bishop of Manner has suggested that more than 147,000 people remain unaccounted for”. Please read the comments section of her article wherein questions were asked from her. Her response was total silence. (Please read the Numbers game on GroundViews for more information)

You claim the 40,000 civilian deaths is a fact.
You claim that those 40,000 were unarmed.
You claim that that 40,000 did not pose a mortal threat to the soldiers who rescued civilians from the Human Shield.

I have demolished ALL those claims.
Deaths occurred of Civilians and terrorists. Terrorists fought in Civilian Clothes. Hence there is no fool proof method of identifying civilians from terrorists using clothing. It is known that Children were forced conscripted by the Terrorists. The UN says during the final months forced conscription exceeded 200 children a month (they claim it was just the tip of an iceberg only 11% visible). Hence you cannot identify a terrorist using age as a criteria. We know that both female and male terrorists existed. Hence you cannot use sex to identify a terrorist.

Please explain how you or anyone else can differentiate a terrorist from a civilian under the above circumstances.

About 20,000 terrorists survived and crossed over to govt areas. 14,000 of them were identified during screening and others escaped the IDP camps before screening. Hence you cannot claim there was no mortal danger to the troops.

A PRIMARY factor that you brought in to the argument was (in your own words) “Since the right to life is the most fundamental and important right of all, there’s no other right that could trump it except the right to life itself”

Since the Army personnel were exposed to mortal danger from Gun wielding terrorists in Civilian Clothes, the right to life of the soldiers trumps that of the terrorists in Civilian clothes as per your argument.

You say “This is a ridiculous statement. If you don’t like Mervyn Silva anology, you can take Duminda Silva, or pretty much any government minister. The fact remains even if they are not punished for wrongdoing, that shouldn’t give everyone else a licence to do wrongdoing. This is true both domestically and internationally”

What is ridiculous is your world view of Justice. The reason you brought M Silva is to draw a Red Herring. It is the same reason that makes you bring D Silva or any other.

You say “You seem to think that justice is fairness”

You are confused.

Justice is the application of relevant Law, without fear or favour. A basic principle of Justice is that Everyone is Equal in the Eyes of the Law. Justice is symbolised by a Blindfolded lady, holding an Even Scale in one hand and a Sword in the Other. I hope there is no need to explain anything further

Bringing in M silva or D Silva or any SL political figure in power does not change that. Their perversion of Justice does not license you or any other to do likewise.

You say “You seem to think that justice is fairness. But no, these are two different concepts. If you are punished for breaking and entering into my house and you are punished for it when no one else has ever been punished for it, it is not fair to you. But is it just? Certainly. You broke and entered into my house.”

You bring very strange mind experiments to subvert arguments. If no one else was punished for breaking and entering then that society excepts breaking and entering as a norm. Hence that society will not have laws prohibiting breaking and entering because it is accepted behaviour just like eating and drinking. Hence those people in that imaginary society of yours will not see anything wrong in breaking and entering. Since you are also part of that society you will also view it as normal. Your confusion results from using irrelevant frames of reference.

I have already stated what Justice is. Perhaps you live in America. Perhaps long exposure to official American arrogance has coloured your world view of Justice. Justice does not conform to the view that an American can do anything with impunity.

If you are on Facebook, do check out Fine Tuning Democracy and request for any clarifications that you need.

Off the cuff,

Why do you keep on trying to engage me in a debate when I clearly said I won’t be debating here. Whether the UN Panel Report is credible or not is a different discussion and is clearly out of the scope of the article. So this is pretty much what is called trolling, and fanatical, because you’re clearly incapable of changing the topic.

When allegations of human rights violations are leveled at you, one of the things you can do is deny that such human rights violations ever happened. In the article this is acknowledged, and clearly stated that this not the path that is questioned. The article focuses on the other path possible, which acknowledges that human rights violations took place but nevertheless makes sure that justice is done to the victims.

Now if you don’t think human rights violations happened in an unjustifiably large scale, if you don’t agree with the UN Panel Report, you could just say so in a single sentence and say the rest of the article is irrelevant since these human rights violations never happened. You can substantiate your claim elsewhere instead of trying to engage me in a debate about that here where it doesn’t belong.

***

What I say is Justice cannot be dispensed if impunity reigns supreme. That is true domestically or internationally (not withstanding your preoccupation with Mervin Silva). The UN should put her house in order and ensure Justice prevails over impunity.

This is a ridiculous statement. If you don’t like Mervyn Silva anology, you can take Duminda Silva, or pretty much any government minister. The fact remains even if they are not punished for wrongdoing, that shouldn’t give everyone else a licence to do wrongdoing. This is true both domestically and internationally.

You seem to think that justice is fairness. But no, these are two different concepts. If you are punished for breaking and entering into my house and you are punished for it when no one else has ever been punished for it, it is not fair to you. But is it just? Certainly. You broke and entered into my house.

So what you seem to be saying, that SL should not be held accountable because no one else is held accountable, is not a valid argument.

Dear Sharanga,

You say “The 40,000 is not a number I pulled out from thin air. It is the number estimated by that UN panel which found that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in the final months of the civil war, most as a result of indiscriminate shelling by the Sri Lankan military. If you think they pulled it out from thin air, that is a separate discussion”

In your article that estimate has morphed towards an established fact “As long as an actual crime where forty thousand civilians, who did no bear arms, and therefore posed no mortal threat to the lives of army personnel, took place, the state cannot absolve itself, or rid itself from allegations simply by appealing to its independence or sovereignty”

This fictitious figure was authored by Gordon Weiss soon after he was sacked from the UN in 2009. It was unsubstantiated then and its unsubstantiated now, hence pulled out of thin air. Even the author has avoided substantiating the figure and has disowned his so called “Reliable Sources”

Mr Gordon Weiss posted a comment in GV on 22 April 2013 and I had the opportunity to ask him the following a few hours later. Mr Weiss has been unable to respond to date.

In an ABC interview with Mr Campbell you put forward the Civilian death toll as 40,000 claiming the figure came from reliable sources INSIDE the NFZ. In your book the cage you claim that you don’t know how reliable your sources are. This is Double Speak to say the least. Today this rubbery death toll figure you originated then, has snowballed beyond belief to an unbelievable figure of 147,000.

147,000 dead + 441,000 (a nominal 3 times that wounded) + 300,000 (some of them wounded and hence will be accounted for within the 441,000 wounded) rescued and in IDP camps, giving a minimum total population in the Vanni to 888,000 and that’s excluding those who went overseas by whatever means. All in all the Vanni population would have approached or exceeded 1,000,000. The ludicrousness of these claims are apparent when these absurdities are compared to Census figures.

The UN has access to demographic data of its own, as Funding for UN aid programs is based on them. Hence the claim that you authored and which has now gone berserk, is nothing but Rumour, that by your own admission is Unreliable to say the least. Does this not indicate that your utterances are unreliable? More so as you have an interest in whipping up Tamil Sentiment to boost revenue from the book sales of your targeted audience, The Tamils nationalists.

In the “Cage” you wrote

“I have not dealt in close detail with the matter of figures of dead and wounded, how they are calculated and how reliable those sources might be. I make the point in the text that it is for others to get closer to that particular particle of truth.”

Why the Double Speak Sir?
Are you afraid to face facts?
End extract

Weiss starts the rumour in early 2010, Darusman improves on it in 2011 and you go a step further and makes it a fact in 2013!

Where you got it is immaterial. The fact remains that it is a Lie picked out of thin air. No one, the author, Darusman or you have been able to substantiate it, period. Possession of stolen goods, even without knowledge that they were stolen, does not absolve you from responsibility. Don’t point to Darusman as a scape goat when you have the intelligence to weigh the evidence.

You say “Now my question is, is it your contention that therefore everyone should get a get-out-of-jail-free-card?”

I have outgrown Monopoly.

You say “Are you arguing that even if SL committed war crimes, they should not be held responsible as long as powerful countries like the USA are not held responsible?”

You are back in to the Realm of Fiction with that ever present “IF”

What I say is Justice cannot be dispensed if impunity reigns supreme. That is true domestically or internationally (not withstanding your preoccupation with Mervin Silva).
The UN should put her house in order and ensure Justice prevails over impunity.
I am amazed at your sense of Justice which your article hid from view till now!

I hope your interest will revert to the delivery of Justice.