Sinn Fein urge Tamil Tigers to take a Peaceful Path

[gobshite]

Of course all members of an alien and illegitimate police force and army should be killed. Don't be asking silly questions.

Is it your party line that all members of the PSNI should be killed, or are people like you now a minority within SF?

Also, I would also quite like to see a republican tackle Pogo's analogy.

Its my own personal opinion that any members of an occupation force have put their lives in danger, as far as I know it is not party policy.

I dont' know enough about the Tamils to be able to argue it out but from what I do know their position is similar to the Basques.

[The OD]

Why doesn't anyone want to attempt to answer my question :

I believe it's been phrased reasonably politely.

Dont get used to it pogo, but yes, I think its a good question that should be looked at.

And then refuted utterly :wink: !

But seriously, I am not that familiar with the situation but will take a look at some stage.

[DSCH]

Its my own personal opinion that any members of an occupation force have put their lives in danger, as far as I know it is not party policy.

I dont' know enough about the Tamils to be able to argue it out but from what I do know their position is similar to the Basques.

I thought that the Tamils live in the north of an island and would prefer throw in their lot with their larger neighbour (if the neighbour would take them), rather than be part of an island nation. The whole island is of course the natural boundary of the nation and no authority, earthly or otherwise has the right to divide that nation. The Tamils sound rather partitionist to me.

[FTA69]

The key difference between the Tamils and the Unionists is that the Tamils are an oppressed, disctinct nation while Unionists are an artificial majority created in Ireland and then put into a position of ascendancy.

[DSCH]

The key difference between the Tamils and the Unionists is that the Tamils are an oppressed, disctinct nation while Unionists are an artificial majority created in Ireland and then put into a position of ascendancy.

So Tamils = good minority, whose cause is consistent with Republican socialist political kitsch, while unionists = bad minority, whose cause cannot be defined as good by the standards of Republican socialist political kitsch

[FTA69]

The actions of two peoples speak for themselves, Unionists ran a gerrymandered, bigoted statelet which systematically discriminated against Nationalists. They also maintained control over the police, courts etc, Tamils are an oppressed minority being victimised by the Sinhalese. It is not me determining the merits of which "minority", it is their own actions.

[DSCH]

The actions of two peoples speak for themselves, Unionists ran a gerrymandered, bigoted statelet which systematically discriminated against Nationalists. They also maintained control over the police, courts etc, Tamils are an oppressed minority being victimised by the Sinhalese. It is not me determining the merits of which "minority", it is their own actions.

Fair enough. So Tamils should get what they want because they "suffered,” while unionists should be denied what they want as "punishment" for the suffering they caused?

[FTA69]

No, that's not my point at all. I simply made the above post pointing out the differences between the two scenarios, and to show that comparing the two situations is erroneous. Also, the Tamils in Tamil-Eelam have no affinity with India (described by some here as a "mainland") while Unionists have an attachment to Britain. It is a complex conflict and sloppy analogies with Ireland serve nobody.

[pogo]

The key difference between the Tamils and the Unionists is that the Tamils are an oppressed, disctinct nation while Unionists are an artificial majority created in Ireland and then put into a position of ascendancy.

Why are the Tamils 'a distinct nation' and Unionists not :

Presumably you meant to say that Unionists are an artificial majority in Northern Ireland, and not Ireland as a whole.

The main reason for supposing that Northern Ireland is 'artificial' is that it lacks a clear and natural border.

So, in that case, does Tamil Eelam posess such a border :

Incidentally here is the proportion of Sri Lankan Tamils in various provinces of Tamil Eelam, claimed to be their 'homeland'.

Jaffna 95%
Mullaitivu 76%
Batticaloa 71%
Vavuniya 57%
Mannar 50%
Ampari 20%

It would appear, that apart from Jaffna, there is no easily definable, ethnically homogeneous, Tamil homeland.

Jaffna itself only happens to be ethnically homogeneous because, in 1990, the Muslim and Sinhalese were given 48 hours to leave the city by the Tamil Tigers.

You also stated that the Unionists were placed in a position of ascendancy. So were the Tamils under the British. The majority Sinhalese regarded them as being a privileged minority with disproportionate numbers in higher positions.

[pogo]

The actions of two peoples speak for themselves, Unionists ran a gerrymandered, bigoted statelet which systematically discriminated against Nationalists. They also maintained control over the police, courts etc, Tamils are an oppressed minority being victimised by the Sinhalese. It is not me determining the merits of which "minority", it is their own actions.

How do you know the currently existing Tamil Eeelam is not bigoted and does not discriminate :

I gave you the example that in 1990 the Muslim and Sinhalese population was given 48 hours to leave Jaffna by the Tigers.

If Northern Ireland is a 'statelet', then so presumably is Tamil Eelam.

Doesn't your argument boil down to your perception that the Tamils are somehow the 'good guys' and Ulster Protestants the 'baddies' :

Surely this is irrelevant to the case.

If, in your opinion, 18% of Sri Lanka's population have the right to self-determination, then surely so do 18% of Ireland's population, irrespective of where your sympathies lie.