Sri Lanka execution video authentic

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Scaramouche, Jan 7, 2010.

  1. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    For those who don't know, the Sri Lankan government and military have been doing rather nasty things to the Tamils for a long time. The civil war ended recently for one reason: the government forces went nuts and started bombing the fuck out of schools, hospitals, villages, and everything else, and the Tamils simply quit because they weren't willing to see any more Tamil civilians die.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    This is exactly my point in a different thread. That's what it has always took to win a war. Anything less and expect to lose.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    Well, it may be the quick and easy way to win a war against an enemy with morals. But I don't see it as the only way to win a war.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Ever hear of a war being won some other way?
     
  8. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
    Absolutely. Rome versus Spartacus. The Romans didn't massacre whole towns to wear down the slaves.
     
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    that's not really a war. Can you think of a war, as in an invasion of another country, that didn't involve crushing the opposition?

    Even the Civil was was brutal.
     
  10. Scaramouche Registered Member

    Messages:
    432
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    As I understand it, the gladiators were not welcomed by the people of Italy. They were not supported and assisted to any great extent. If they were then the Romans would have killed every last man, woman and child in any town that did. That was the MO after all.

    Look at the way Julius Cease put down German resistance. After killing hundreds of thousands of Germans over a decade (he sold up to a million German's into slavery) his final message was to chop off both hands of 3000 "resistance fighters" and send them to each of the large settlements to beg for their livelihood. This sent two messaged, (1) this is what happens when you resist Rome (2) even though you think your resistance is noble, take a look at how well your German kinsmen look after such heroes ... they really don't. Your life will be shit as a beggar, not noble.

    Seemed to have worked well for the Romans.

    I'd also add that in today's word when one person can strap a bomb on to him/her self it's even more arduous. Not that I support any of our wars. I think they're an utter waste of time. At the very most, we should have just armed the Northern Resistance following the assassination of BinnyBoy. Done and Done.
     
  12. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    In a war, the best way is the quickest and easiest way. If you as a prime minister send your soldiers to kill and to risk death, putting them in an unnecessary risk is immoral. Your obligation is to them, not to the party whom you sent them to kill. There's nothing honourable in "traditional" war. It's a strictly modern concept. Raping and pillaging and destroying entire villages/towns has been part and parcel of being a soldier for millenia.

    There may be honour on the field when it is practical, but otherwise it is bitter and deceitful.

    There was an incident a few years ago where the Russian army occupying some part of Chechnya sent a message to the Chechen resistance forces that they want to talk with the purpose of reaching a truce. The Chechens sent a delegation of their high leaders, and at first chance the Russian forces killed them, thereby breaking the back of the resistance (at least for a little while). You're not in a war to be honourable, you're there to reach an objective one way or another. If you can kill people, you can sure as hell lie to them. Not much honour there, is there...

    There was nothing "strange" about what the Sri Lanka government did. Was it brutal? Yes. (Assuming the story is true.) But that is war. That's why it's called "war", and not "negotiations."
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,887
    When you have prisoners in your control, executing them is not a necessary part of war. There is no reason those people could not have been held in prison for the duration.
     
  14. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    That's true. I'll admit I haven't watched the video. I was mostly responding to the stuff that Scaramouche was describing in the OP.

    Although executing prisoners, or at the least mistreating them, has also been part and parcel of war. For example during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, some Israeli soldiers captured by the Syrians were raped, and some were killed, post-capture.
     

Share This Page