Oh Boogie
Hello!Welcome to www.whispering-bliss.blogspot.com!
My thoughts on current affairs.
The conflict in Sri Lanka.
I wouldn't say I've been following the story closely. Maybe there're hidden factors that we do not catch wind of. From what I do know, negotiations fell out, therefore leading to conflict in the past. In an attempt to flush out the rebels, what the government did was to have military conflict. I'm wondering if amnesty was offered. Was there a better alternative to mindless bloodshed which involved civiallian casualty and deaths?
Would it not have been better if the rebels were given a chance? What were they fighting for? Their own state because they were stateless, no citizenship and no recognition in a nation that they resided in. But they lived like peasants simply because they belong to no country that they can call home. Was it fair for them to have fought for so long yet to only in the end perish in a fight they couldn't have possibly won? There appears to be no leeway on the governments part.
Things might have changed, if they were offered citizenship, and more recognition? What's more, the difference between the two ethnic groups, Tamils and Sinhalese caused a rift in terms of prioritization when it came to voting, education, housing and welfare. Even the language that's used locally is different. It was, learn the Sri Lanka language or face expulsion from your job. It was a do or don't do situation. When it comes down to this, I think any man would have rebelled against that sort of ruling. It's simply almost impossible for the average individual to pick up a completely different language and be fluent in it by 2-3 years under pressure. Personally, I would go against it as well.
As there were no hope for these individuals who have been unfairly treated, they turn to their most likelihood of hope. The LTTE. Despite being outnumbered and most likely out-equipped by their opposition. Formed from failed attempts at negotiations and peaceful protests. When negotiations fail, even when it is a verbal conversation between you and I, physical violence are most likely to ensue.
Would things have turned out differently, if amnesty was offered. And that, for an equal percentage of LTTE that surrendered, an equal percentage of Tamil's would be extradited to India and given citizenship? To begin with, fighting for their own state was their main cause, was it not? Because they were stateless.
Why is it that in retrospect to the Malayan Emergency in the 1948-1960, that nothing was learnt? It's saddening to know that, even with the study of History, unecessary bloodshed still exists today. For whatever reasons, ideals, beliefs, religion, or way of life, violence will continue to ensue and be part and partial in our lives.
Obviously the study of History has failed because documented events of violence, dictatorship, war and bloodshed still reoccur, and the cycle of History continues.
The conflict in Sri Lanka.
I wouldn't say I've been following the story closely. Maybe there're hidden factors that we do not catch wind of. From what I do know, negotiations fell out, therefore leading to conflict in the past. In an attempt to flush out the rebels, what the government did was to have military conflict. I'm wondering if amnesty was offered. Was there a better alternative to mindless bloodshed which involved civiallian casualty and deaths?
Would it not have been better if the rebels were given a chance? What were they fighting for? Their own state because they were stateless, no citizenship and no recognition in a nation that they resided in. But they lived like peasants simply because they belong to no country that they can call home. Was it fair for them to have fought for so long yet to only in the end perish in a fight they couldn't have possibly won? There appears to be no leeway on the governments part.
Things might have changed, if they were offered citizenship, and more recognition? What's more, the difference between the two ethnic groups, Tamils and Sinhalese caused a rift in terms of prioritization when it came to voting, education, housing and welfare. Even the language that's used locally is different. It was, learn the Sri Lanka language or face expulsion from your job. It was a do or don't do situation. When it comes down to this, I think any man would have rebelled against that sort of ruling. It's simply almost impossible for the average individual to pick up a completely different language and be fluent in it by 2-3 years under pressure. Personally, I would go against it as well.
As there were no hope for these individuals who have been unfairly treated, they turn to their most likelihood of hope. The LTTE. Despite being outnumbered and most likely out-equipped by their opposition. Formed from failed attempts at negotiations and peaceful protests. When negotiations fail, even when it is a verbal conversation between you and I, physical violence are most likely to ensue.
Would things have turned out differently, if amnesty was offered. And that, for an equal percentage of LTTE that surrendered, an equal percentage of Tamil's would be extradited to India and given citizenship? To begin with, fighting for their own state was their main cause, was it not? Because they were stateless.
Why is it that in retrospect to the Malayan Emergency in the 1948-1960, that nothing was learnt? It's saddening to know that, even with the study of History, unecessary bloodshed still exists today. For whatever reasons, ideals, beliefs, religion, or way of life, violence will continue to ensue and be part and partial in our lives.
Obviously the study of History has failed because documented events of violence, dictatorship, war and bloodshed still reoccur, and the cycle of History continues.