Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 Well proper sequence starts with Tamils invading Sinhala lands' date=' annihilating their lands & force-settling their lands.[/quote'] "annihilating" their lands ? What in the good world do you mean by that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 "annihilating" their lands ? What in the good world do you mean by that ? Exactly how the English language defines the word 'annihilate'. Perhaps dictionary.com is where you should check up the meaning ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 Exactly how the English language defines the word 'annihilate'. Perhaps dictionary.com is where you should check up the meaning ? I know what the term Annihilate means, but i am searching to put in the context of the words you used, as in " Annihilate their lands". And BTW, The tamils were taken to Lanka by the british in early 19th century. The Civil war started in early 1980s. See where i am going ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tendulkar Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 LTTE also killed one of our prime minsters. Their cause is stupid. Their methods are EVIL! No time for these Tamil trouble makers in SL. They are an embarrsament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 LTTE also killed one of our prime minsters. Their cause is stupid. Their methods are EVIL! No time for these Tamil trouble makers in SL. They are an embarrsament So what do you propose they do ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 And BTW, The tamils were taken to Lanka by the british in early 19th century. The Civil war started in early 1980s. See where i am going ? ...... NO. Tamil presence in SL started with one of the Tamil Kingdoms ( Cholas/Pandyas, not sure) invading SL and annihilating their lands & their capital of Anuradhapura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 So what do you propose they do ? Start with not blowing up innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 ...... NO. Tamil presence in SL started with one of the Tamil Kingdoms ( Cholas/Pandyas, not sure) invading SL and annihilating their lands & their capital of Anuradhapura. Assuming what you are saying is right, what do you intend to say ? That the Sinhalese taking retribution for something that happened centuries ago is justified ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Assuming what you are saying is right, what do you intend to say ? That the Sinhalese taking retribution for something that happened centuries ago is justified ? No. You said you were putting history in correct sequence. I corrected you on that. That is all. There is no justification of anything provided, merely putting history in the proper context. Fact remains, the $hit was started in SL by the tamils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 No. You said you were putting history in correct sequence. I corrected you on that. That is all. There is no justification of anything provided, merely putting history in the proper context. Fact remains, the was started in SL by the tamils. In traditional India, Kings invading neighboring lands and annexing kingdoms is quite common. It happened within India itself. And i still dont get what you mean when you say the Tamils "annihilated Sri Lankans lands". If you mean they conquered it, I dont see anything too dramatic with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 In traditional India, Kings invading neighboring lands and annexing kingdoms is quite common. It happened within India itself. Except in India, it was extremely rare for kingdoms to go ethnicaly cleanse the lands & utterly annihilate the capitals of the vanquished as the Tamils did to the Sinhala. And i still dont get what you mean when you say the Tamils "annihilated Sri Lankans lands". If you mean they conquered it, I dont see anything too dramatic with it.I mean precisely as the word 'annihilate' is defined in the English language! Utter destruction of cities & their capital, forcefully settling their lands, etc. is right from the textbook of genocial muslim maniac barbarian invaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 Except in India, it was extremely rare for kingdoms to go ethnicaly cleanse the lands & utterly annihilate the capitals of the vanquished as the Tamils did to the Sinhala. So what you mean by that is the invading kings massacred civilian Sinhalese population and made them refugees in their own lands ? Could you please provide the source of this information please ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Could you please provide the source of this information please ? Destruction of Anuradhapura is as categoric as it gets. And it was not the only Sinhala city utterly razed to the ground by the invading Tamils. This is fairly categoric historically speaking- look up Anuradhapura and its history on the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 Destruction of Anuradhapura is as categoric as it gets. And it was not the only Sinhala city utterly razed to the ground by the invading Tamils. This is fairly categoric historically speaking- look up Anuradhapura and its history on the net. Ok, this was when ? We need to see this in the context of the current debate, rather totally veer off the topic. P.S - Never mind , i checked myself " The city suffered much during the earlier South Indian invasions, and was finally abandoned by AD 1017. The city was the capital of the country continuously from the 5th century BC to AD 1017. Its decline began with continuous wars with the invading South Indians which made the kingdom economically poor. The city was sacked by a Chola invasion forces in 1017 and the governing capital was shifted to the relative safety of Polonnaruwa. The destruction caused to the city and its complex irrigation system was so great that the city was totally abandoned, and fell into decay for nearly a thousand years.[citation needed] It was not until the 19th century that the jungle was cleared away, the ruins laid bare, and some measure of prosperity brought back to the surrounding country by the restoration of hundreds of village tanks by the British." So, you are saying that something that happened nearly 1000 years ago, provides the basis of discrimination ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Ok, this was when ? We need to see this in the context of the current debate, rather totally veer off the topic. P.S - Never mind , i checked myself " The city suffered much during the earlier South Indian invasions, and was finally abandoned by AD 1017. The city was the capital of the country continuously from the 5th century BC to AD 1017. Its decline began with continuous wars with the invading South Indians which made the kingdom economically poor. The city was sacked by a Chola invasion forces in 1017 and the governing capital was shifted to the relative safety of Polonnaruwa. The destruction caused to the city and its complex irrigation system was so great that the city was totally abandoned, and fell into decay for nearly a thousand years.[citation needed] It was not until the 19th century that the jungle was cleared away, the ruins laid bare, and some measure of prosperity brought back to the surrounding country by the restoration of hundreds of village tanks by the British." K. So as you see, the whole Sinhala- Tamil conflict started with the Tamils being big ar$es and annihilating Sinhala lands. So, you are saying that something that happened nearly 1000 years ago, provides the basis of discrimination ? It often does. Does the basis of anti-Islam in India/here not rest in happenings starting 1000 yrs ago too ? And no, i am not providing any justification whatsoever. YOU said you were putting history in the correct order, i corrected you on that and put history in the correct order. Didn't justify or condemn anything in that regard, merely corrected your chronology. Thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 K. So as you see' date=' the whole Sinhala- Tamil conflict started with the Tamils being big ar and annihilating Sinhala lands.[/quote'] that is, 1000 years ago. The Americans bombed the fck out of Japan in the 2nd world war 60 years ago. Now,they are best friends. See where i am going ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 that is, 1000 years ago. The Americans bombed the fck out of Japan in the 2nd world war 60 years ago. Now,they are best friends. See where i am going ? Just when were the Sinhala-Tamils 'best friends' after the Tamils annihilated the Sinhala and tried to exterminate them ? You forget, several Tamil kings were hardcore hindus and they DID discriminate helluva lot against the buddhists. And i don't care where you are going, all i want is for you to acknowledge the FACT that the Sinhala-Tamil conflict starts with the Tamils raining annihilation on the Sinhala. THAT is history in the proper chronology and i corrected you on that. Do i have acknowledgement of that or not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 It often does. Does the basis of anti-Islam in India/here not rest in happenings starting 1000 yrs ago too ? And no, i am not providing any justification whatsoever. YOU said you were putting history in the correct order, i corrected you on that and put history in the correct order. Didn't justify or condemn anything in that regard, merely corrected your chronology. Thats all. Let me clarify myself. I never said it was the Sinhalese who intiated the conflict, however early it might be. You said " The Tamils lost any sort of moral high-ground whatsoever the moment they started killing innocent Sinhalese civilians" and therefore you back the Sinahala majority on this one. For that, i said the killings were in response to the discrimination of the Tamils by the Sinhalese. That is all. Not for once did i respond to the actual root of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 Just when were the Sinhala-Tamils 'best friends' after the Tamils annihilated the Sinhala and tried to exterminate them ? You forget, several Tamil kings were hardcore hindus and they DID discriminate helluva lot against the buddhists. And i don't care where you are going, all i want is for you to acknowledge the FACT that the Sinhala-Tamil conflict starts with the Tamils raining annihilation on the Sinhala. THAT is history in the proper chronology and i corrected you on that. Do i have acknowledgement of that or not ? My argument/discussion on this starts and ends with liberation movement and why it started. And yes, if you want me to concede why the animosity started in the first place, i accept, it could have had it roots in some of the violent invasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tendulkar Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 So what do you propose they do ? Stop killing innocent people. Peaceful protest. And if the tamils still dont like it then fack of and move to another country. You no doubt support islamic terrorism as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts