Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Aanandapuram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War Crime

[edit]

All battles in between 2008-2009 are involved with War Crime. Read the lead para of the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.

1. There are Rumors the Sri Lankan military used chemical weapons.

2. If the following is true why they might have not used in the Battles with LTTE20th April 2009 , Eye Witness Account - Sri Lanka Army use Chemical weapons, Cluster ammunitions and Phosphorous bombs, took more than 1000 Tamils as Hostages

Sri Lankan Army attack targeting civilian areas using cluster bombs, gas bombs and heavy weapons was planned to inflict more damages to people and force evict them in to army controlled areas, said an Eye Witness to WWW. On Monday's indiscriminate attack on civilian areas more than 1500 feared dead and 3500 or more injured, including hundreds of children.

- 1500 died and more than 3500 severely injured - Sri Lankan Army Used Chemical weapons - Sri Lankan Army Used Cluster ammunitions - Sri Lankan Army Used Phosphorous bombs Bodies are scattered all over and Urgent Need of blood, no one is able to donate due to malnutrition said the Eye Witness.

The Sri Lanka Army that took hostages of around 1000 people who left for government controlled areas on the previous night and using them as human shields moved in to safe zone in the cover of the darkness by around 2:00 AM on Monday. The shelling was intensified by then and they were firing cluster bombs, gas bombs and phosphorous bombs inside civilian areas.

Sudar123 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still there's no mention about the Battle of Aanandapuram. Plus I found this phrase intriguing: There have been rumors going around that the Sri Lankan military used chemical weapons yesterday in its battle against the LTTE. We do not have proof one way or the other.. I do not oppose adding war crimes allegations on articles where the allegation was made by a reputed Human Rights organization. But this source is simply unacceptable and also concedes that they are merely rumours. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it starts with "Alleged". You don't need exactly it should point to Battle of Aanandapuram, but any battle in between 2008 - 2009 is eligible.Sudar123 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the citation you've given, specofically states that the news item is based on rumours. What's the point of an encyclopedia article if it is based on rumours as in this case? Not all battles of the war has come under war crimes allegations. Thus your claim "any battle in between 2008 - 2009 is eligible" is fundamentally wrong. Astronomyinertia (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only the First source says it is a rumour and not in the second source.If Wikipedia article can be expanded POV sources, I don't think on a limited level why we can't give a chance for rumours. That is your POV, "Not all battles of the war has come under war crimes allegations" in 2008 - 2009.Sudar123 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second source is not even related to the Battle of Aanandapuram. It mentions an attack on 20th April 2009, two weeks after the battle. Your claim I don't think on a limited level why we can't give a chance for rumours shows the bankruptcy of your argument. Rumours have no place in an encyclopedia. Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the Governments do a "War Without Witness" until those Governments tried by International Mechanism on War Crime, those Rumours also should be taken into consideration. If reference source is about the attack two weeks later, why they might have not used two weeks earlier those banned weapons. That is why I am telling the whole War in between 2008 - 2009 involve on War Crime.Sudar123 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your opinion does not comply with Wikipedia's core policies. According to Wiki policies, souces which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Battle of Aanandapuram is not an article about the source you provided. Thus it cannot be used to substantiate your claim. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How it comes then the "Lies Agreed Upon" non other than a personal opinion from a Ministry which waged a War and once it was criticized on War Crime, it is coming out with own documentary to defend it without allowing international investigation on War Crime Charges and then you guys are coming out with fully fledged article on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following statement is mention on Anatomy of the LTTE military debacle at Aanandapuram by DBS Jeyaraj;
The state of the bodies shown in the pictures were in abysmal condition. This led to much suspicion. Allegations have been made by pro-tiger elements in the Diaspora that incendiary bombs and chemical weapons including poison gas were used to overcome the LTTE.
Sudar123 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cited an article about the source itself. Therefore it doesn't matter whether verified by a 3rd party or not. But here you are using a rumor as source for an article about something else. Then you need RS to prove your point. Even the DBSJ article states that Allegations have been made by pro-tiger elements in the Diaspora.. Thus the rumor is obviously not RS. Astronomyinertia (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I have added a section called 'Alambil Landing'. This was done by LTTE to bring back their soldiers who were trapped inside the Aananthapuram but successfully repelled by SLA. All the sources for this info are in Tamil, but nothing is in English. How should I give reference to this?. This really happened in Aananthapuram. Also, it was there that Ltte commander Col. Veeraththeevan killed. Another proof is that his body was taken from the shore. பெரும்பாண்டியன்2(talk) 8:14, 1-14-2010 (EST)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Aanandapuram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Aanandapuram&oldid=1205817907"