Ongoing Coup in Sri Lanka

[HoloDoc]

Conjecture on what might have happened had events gone differently is not defending or justifying what happened. Words have meaning.

I wonder what "pedantic douchebag" means?

Moderator Action: Two points for flaming. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Here's a word for you: dog-whistling. He "conjectured" on whether or not an ethnic cleansing would have taken place if a resistance group hadn't attacked an occupying force, referring to the resistance movement as "Rohingya," their actions as "terrorist attacks," and the occupying force as "local policemen." That is excusing genocide. To deny it is either; trolling, or; excusing it yourself. Take your racist bullcrap elsewhere please.

If you can't figure out what he's saying, that's on you, not me. He didn't hurriedly backtrack and run away from the thread because he wasn't caught excusing genocide.

 

[Bootstoots]

Perhaps, if the Poles had just surrendered without a fight like the Czechs, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the Mexicans had just signed over Texas, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the Serbs hadn't tried resisting Austria-Hungary, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if Eric Garner hadn't been selling loose cigarettes, things might have gone differently for him.

Perhaps, if Jews didn't make up so many of the world's bankers pre-1933, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if nobody had tried to resist Genghis Khan, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the blacks of Tulsa pre-1921 hadn't gotten so uppity, things might have gone differently for them.

Words have meaning.

 

[caketastydelish]

What a wonderful job they’re doing in Sri Lanka. We need a regime change like that here in America.

 

[HoloDoc]

Perhaps, if the Poles had just surrendered without a fight like the Czechs, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the Mexicans had just signed over Texas, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the Serbs hadn't tried resisting Austria-Hungary, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if Eric Garner hadn't been selling loose cigarettes, things might have gone differently for him.

Perhaps, if Jews didn't make up so many of the world's bankers pre-1933, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if nobody had tried to resist Genghis Khan, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the blacks of Tulsa pre-1921 hadn't gotten so uppity, things might have gone differently for them.

Words have meaning.

It's actually worse than that. It's like saying if the Jews didn't murder German diplomats, things might have gone differently for them. 'Jews' in this case referring to; "one homosexual prostitute in Paris," 'German diplomats' being; "his former client, who lied to him about protecting his parents from the Nazis in order to have sex with him," and 'things' being; "the Holocaust."

Edit: and to be fair, the Serbs did kind f have it coming.

 

[HoloDoc]

What a wonderful job they’re doing in Sri Lanka. We need a regime change like that here in America.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. You're obviously joking, but about what exactly?

 

[HoloDoc]

Update.

'Shameful day': Sri Lanka MPs fight in parliament as power struggle deepens
Sitting abandoned after speaker rushed by MPs loyal to Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was unilaterally installed as PM by the president

Sri Lankan MPs have brawled on the floor of the country’s parliament, putting one in hospital, in the latest escalation of the political turmoil that has left the country without a prime minister or cabinet.

MP Dilum Amunugama was admitted to hospital after the fiery sitting on Thursday morning, which was abandoned after supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa, the country’s disputed prime minister, rushed at the parliament’s speaker.

The speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, was surrounded by MPs loyal to Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was controversially dismissed from the prime ministership a fortnight ago and replaced with Rajapaksa in what his supporters say was a political coup.

The men, most dressed in white cotton robes, pushed and jostled each other. Some could be seen throwing punches and one MP hurled a wastepaper basket in the speaker’s direction. Amunugama, a Rajapaksa loyalist, was cut as he tried to take the speaker’s microphone, bloodying his shirt.

The speaker, Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe all eventually left the chamber as the fighting continued.

Harsha de Silva, an MP from Wickremesinghe’s United National party, said the violence was “the most shameful day in parliament”.

The sitting commenced amid uncertainty over whether Sri Lanka has a prime minister at present.

On Wednesday, MPs had passed a no-confidence motion in Rajapaksa, who was hastily installed in office last month instead of Wickremesinghe by the country’s president, Maithripala Sirisena.

Sirisena had fallen out with Wickremesinghe, but has been unable to summon enough votes in parliament to formally oust his former coalition partner from power. Instead, he has sought to force him out by dissolving parliament and declaring an election – a move that was temporarily halted by the country’s supreme court earlier this week.

Sirisena said on Wednesday night that he refused to accept that day’s no-confidence vote, leaving a power vacuum in the Indian ocean nation.

“According to the no-confidence vote held yesterday, there is no prime minister or cabinet of ministers as of now as all those posts are invalidated by the vote,” Jayasuriya told parliament.

In a speech in parliament on Thursday morning, amid jeers and shouts of support, Rajapaksa said he had stepped into the prime ministership to rescue the country from Wickremesinghe’s poor and corrupt leadership, not out of a hunger for power.

“Even though the prime ministership and the presidency is a big deal to you, it’s not for me,” he told his opponents.

“When the president hands the country over to us in order to prevent a major catastrophe from taking place, it is our duty to accept that responsibility.

“I suggest that we take this matter before the 15 million-plus voters in the country instead of trying to resolve it among the 225 persons sitting in this house,” he said.

After the speech, the speaker attempted to hold a vote for MPs to endorse or reject the remarks, but was unable to do so after MPs loyal to Rajapaksa rushed to approach his chair, were resisted by Wickremesinghe’s supporters, and the fighting broke out.

Thousands of supporters of Wickremesinghe’s United National party rallied in Colombo’s Lipton Square on Thursday afternoon. They carried signs reading, “Abolish the executive presidency”, and “Chase away the rogue cabinet”.

A brass band played a sombre funeral march behind a crowd carrying two red coffins: one of for Rajapaksa and the other for Sirisena.

Around the same time, Rajapaksa announced he was lowering the cost of fuel by 5c per litre from midnight, both an assertion of his disputed power and a bid to rally support around his leadership.

Parliament has been adjourned until Friday afternoon.

TLDR: S has refused to accept the no-confidence vote. The Speaker, J, was about to call for another vote, when R's supporters in Parliament literally stormed the podium and physically assaulted the Speaker of Parliament! I'm really not sure how they can even pretend to be legitimate after this. Several MPs were injured during a brawl that broke out. R and W both left the chamber to try and calm things down. R is declaring that fuel prices will be lowered by 5c per litre starting at midnight, but since he's not legally PM, I'm unsure if anyone will actually follow that decree.

The fact that the coup plotters are resorting to violence is actually a good sign. If they had the military or the police on side, they wouldn't feel the need to physically assault the Speaker themselves. They have no grounds to stand on, without the numbers, the popular support, or the military and bureaucracy on side. I suspect that J will simply bar any MPs who engage in violence from the chamber, call for a series of votes that end up ratifying W as PM, and probably calling for S to resign as President. S won't, but the protests are mounting, and I don't see S and R being able to hold on with public pressure increasing.

 

[Broken_Erika]

What a wonderful job they’re doing in Sri Lanka. We need a regime change like that here in America.

#Dick Cheney 2020?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Perhaps, if the Poles had just surrendered without a fight like the Czechs, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the Mexicans had just signed over Texas, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the Serbs hadn't tried resisting Austria-Hungary, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if Eric Garner hadn't been selling loose cigarettes, things might have gone differently for him.

Perhaps, if Jews didn't make up so many of the world's bankers pre-1933, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if nobody had tried to resist Genghis Khan, things might have gone differently for them.

Perhaps, if the blacks of Tulsa pre-1921 hadn't gotten so uppity, things might have gone differently for them.

Words have meaning.

None of these are technically wrong, and some of them have pretty different contexts.

Let's take a specific example: Genghis Khan invading the Iranian/Persian region. It was not originally his intention to invade there at all. He sent a caravan and sought trade ties, and these 500+ people were executed.

What followed was an example of historical brutality only occasionally matched. It wasn't justified, and lots of people who had absolutely no stake or say in the decision were unfairly killed for it, sometimes horribly. But you know what? We really do have good reason to believe that if those 500 weren't killed, history would have progressed differently. It was an uncalled for, stupid action completely regardless of the undue retaliation.

Yes, words have meaning. Observing cause and effect is not the same thing as condoning, defending, or justifying either the cause or the effect.

Here's a word for you: dog-whistling. He "conjectured" on whether or not an ethnic cleansing would have taken place if a resistance group hadn't attacked an occupying force, referring to the resistance movement as "Rohingya," their actions as "terrorist attacks," and the occupying force as "local policemen." That is excusing genocide. To deny it is either; trolling, or; excusing it yourself. Take your racist bullcrap elsewhere please.

Ad hominem junk is not an appropriate reaction, nor are baseless searches for dog whistling.

 

[Traitorfish]

Words still have meaning, and the classic example of people using different definitions doesn't change that. There is no commonly accepted usage for "excusing" that fits what happened in this thread.

Moriarte's first intervention in this thread was to suggest that the persecution of the Rohingya was a natural consequence of paramilitary activity, reducing the practical and therefore moral agency, and as a consequence the moral culpability, of the Myanmarese regime. That's well within the conventional use of "excusing".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Moriarte's first intervention in this thread was to suggest that the persecution of the Rohingya was a natural consequence of paramilitary activity, reducing the practical and therefore moral agency, and as a consequence the moral culpability, of the Myanmarese regime. That's well within the conventional use of "excusing".

"Natural" consequence wasn't there, and I don't see any assertion of reduced agency for the people committing the act (in fact he went on to clarify that there wasn't reduced agency/responsibility) so this reasoning doesn't follow.

It's actually a similar scenario to the Genghis Khan one I described. The people responsible for those few deaths could have reasonably been held to harsh accounts. The asymmetric response against a huge number of innocent people was not only uncalled for but a downright evil act. All of that is true, but it still doesn't change the cause/effect chain. The responsibility still rests on the people who did mass murder, regardless of whether they might not have.

 

[HoloDoc]

When did it become acceptable to think up excuses for genocide? It's not like it's even just one person at this point. It makes me not want to post at all.

 

[innonimatu]

There is a difference between thinking up excuses and discussing cause and effect. Discussing that is not evil, not does it constitute excusing genocide. In fact you cannot hope to arrive to a conclusion on the issue of what "caused" a genocide without discussion, unless you assume people are born with that knowledge.

 

[HoloDoc]

There is a difference between thinking up excuses and discussing cause and effect. Discussing that is not evil, not does it constitute excusing genocide. In fact you cannot hope to arrive to a conclusion on the issue of what "caused" a genocide without discussion, unless you assume people are born with that knowledge.

This wasn't a discussion of cause and effect. It was a deliberate attempt to excuse the genocide as being the Rohingya's fault.

"Maybe if the Jews had not shot a German diplomat, things may have gone differently for them" is obviously an attempt to excuse the Holocaust, or at best the Kristallnacht, yes? So how is; "maybe if the Rohingya hadn't murdered 12 local policemen things may have gone differently for them" any different? It's not, it's an attempt to excuse a genocide, not to discuss one. A discussion of the cause and effect would have been; "the latest round of violence started when ASRS killed some police officers, and the military crackdown dramatically escalated." We could then discuss various issues around the Rohngya genocide, acts of resistance, when and if that resistance ever crossed the line, etc., although I'd prefer that be in its own thread.

 

[Moriarte]

It's not, it's an attempt to excuse a genocide, not to discuss one.

It's neither. I also didn't come to discuss whether it's genocide or not, or whether genocides can be excusable. It's a mention of an event, series of acts, which led, highly probably, to series of asymmetrical responses. It doesn't follow that discussing things that actually happened equals excusing genocide. That would mean the absence of logic. Don't worry, your picture of genocide isn't shattered by these preceding events, they merely add some context.

 

[Moriarte]

Moriarte's first intervention in this thread was to suggest that the persecution of the Rohingya was a natural consequence of paramilitary activity, reducing the practical and therefore moral agency, and as a consequence the moral culpability, of the Myanmarese regime. That's well within the conventional use of "excusing".

Why would anyone come to a conclusion that murders of policemen absolves Myanmar from responsibility for further atrocities is beyond me. It's not there to excuse, but to explain, a one step behind toward the origin of the problem.

 

[HoloDoc]

Go back to Stormfront and try again. Not biting.

Oddly enough, the Burmese just started rounding up Rohingya again today.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't worry, your picture of genocide isn't shattered by these preceding events, they merely add some context.

So, you are in denial that a genocide is even occurring? This sure "added context" alright...

 

[HoloDoc]

Back on topic, while the denier makes his way back to Stormfront...

Source.

Sri Lanka MPs hurl 'chilli powder' and chairs in fresh chaos
Legislators allied to disputed PM Rajapaksa fight with rivals in second day of clashes

Sri Lanka’s parliament has been disrupted for a second day, with legislators allied to the disputed prime minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, hurling chairs at police officers and allegedly throwing chilli powder at opposing MPs.

It was the latest violent incident in the crisis that erupted three weeks ago, when the president, Maithripala Sirisena, suddenly announced he had sacked the prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and installed Rajapaksa in his place.

Despite the violence, the pro-Rajapaksa MPs failed to prevent the assembly from passing a no-confidence motion in his leadership, dismissing his government for the second time this week.

Unlike the previous vote, however, Friday’s motion omitted any reference to misconduct on the part of Sirisena. The change indicates the president could recognise the motion this time and agree to terminate Rajapaksa’s leadership.

Rajapaksa’s forces have already said they will reject Friday’s vote. “We say Mahinda Rajapaksa heads the government,” said Dinesh Gunawardena, a Rajapaksa ally. “We shall agitate for elections. The country is in anarchy. The parliament is in anarchy.”

Security was heavy in parliament on Friday after the previous day’s session had to be abandoned when MPs scuffled inside the chamber, requiring one to be hospitalised. One MP, Palitha Thewarapperuma of the United National party, was seen wielding a knife in Thursday’s fray.

Before the session could start, MPs allied to Rajapaksa surrounded the Speaker’s ceremonial chair, shouting protests at the use of knives in Thursday’s brawl.

More than two dozen police officers entered the chamber with their arms linked, trying to escort the Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, inside along with parliamentary officials in white coats carrying a ceremonial mace.

Advised not to enter the chamber by his security staff, Jayasuriya, 78, responded: “I will enter the chamber for the future generations of Sri Lanka”, a witness to the scene told the Guardian.

As Rajapaksa watched from his chair, his MPs attacked the officers with chairs and books, injuring up to 11. Other legislators tipped the Speaker’s ceremonial chair to the floor and dragged it across the ground.

Taking refuge on a side bench and surrounded by officers, Jayasuriya called for a voice vote on the no-confidence motion in Rajapaksa. A roar erupted across the chamber and the Speaker declared the vote carried by a majority.

Jayasuriya must now formally communicate the result to Sirisena, which he is expected to do later on Friday.

Sri Lanka MPs fight in parliament as political turmoil continues – video
Outside the chamber, MPs Gamini Jayawickrama Perera and Vijitha Herath could be seen rubbing their eyes, with splotches of chilli splattered across their robes.

“They have behaved as beasts, not as human beings,” Herath told reporters outside the chamber.

He wore a large bandage across his forehead, saying he was injured when an opposing lawmaker lobbed a copy of the Sri Lankan constitution at his head.

If recognised by Sirisena, who ultimately commands the country’s armed forces and police, Friday’s no-confidence motion would leave the country without a prime minister.

According to the constitution, Sirisena will need to name a prime minister who he believes can command a majority of parliament’s vote. Wickremesinghe would have the numbers, but the acrimony between he and Sirisena – one of the key factors in sparking the crisis – makes it doubtful he would be chosen.

Also uncertain is how Rajapaksa and his supporters will respond to the result. He tweeted after the vote: “The Speaker’s ad-hoc decisions are the main reason for today’s situation in parliament. The need is to go for a election and lead the way to a stable parliament.”

Wickremesinghe told a press conference on Friday evening it was “a black chapter in our history”.

“I’ve been there when a bomb was thrown … but this is the deliberate breaking up of parliament by a group of people claiming to be the government,” he said.

“Today Sri Lankans have again seen deplorable behaviour by some MPs, unbecoming of them and of their noble institution,” the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, James Dauris, wrote on Twitter. “No parliament can perform its role when its own members stop it from doing so.”

TLDR: R and his supporters resorted to violent attacks on J again today, but extra security kept the thugs at bay. A new motion of no-confidence against R was passed, but unlike the one earlier in the week, this makes no mention of S. This lack of censure means S may be willing to accept it; legally he should have accepted the previous one, but since it denounced him, he wouldn't do so.

If S accepts the no-confidence vote, Sri Lanka will officially be without a Govt, as opposed to the current case, where it officially has one but effectively does not. S then needs to name a new Govt that can command a majority. Obviously, W commands a majority, but S is unlikely to name him PM. My gut tells me that J will step down as Speaker and take the PM role himself, as he's the most senior political figure that is likely to be acceptable to S, but there could be a compromise candidate in the wings.

And the British are now effectively throwing their weight behind W and J; their High Commissioner is making comments on Twitter that don't take a lot of reading between the lines to interpret as anti-R.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would anyone come to a conclusion that murders of policemen absolves Myanmar from responsibility for further atrocities is beyond me.

Perhaps, if Rohingya didn’t carry out terrorist attacks and not kill 12 local policemen things might have went differently for them.

yes, why.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When did it become acceptable to think up excuses for genocide? It's not like it's even just one person at this point. It makes me not want to post at all.

In response to the discussion up to this point quoted is disingenuous.

This wasn't a discussion of cause and effect. It was a deliberate attempt to excuse the genocide as being the Rohingya's fault.

And this quote is straight up intellectually dishonest. Shoving words into posters' mouths is not useful for discussion, which is the alleged purpose of threads.

So, you are in denial that a genocide is even occurring? This sure "added context" alright...

Same with this. This thread has seen people routinely attribute to a poster something that poster did not actually say in any of his posts.

yes, why.

Even side by side, there is no viable rationale that gets you from "x happened because of y" to "x is absolved due to y". The only posters making that connection are the ones who want it to be there.

In reality, it isn't.