I can see both side of the argument that bombing the Sri Lanken designated safe haven is both outrageous and 'necessary.' An attack in a safe haven is certainly not unusual for the given their history in places like the former Yugoslavia and Darfur.
What then is a "safe haven?" Any reasonable observer would categorize one as a place that is safe for civilians. Hamas uses safe havens for fire bases, what should the response be in this case? The Tamil Tigers used the safe havens, according to the Sri Lanken government, as places of safety to hide and launch attacks.
The Sri Lanken government has denied that they have shelled such a location despite the photographic evidence. They bombed the safe haven to attack the hiding Tamil Tigers. Those being 'safed' were also bombed in the process.
The bad guys will always take advantage of these kinds of places. They do not follow the same principles that are typically engendered in Western nations. Treaties like the Geneva Convention are not followed, torture is OK, using civilians as human shields is OK blowing up women and children is OK.
So what is the solution? You either try to protect the civilians or you don't. The Sri Lanken government seems to have made a bet both ways and then denied one half. This does not make it right but then again how do you weed out the good ones from the bad ones in such a situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome, ad-hominem attacks are not. Supporting references are encouraged. Comments are not endorsed by the author of this blog as representing his point of view.