Now I am happy the LTTE got defeated.
But this was part of China’s Great Game against India ands and shows the west is impotent.

This lesson that China is more to be feared and appreciated will be noticed in the East.

This will have other geopolitical consequences.

Ned

If you look in the lower RH corner of the latest version of Googleearth it gives the date of the image.

Ned

The LTTE was able to maintain their power with Canadian and other support.

Very strange world we live in.

Somehow I think we will pay for it.

Derek

http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/17668

and it’s right that the Chineses are building a hudge harbour there, kind of a base for patrolling the Indian ocean

Yes, this is precisely the point that Rene Girard makes (e.g. in his books ‘Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World,’ ‘I See Satan Fall Like Lightning,” etc.)

Christianity has been unique in establishing concern for genuine victims (e.g. widows, orphans) as a central teaching, overcoming human (anthropologically-determined) establishment of civilizations on victimization and violence. But once ‘victims’ learn how to game the system, using Christian values against the religion, the integrity of the Christian vision weakens. Political correctness understands the Christian imperative (concern for victims) and Alinsky-like holds (confused) Christians hostage to their Christian ideals.

The UN thinks the way to ensure world peace is to make wars more “civilized”. They created a crazy doctrine called “proportional response” and always look for “cease fires” which inevitably lead to additional future warfare. Of course, the bad actors of the world are guarenteed that they will never pay the ultimate price for their evil if they merely appeal to the UN and say “I’m sorry”. And if they win, the UN let’s them keep the spoils!

What’s weird is how different the West has been since WWI. I think it’s not due to the death tolls, heck a third of German speakers perished in the Thirty Years War, Westerners have always been willing to slaughter each other and/or peoples living elsewhere, rather it’s whose ox gets gored.

Fighting, particularly in WWI, drew power away from the Intelligentsia, the organizers, the elite, the beautiful people, the various aristocracies (old and new), and so represented a threat.

If you look at what the elites in the West have done, it’s to ally with strategic partners domestically and abroad to fight politically their main power rivals, the ordinary (White) guy. Tommy or GI Joe or Sergeant Rock, same difference.

OF COURSE the Elites must have a low-level war going on forever, to win it decisively would be proof that conflicts can be won, and thus cause a massive mobilization inevitably that would diminish, permanently, their power.

Look at who wielded power BEFORE WWI: artists, writers, newspaper people, the intelligentsia, the suffragettes, and so on. All of whom experienced a catastrophic loss of power during 1914-18 when the entire world was focused on war mobilization. They said, “never again” and thus the Western Pacifism was born. Not out horror due to the losses in the trenches (when has killing EVER upset the West, really?) But their own loss of political, social, and economic power.