Did the British Government play a role in the mass carnage in Sri Lanka?

[Sandraa]

The sale of arms worth over 22 million dollars by the British government to Sri Lanka in the ended war is public now. A statewment from the British Foreign office states "We do not grant export licenses where there is a clear risk that arms will be used for external aggression or internal repression'.


Was Mr. Milliband's visit to sri Lanka a genuine effort to broker a ceasefire at the time of heightened war when Sri Lankan military were using heavy weaponry ?

[R1Geezer]

No, weapons are tools, the users of tools are responsible for their usage. Do you blame Gillette when you cut yourself shaving? Do you blame B&Q when you hit your thumb with a hammer? Think it through!

[jake-the-peg]

I think you need to think it through Geezer.

Would you have sold Nerve gas to the Nazis with the excuse that it's just a tool?

Your argument is a simple extention of the rather feeble "Guns don't kill people - people kill people"

Whereas we all know that actually people with guns kill people.

Having said that there is a little issue about Margaret Thatchers Government selling Hawk fighters to Indonesia who used them to bomb the East Timor population

This is not a new issue

The government taking it seriously is what is new

[rov1200]

No! The Tamil Tigers were terrorists and no British government should ever support them.

[J�tte]

The Tamil Tigers are freedom fighters. The UK as a democratic government should be supporting them.

[Lonnie]

The Tamil Tigers were Terrorists.

The Tamil Tigers are Freedom Fighters.

Which one of the above is correct, and if you don't mind, why?.