Talk:Battle of Aanandapuram

War Crime

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)