Talk:2009 suicide air raid on Colombo

Disagree

The 2 pages should not be merged, because although it deserves a section on the sky tigers page, it also an accurate description of a very distinct attack committed by them. plus, if it was merged, it would have been made smaller and less detail would have been avalible on the attacks, even though there is a goldmine of information on the event.Acaeton (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or does that sound fucking awesome? Imagine walking into heaven and going "I died in a suicide air raid!" the angels will probably give you a pint of nectar on the house :D --218.215.62.210 (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No it sounds fucking stupid. Niflheim awaits cowardly warriors too fearful to face battle head against those who can fight back. 24.46.230.120 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

9/11 passage

I find it very strange to equate this attack with 9/11. True, they both used planes. But

1. Al Qaida used very big planes, LTTE very small planes
2. Al Qaida kidnapped planes, LTTE used their very own planes
3. Al Qaida wanted to damage a symbol of the USA, the plans of the LTTE are unclear, but the Colombo WTC was probably not their goal
4. Al Qaida met their target, LTTE did not

To sum up, the similarities are very slim. The similarities to Japanese kamikaze bombers are much greater. I know that there is one source [1] with the title "Air Tigers were on '9/11' mission", but that title is a bit strange, since in the body of the text, no reference is made to 9/11 or Al Qaida or anything of the sort. It appears that the journalist does not really claim that the Tigers were on a 9/11 mission.Jasy jatere (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when writing Wikipedia articles, the opinions of individual editors don't count. That means your comparisons above, and your questioning the intentions of the journalists have no bearing.

FTA, Air Tigers were on '9/11' mission. It doesn't get clearer than that. Also, you might want to read the PTI article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing to realise is that the planes were packed with 200kg's of high explosives, just imagine the scale of devastation that would have been crashed into their targets which were the air force base, and the army headquarters. So equating this attacks with the 9/11 attacks are reasonable.Kerr avon (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jasy Jatere, there is no valid or necessary comparison between the two. These attacks are much more related to the attacks of Japanese Kamakazi fighters in WWII.

Read the citations, and WP:VERIFY for related Wikipedia policy. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've the citations and i've read WP:verity, I suggest you do the same. "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Further, your text makes a definitive statement when one article only questions the "9/11 relation" and niether source says the LTTE intended a 9/11 like thing, read WP:fringe theories, which have no place on wikipedia. Also learn how wikipedia works, your basic use of english is flawed. there are websites where you can learn the importance of definitive statements and a host of better professional writing and quoting skills, which you seem to lack extensively. Stop claiming vandalism, remember i'm not the only one who has questioned your motives. Please reply here to solve this dispute instead of causing reverting wars. -User_Talk:Marinecore88 —Preceding undated comment was added on 02:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

No personal attacks were made, i was replying to yours/Keer avons claims that I am vandalising. I've also given you some constructive criticism to help you make your articles more valid. Again please use the talk page.User_Talk:Marinecore88

Merger_proposal

This article seems blatantly one-sided and certainly does not warrant its own page. Recommend merging with another page, if not adequately covered on the other page. 213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not one sided at all, it correctly cites from reliable sources about one of the most significant events in the history of the Sri Lankan Civil war. If the terrorists planes packed with 200kg's of C4 each were able to carry out their mission then the sri lankan airforce would have been annhilated, and the main army headquarters destroyed. Also this is the first time that the terrorists planes were shot down. So this article indeed warrants a seperate article for itself.Kerr avon (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. What sections are disputed, what parts are one sided etc. Also, if there are aspects that are not covered, feel free to do so. Until then, I'm removing the tags.

Given that this attack got significant media coverage (and was notable enough to appear on the main page), there really isn't a need to merge it with Air Tigers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your user page shows quite clearly that you would have a definite bias here. I have not seen a shred of evidence of any explosives from any reliable source. 213.48.46.141 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My userpage is of no concern to this article. Everything related to the attack is cited using reliable sources. You can click the small numbers next to any sentence to read the citaitions. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some reliable sources for the presence of explosives on the planes? The Sri Lankan military does not seem to be an impartial reliable source for this information. That does seem like a large amount of explosive for such a small plane. Don't you think they would have found better uses for it than sending it on a plane where there is no guarantee it will reach its target? All seems very suspect to me. So, can you please point us in the direction of any reliable sources for verifiable evidence of explosives? 213.48.46.141 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the captured c4 explosives found in the plane which was shot down [2]. Here are some links which describe the explosives that the planes contained [3][4], Also the devestation they caused to the Inland revenue building was due to the explosives exploding as just a plane crashing cant cause that much damage. It will be difcult to find a source regarding the explosives which does not directly or indirectly quote the army as it was the army that discovered them. Please remember that the plane is a 4 seater, and it was carrying only one suicide cadre that leaves 70kg(average weight of a man) * 3 = 210 kg of weight that the plane can lift. So its indeed possible to pack 200kg of high explosive per plane.Kerr avon (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)