Talk:Captain Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus This article is currently subject to Final resolution, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Category

Why is this an Indian Biographical page when it's about a Tamil Sri Lankan?

[edit] Use of picture

Have reverted removal of picture, do not see any problem in using it. Ulflarsen 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources

There’s only four references in this article and unfortunately two of them are can count as unreliable. I'm not going to remove those sections But, I will tagged them with the {{fact}} tag. So if some one can find any reliable sources, please cite them in the article. Thank you!!!  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  (Ŧ) 17:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link From BBC

I have got news links from BBC,Newsday is a USA based paper and from Asia times none of them is Tamil paper or anyway connected with Sri Lanka.Please correct if i am wrong. Harlowraman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlowraman (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Recent Edits

To go through recent edits, firstly, the picture is captioned correctly, or at least according to the LTTE official site so I removed some text, I however moved it to a link at the bottom of the page for those who wish to see the photos of Captain Miller.

Secondly, I added several setences to add to the significance of the article, mentioning that it was the first attack by the Black Tigers, asymetric warefare, etc.

Thirdly and most controversial, I removed the Terrorist Catergory. As described in the article, Miller attacked a military encampment with a truck ladened with explosives, he did not, however, attack a civilian target specifically, with the goal to create fear or terror.

--Sharz 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "The unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."[1]. Hence I'm gonna restore the cat. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The U.S State Department states to "coerce or intimidate", however, when you blow up a military establishment, it's an act of war, there was no attached demands to "coerse or intimidate" in this one single attack, it was an attack aimed to further the LTTE's military goals. If the U.S Army drops a bomb on a group of Muhajadeen fights in Afghanistan, they are not "coercing or intimidating" them, they are killing them and cause property damage for further their military objectives, as such, your definition is not applicable. --Sharz 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Read this article first, Khobar Towers bombing (Dhahran bombing).
For your easiness here is the comparison of the place and causalities with the Nelliady School bombing.
A Housing complex - A School
Fuel truck - Explosive laden mini van
Eight-story building housed United States Air Force personnel from the 4404th Wing - Suicide terrorist drove the mini van through the main gate of the school and blew up his van while the students follow-on their studies in the other side of the school.
When looking at this comparison anyone can understand which terror attack was the worst one. I will restore the category and if you still wish to whitewash this blood spilled LTTE's attack, please come though with this list. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 13:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison is invalid, this is because the attack upon the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia targetted a predominantly civilian base of a non-military function, whereas, the Tamil Tigers blew up a military camp. Should every time the Sri Lankan Airforce fires a bullet or bombs a Tamil Tiger base, we record it as a terrorist attack? --Sharz 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I told you once that in Khobar Tower, it is the 4404th fighter wing that has been deployed. Can't you even understand something as simple as that? Please do not say lame things. Or is it that you have some hidden propaganda that you always try to white wash the suicide bombing that the LTTE has done?
You have no right to speak of what SLAF does as terrorist attacks as a responsible government has a right to protect law, peace and its sovereignty. Do you think what LTTE doing is protecting those mentioned above of our country??? Now how many excuses do you have? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 11:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If you read my said reply, "because the attack upon the Khobar Towers....targetting a predominantly civilian base". Essentially, the Khobar Towers were civilian buildings being used by the U.S Military to house personal, essentially like attacking a serviceman's house, whereas the attack by Captain Miller was upon a MILITARY INSTALLATION. And in return to your accusations, I have every right in the world to spreak about whatever the hell feel like, do you know why? because I live in a country that values and tenenants of democracy and free society...unlike certain other nations. Oh, and the LTTE don't do a very good job protecting civil rights and whatnot, but when I look at the stats of how many people are killed or "disappeared" by the GoSL and how many by the Tigers, the Tigers are certainly the lesser of two evils. --Sharz 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Forwarded to Biography to decide Captain Miller could be called as a terrorist.SAR23 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

US Defense/State Departments are not the international judicial arms to listen their views and rules. Tamils have the right to question the SLAF bombing. Mostly Sinhala or foreign pilots bombing in the Tamil areas. Sri Lankan government is not a responsible government and it has violated over the decades Tamil rights under the name protecting an ilusive/unaccepatable law, and sovereignty. SAR23 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Targetting a Military base which violated Tamil minority rights with the Sinhala majority dominated "Sri Lankan Government" is not "Terrorism" but "Self-Defense".SAR23 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BiographiesSAR23 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

He became suicide bomber for the self-defense of his communitySAR23 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Which community? black tigers? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe he may be refering to the Tamil communities of the North and East of Sri Lanka. --Sharz 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Discussion on Terrorist Tagging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_ReconciliationSAR23 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective

SAR23 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE!

Read the dictionary definition for a terrorist then USE common sense.. If he is not a terrorist then none of the AL-Qaeda members are terrorists.. Even though I respect it a lot, SLR do not have the sole authority over issues related to Sri Lanka..thanksIwazaki 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What Sharz referred to is not something SLR invented. The criteria of Category:Terrorists have been defined long before SLR even existed (in 2005) and by a consensus of a number of people who were uninvolved in the Sri Lanka conflict.
Sharz' reference only means: In the discussion WT:SLR#Captain Miller, nobody has shown any reason why the criteria that work for all of Wikipedia should not work for Sri Lanka related articles. If you feel you have a good reason, please feel free to write it here or on WT:SLR. As long as we have no reason to differ from the rest of Wikipedia, we have to go with the criteria laid down on Category:Terrorists. — Sebastian 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

actually I did read the criteria before tagging him..I think this person belongs to the following two categories and hence can be tagged as a terrorist.

  • Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence
  • Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).
  • Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes(In Sri Lanka we dont have state terrorism).

what do you think ?--Iwazaki 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Targeting civilians? — Sebastian 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Targeting civilians is certainly a war crime and a act of terrorism..But if these civilians are in fact terrorist or their henchmen, such as members of Al-Qaeda and the LTTE, respective governments have every right to target those civilians,just my thought.Iwazaki 11:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Two issues I would like to raise. Firstly, How can something be unlawful if you do not regonise the laws of a country or state or, a country or state no longer excecuates authority in the area in which you are operating? To be specific to this article, how can the laws of Sri Lanka be applied to an organisation that claims to be adhere to their own nation? Should International Laws apply?
Secondly, who determines the differance between civillians and terrorists and their so-called henchmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer is there but blind LTTE supporters cant see it..There is only one law in Sri Lanka.I dont know whether they have hundreds of laws in sydney(AUS), BUT in Sri Lankan there is only one law, and people are bound to obey it..And for your second questions, answer is humans..Humans who love humanity have the right to decide who are the terrorist or not..If LTTE are not terrorists, there are no terrorists in the world !! actually I would prefer a better, or worse, name than terrorist for prabha and gang, as the tag terrorist is kinda too good for them..If you find any, p;-)lease let me know, we can also add it.. Iwazaki 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my question "What about Targeting civilians?" wasn't clear. Since the discussion in the NOTE section took a different turn, let me write a new section. — Sebastian 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My Questions were simply. Is terrorist defined by so-called national law, or by international law. Very simply question, no? --Sharz 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC) --Sharz 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
again answer was there to be seen for everyone!! The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries..So, we can simply state that, those who work for this terrorist organization are terrorists.And if you really want to know about the existing laws defining terrorists, please visit to UN or US state governments web sites.thanksIwazaki 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So say you live in a country with more backwards laws and regulations like Sri Lanka, where human rights can be abused with relative ease, they're definition of terrorism etc should be disregarded for the U.N and or U.S one?--Sharz 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn’t mean anything of the statement The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries when you read the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Criticisms_of_the_term
If you go through the UN definition below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#United_Nations
You will understand the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism
Terrorism definicions
If you go through the US definition below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#United_States
What Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania said, will give you a different picture of Terrorism. ".......U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says - one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." [....] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder." SAR23 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, "terrorist" is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, I don't think we can act as if we were an international tribunal here. It is not up to us to determine if people are terrorists. We are writing an encyclopedia, and all we need to agree on is if we include this article in a category. This is a simple practical issue, for which Wikipedia has its own criteria: Category:Terrorists. Please, let's not blow this out of proportion. If you feel I'm overlooking an important reason to take this more seriously, please explain on WT:SLR#What is the point of Category:Terrorists? — Sebastian 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Captain Miller fulfill the criterion "targeting civilians"?

The criteria of Category:Terrorists include the following:

  • targeting civilians

Does this apply to Captain Miller? — Sebastian 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

he killed 40 soldiers in non combat situation..PLUS , the organization he was in, had killed several hundreds civilians by then..We all know that there is no proof that Bin Laden nor his top leaders personally involved in killings, but they are still terrorists.--Iwazaki 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Majority of the Tamils and the LTTE consider Sri Lankan Army(99.9% Sinhala dominated) as the occupied force in the Tamil traditional area. At the time he attacked they were in defensive position in an area surrounded by LTTE. So non combat situation is not valid. SAR23 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

There is alot of dead convo with extremely confusing formatting on this talk page. I will archive it within 36 hours if no objections are raised.--Sharz 06:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)