Talk:Saddam Hussein Nagar, Sri Lanka

Neutrality

I don't think this article is neutral. I'm not a regular wikipedian or anything so I didn't want to nominate it for neutrality dispute before talking over it with others. First there is no source or citing or anything for the statement: Saddam Hussein was extremely popular in Sri Lanka. This was not only because of the aid received but also because of the role played by Iraq in the pre-1990 period in keeping tea prices high—Iraq was the largest purchaser of Sri Lankan tea. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Hussein has been elevated to the status of a hero in Sri Lanka, particularly after his capture. The note is for the sentences after and those events have passed and they have not done anything so it should be updated with up-to-date information.

That sentence with no citation is obviously biased. The author, whoever wrote it, doesn't understand that muslims are a very very small (7%) minority in SriLanka and just because a small village likes Hussein doesn't mean all of Sri Lanka likes him. I am not an economist so I don't know if the statements after are true about raising prices but obviously the war has caused the prices to decline serverely. http://www.himalmag.com/2003/june/commentary_sl_2.htm supports that, but it's a commentary of course so the sources will be need to verified. Iraq was the fourth largest buyer so I don't think Sri Lankan's are going to be happy with that and much more feel that he's a hero.

Maybe someone can verify these statements and check it over. Thanks a lot.

I should think that the statements made in the article are pretty close to the truth. Saddam Hussein was generally popular among all ethnic groups and social classes in Sri Lanka, except for a very thin stratum which mixes socially with Western diplomats. Iraq was for a long time a friend of Sri Lanka.

His 'judicial' murder at the hands of the US is not met with any happiness this country.