{"id":155930,"date":"2026-04-27T16:32:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T23:32:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=155930"},"modified":"2026-04-27T16:32:01","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T23:32:01","slug":"addressing-the-zaharan-did-it-but-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2026\/04\/27\/addressing-the-zaharan-did-it-but-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"Addressing the \u201cZaharan did it \u201cBUT\u201d claim\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shenali D Waduge<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

We are in agreement on one point: on 21 April 2019 Zaharan and a team of suicide bombers targeted 3 hotels and 3 churches causing 269 fatalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART 1 \u2014 ESTABLISHED FACT<\/strong>
Zahran carried out the attacks<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PART 2 \u2014 THE BUT\u201d CLAIM<\/strong>
Zahran acted with the support of military intelligence<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This second claim is not a minor extension of the facts\u2014it is a serious allegation of state complicity in mass-casualty terrorism for political change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under basic principles of criminal law and evidence, such an allegation requires strict proof, not speculation.
The standard applicable is not conjecture or suspicion, but proof based on credible, admissible, and independently corroborated evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is this second claim that now seeks to redefine the entire incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In doing so, serious implications are being made against national security institutions and individuals who have served the country\u2014often without demonstrable evidence, and through widely circulated social media claims only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unverified allegations of this magnitude, if normalised without proof, risk creating a broader institutional consequence\u2014where those tasked with national security functions may face personal and legal exposure based on assertion rather than evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This has implications not only for individuals, but for the future operational confidence of national security institutions<\/strong> and likely to impact the security & safety of the nation itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is crucial for readers to understand this distinction at the very outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us start with what we already know:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. THE FIRST CLUE<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    As early as 2016<\/strong>, there were warnings in Parliament that Sri Lankan individuals had already joined ISIS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This established that Islamist radicalisation and recruitment networks were already present in Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    They followed the exact same pathway as Zaharan (which intel had internally reported):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Radicalisation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Ideological indoctrination<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Recruitment networks<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Commitment to martyrdom<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      By 2016, the public was aware that 38 individuals from Sri Lanka had left to join ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      THE QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      For those 38 individuals:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • Was military intelligence controlling them?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Was there a hidden command structure behind them?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Were they tools\u201d of a political operation?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        No such claim was made\u2014even after deaths were reported overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Why was no such claim made?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        WHY THE DIFFERENCE NOW?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        This question must be asked\u2014and answered\u2014before any new theory is accepted.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        This selective introduction of an external orchestration\u201d theory only in one instance, despite identical behavioural and operational patterns, raises a question of evidentiary inconsistency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In law, similar fact patterns must be assessed by consistent standards\u2014not selectively reinterpreted to fit a later narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Zahran followed the same trajectory:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        • Radicalised ideology<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Recruited followers (including family)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Conducted training camps<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Prepared explosives<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Declared violent intent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          SO WHAT HAS CHANGED?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          If:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Radicalisation explains the 38 who left for ISIS
          AND<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Radicalisation also explains Zahran\u2019s network & subsequent actions \u2013 why has the narration on Zaharan shifted to a political agenda from religious radicalization?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          If external orchestration\u201d is being introduced only in Zaharan\u2019s case, it must be supported by independent, superior, and verifiable proof\u2014not assertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. THE BURDEN OF PROOF<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            Any allegation of military or intelligence involvement constitutes a grave imputational claim<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Therefore, the burden lies entirely on the party making the allegation to establish, through:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            • A provable command-and-control structure<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Authenticated communication records (not anecdotal references)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • A traceable and forensically verifiable financial\/logistical chain<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Independent corroboration across multiple credible sources<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

              It therefore cannot form the basis for legal liability, institutional attribution, or public accusation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The existence of 38 Sri Lankans who radicalised, mobilised, and pursued martyrdom before 2019<\/strong> is not incidental\u2014it is a precedent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              It demonstrates that: Radicalisation alone is sufficient to produce such outcomes.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Without a complete evidentiary chain proving otherwise,
              the BUT\u201d is not an explanation\u2014
              At best, such claims remain unsubstantiated hypotheses.
              At worst, they amount to defamation by insinuation, particularly when directed at identifiable individuals and institutions without proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The unavoidable question then is\u2014why is there an attempt to impose a contradiction to an already established pattern?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              What are their motives for changing the story line and why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. THE SUPPORT\u201d CLAIM<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                Anyone making support\u201d claims cannot disrepute a critical security institution or members of it by making wild allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Names cannot be introduced, insinuations made, or conclusions drawn in the absence of proof and evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  \n
                1. Financial Support<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                    \n
                  • In evidentiary terms, financial support must be established through a\u00a0documented and auditable trail.
                    Unsupported references to funding\u201d without such traceability are\u00a0legally inadmissible assertions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  • Where is the\u00a0money trail?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                    Bank records? Transfers? Intermediaries?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    Absence of traceable evidence means the claim remains unproven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    In 2021 October claims were made about receipts being available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    Where are these receipts? Have they been submitted & independently verified?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    Gold and cash were found in Sainamaruthu \u2013 were the origins of these traced?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    The Ibrahim brothers made donations to Zaharan \u2013 for what purpose?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      \n
                    1. Operational Direction<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                      Where is the communication evidence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        \n
                      • Calls, messages, instructions?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                      • There has to be a chain of calls over years for such a suicidal task. Isolated or limited communication is insufficient to establish operational direction\u2014particularly in a coordinated mass-casualty attack.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                      • For operational control to be established, evidence must demonstrate\u00a0effective direction and decision-making authority\u2014not mere contact, acquaintance, or alleged interaction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                        No command chain = no control<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        a. Target Selection<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        An isolated or unverified claim of showing a target\u201d does not meet the legal test of material contribution to the offence, unless supported by corroborated evidence establishing intent, planning, and execution linkage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        Without such linkage, the claim fails the test of causation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        Where is CCTV \/ location data \/ witnesses?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        Why only 1 target \u2013 who showed the remaining 5 targets?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        If military intelligence was behind the entire operation, why would only one target be shown?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                        b. Logistics \/ Material Support<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          \n
                        • Weapons? Explosives? Training?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • Already shown to be internally developed<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • The Presidential Commission & FBI affidavit give extensive details of how Zaharan\u2019s team obtained urea and learnt from online how to make IEDs. If military intelligence supported them why would they need to go through all this trouble? This contradiction remains unexplained.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                            \n
                          1. EVIDENCE VS INFERENCE\u201d<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                            Courts draw a strict distinction between evidence and inference:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                              \n
                            • Evidence = verifiable, testable, corroborated material
                              \u2022 Inference = interpretation drawn from incomplete facts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                              A conclusion as serious as state complicity cannot be sustained on inference alone.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                              So we must ask: Are these claims based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                              Verified evidence?
                              OR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                              Interpretation of gaps?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                              Every person making such claims must provide the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                              Since 2019 we have only heard stories but no evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                \n
                              1. REFRAMING THE ENTIRE ISSUE<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                Serious allegations of what is being made across social media platforms on a regular basis require a complete evidentiary chain:
                                motive \u2192 communication \u2192 funding \u2192 execution linkage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                Such a chain is missing \u2013 those making claims cannot replace evidentiary data with sensational stories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                  \n
                                1. WHERE IS THE SUPPORT MECHANISM<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                  If Zaharan carried out the attacks with support of the military intelligence \u2013 where is the support, what support was given, and how was it given?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                    \n
                                  • Where is the evidence of that support?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                  • Money trail?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                  • Communication records?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                  • Operational orders?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                  • Independent corroboration?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                    None of the above have been presented \u2013 however there is sufficient proof for<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                    Intent, radicalisation, recruitment, and training already documented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                    Without proof of control, funding, or direction\u2014
                                    support\u201d remains a claim, not an established fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                      \n
                                    1. Zaharan Did it \u2013 Facts Exist<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                      Zaharan was supported by Military Intelligence \u2013 No Evidence<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                      Any attempt to fill evidentiary gaps through:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                        \n
                                      • Uncorroborated witness testimony
                                        \u2022 Retrospective statements
                                        \u2022 Associational links
                                        \u2022 Repetitive media amplification<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                        does not satisfy the legal requirements of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          \n
                                        • Reliability<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                        • Admissibility<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                        • Corroboration<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                        • Causation<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                          In criminal law, particularly in cases involving conspiracy or state complicity, each link in the chain must be proven\u2014not assumed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Facts given<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          The alternative explanation is incomplete<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          In an age of information, the public will not accept unsupported narratives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Already a rising wave of people are questioning the sensationalism behind the stories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Therefore, the architects of this alternative theory will push to address the gaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          They will most probably rely on producing witness accounts or introduce new or previously unexamined material<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Even if they try to fill the gaps, the evidentiary standard does not change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          There is a standard their evidence must meet\u2014and this is why typical gap-filling won\u2019t meet it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          What they are likely to do<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          a. Rely on witness testimony<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          insiders \/ intermediaries<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          I was told\u2026\u201d or I saw\u2026\u201d claims<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Testimony must be independently corroborated, not stand alone and for a radicalization program ending in suicide a few witnesses claiming I was told\u201d or I saw\u201d does not hold water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          b. Use circumstantial links<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          meetings, phone contact, proximity, old photos<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          association = involvement\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Association \u2260 control \u2260 direction \u2013 none of these can prove or establish that the military intelligence or personnel trained or funded a team of people to commit suicide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          c. The pattern\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          multiple weak pieces combined but unrelated to the incident<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          Multiple weak inferences combined do not become strong proof of command or orchestration for a mass suicide<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                          d. post-event narratives<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            \n
                                          • retrospective claims<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                          • statements emerging later<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                            Greater weight must be given to contemporaneous evidence over later recollection \u2013 in 2021 October when the 1st<\/sup> public statement linking Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay to Zaharan was made by Fr. Cyril Gamini, resulting in the former making a CID complaint and filing defamation lawsuit, Fr. Gamini had the best opportunity to present the evidence based on which he made his claim. Why wasn\u2019t this done?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Why is he relying on Channel 4 Asad claim of 2023 and Fr. Rohan\u2019s complaint in 2026 to ask CID to find the evidence that he claimed existed in October 2021?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Any Claim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Any claim of external support must be established through a complete evidentiary chain\u2014independently corroborated, forensically supported, and directly linked to operational decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            One or two testimonies, unrelated or unprovable inferences, or associations alone is insufficient to prove a group of people were trained to commit suicide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Suicides are not comparable to contract killings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Who are these Witnesses<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Testing the Witnesses<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            A witness statement, in isolation, is insufficient unless supported by independent material evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Courts treat uncorroborated testimony\u2014especially when emerging post-event\u2014with heightened caution, particularly where such testimony is untested, delayed, or unsupported by material evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                            Who are they<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              \n
                                            • Is it corroborated?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                            • Is there documentary\/forensic support?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                            • Is it contemporaneous?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                              If not:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Insufficient for high-level attribution<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Causation Test<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Did this alleged support direct the attack?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              If so, it must be demonstrated that the alleged support is causally linked to each critical preparatory action undertaken by Zaharan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Preaching \u2013 Course Content \u2013 Drawing students \u2013 Hiring venues for preaching \u2013 hiring venues for training camps \u2013 why weapons training were done by Zaharan\u2019s brother and not trained military personnel \u2013 money trail \u2013 transportation & other logistics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Even if more new claims are introduced:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Are they independently corroborated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Are they supported by forensic evidence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Do they prove command, funding, or direction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              If not, they do not meet the threshold for proving external orchestration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              So far, the type of evidence required for this claim has not been produced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Extraordinary claims require a complete evidentiary chain\u2014not isolated testimony, not inference, not isolated witnesses appearing from nowhere, and not repetition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                              Until such time as a complete, independently corroborated evidentiary chain is presented, the claim of military or intelligence support remains:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                                \n
                                              • unproven<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                              • legally unsustainable<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                              • evidentially deficient<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                                                Repetition does not convert allegation into fact\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                                it merely amplifies the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                                Shenali D Waduge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                                                <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                Shenali D Waduge We are in agreement on one point: on 21 April 2019 Zaharan and a team of suicide bombers targeted 3 hotels and 3 churches causing 269 fatalities. PART 1 \u2014 ESTABLISHED FACTZahran carried out the attacks PART 2 \u2014 THE BUT\u201d CLAIMZahran acted with the support of military intelligence This second claim […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-shenali-waduge"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155930","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155930"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155930\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":155931,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155930\/revisions\/155931"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}