FischerTal Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Yes' date=' indeed it is my opinion but for example if I feel that someone on this forum doesn't like something (for example - MTC does't prefer Tendulkar being called any names); I wouldn't do that. It just comes out of mutual respect despite difference in opinions.[/quote'] and when did i call you any names on this thread? please point it out also, respect means to respect another poster's opinion. that doesnt mean one has to agree with it. FOr example, I respect MTC's opinion that Tendulkar is his favorite, but that doesnt mean I cant give a different opinion that says Tendulkar has been shyte in the Indian team for past two years and that he should retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 The question was never about Headley "making stuff" about Ishrat. The question was IB making stuff about Headley talking Ishrat to save their rear as they were involved. I don't see why we should take any comments or statements from the organization which has its own employees under investigation. That's clear cut CoI and obviously they will do everything to prove themselves right. I'm glad the HC and SIT are sane enough to understand that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I never said they were fake. With respect to sarcasm, sure you can call me out on that one - I shouldn't have done it. Apologies! but see here is the thing, I dont mind if you use sarcasm or not. Thats what you post and I respect that as your opinion. Hope the same courtesy will be given back. if tapes are not fake, wait until they are proved/disproved. as of now, I am leaning towards them being genuine. you are not. its a difference of opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 and when did i call you any names on this thread? please point it out also, respect means to respect another poster's opinion. that doesnt mean one has to agree with it. FOr example, I respect MTC's opinion that Tendulkar is his favorite, but that doesnt mean I cant give a different opinion that says Tendulkar has been shyte in the Indian team for past two years and that he should retire. I thought you called me an anti-Modista etc. Anyways, if you didn't consider that retracted. I wanted to avoid this thread to be one of those other Modi vs anti-Modi thread and hence made that statement. Btw, you didn't get my point about mutual respect. I meant that I wouldn't do anything to do something if I know before hand that you do not like it. In your case, I will try to be a bit sensitive if I have to criticize Cheteshwara Pujara (just an example, don't take it to the T!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I did not bring up the point about LeT accepting Ishrat as one of their operatives. I don't give a F either. I have a problem with the fact that someone says LeT accepted but conveniently forgets to write that they denied as well. For your point about surety, it is both ways. No one can say for sure they said it either; unless of course they are LeT operatives. I'm not too sure they create accounts on ICF though.Your explanation of LeT's actions involve the assumption the LeT suddenly discovered some morality and apologized to the family of Ishrat for causing them embarrassment. Why would the LeT go out of its way to retract its claim and in the process admit that it lied. For some poor muslim girl's honor? I mean you really have to be naive to believe this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 but see here is the thing, I dont mind if you use sarcasm or not. Thats what you post and I respect that as your opinion. Hope the same courtesy will be given back. if tapes are not fake, wait until they are proved/disproved. as of now, I am leaning towards them being genuine. you are not. its a difference of opinion The problem with using sarcasm is that different people interpret it differently. If you feel it is appropriate, you can carry on doing it. That's fine with me. As with all rule of law, it is innocent until guilty. So as of now, the tapes are NOT genuine. I would be keeping an eye on these tapes when (and IF) they are presented as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I did not bring up the point about LeT accepting Ishrat as one of their operatives. I don't give a F either. I have a problem with the fact that someone says LeT accepted but conveniently forgets to write that they denied as well. For your point about surety, it is both ways. No one can say for sure they said it either; unless of course they are LeT operatives. I'm not too sure they create accounts on ICF though. In Earlier posts you written there is absolutely no proof to link Ishrat with terrorists. But LeT accepting or retracting cast a doubt . Why should LeT first claim she is a operative & then retract it? You have to give a fair chance to either comments by LeT , but you chose to believe only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I thought you called me an anti-Modista etc. Anyways, if you didn't consider that retracted. I wanted to avoid this thread to be one of those other Modi vs anti-Modi thread and hence made that statement. Btw, you didn't get my point about mutual respect. I meant that I wouldn't do anything to do something if I know before hand that you do not like it. In your case, I will try to be a bit sensitive if I have to criticize Cheteshwara Pujara (just an example, don't take it to the T!). but i wouldnt expect you to be. if che becomes an absolute failure in the upcoming years, heck ill go after him. its just two different ways of thinking. whether its right or wrong, is in the eyes of the of the beholder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Your explanation of LeT's actions involve the assumption the LeT suddenly discovered some morality and apologized to the family of Ishrat for causing them embarrassment. Why would the LeT go out of its way to retract its claim and in the process admit that it lied. For some poor muslim girl's honor? I mean you really have to be naive to believe this. The same way LeT went ahead and honored a "poor Muslim girl" as a martyr. The problem is of consistency - you either believe them or you don't. Once you start cherry picking, it seems for the sake of it. Lets agree to disagree - over and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 The problem with using sarcasm is that different people interpret it differently. If you feel it is appropriate, you can carry on doing it. That's fine with me. As with all rule of law, it is innocent until guilty. So as of now, the tapes are NOT genuine. I would be keeping an eye on these tapes when (and IF) they are presented as evidence. ok, then lets wait and see if they are genuine or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 In Earlier posts you written there is absolutely no proof to link Ishrat with terrorists. But LeT accepting or retracting cast a doubt . Why should LeT first claim she is a operative & then retract it? You have to give a fair chance to either comments by LeT , but you chose to believe only one. I said that SIT, Guj HC, NIA and CBI plus the Metropolitan Magistrate feel that there is no case for Ishrat being a terrorist. I'm going with their version of the story. I may be wrong but I will take my punt. Once again you missed the point about LeT's comments. If the initial post on LeT was to give a fair chance, the poster would've posted the fact that the comments were detracted but he didn't. Sounds an issue to me, may be not for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 The same way LeT went ahead and honored a "poor Muslim girl" as a martyr. The problem is of consistency - you either believe them or you don't. Once you start cherry picking' date= it seems for the sake of it. Lets agree to disagree - over and out.They did not mention her name for the sake of honoring her - it was a ploy to attract more recruits for its cause to fight the "evil" Modi. The Lashkar has a history of accepting the claim for several terrorist attacks, for example, in Kashmir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I said that SIT, Guj HC, NIA and CBI plus the Metropolitan Magistrate feel that there is no case for Ishrat being a terrorist. I'm going with their version of the story. I may be wrong but I will take my punt. Once again you missed the point about LeT's comments. If the initial post on LeT was to give a fair chance, the poster would've posted the fact that the comments were detracted but he didn't. Sounds an issue to me, may be not for you. Again it's your belief versus others belief. He believes in what LeT said initially so he thought the retraction is fake, but you chose to believe NIZ,CBI etc and forgot LeT's initial claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Modi fanboyzzz have hit a new high by giving justifications for extra judicial killings now. What a species! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 The key to note is that the NIA never specifically denied that David Headley had made a claim about Ishrat. All it said was that the NIA only heard "hearsay" about Ishrat and then suppressed the testimony of David Headley, which it should have presented in the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Again it's your belief versus others belief. He believes in what LeT said initially so he thought the retraction is fake, but you chose to believe NIZ,CBI etc and forgot LeT's initial claim. Any harm mentioning that there was a retraction by LeT BUT I think it was fake? I didn't forget LeT's claim - all sources I have cited are from official records approved by the Gujarat HC. I didn't cite comments which were made outside the wall of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Modi fanboyzzz have hit a new high by giving justifications for extra judicial killings now. What a species! Any official confirmation about Modi ordered these killings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Any harm mentioning that there was a retraction by LeT BUT I think it was fake? I didn't forget LeT's claim - all sources I have cited are from official records approved by the Gujarat HC. I didn't cite comments which were made outside the wall of law. Not all people believe law is perfect and ultimate truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Any official confirmation about Modi ordered killings? shhhh. dont use logic. anti-modistas cant handle it :--D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Not all people believe law is perfect and ultimate truth. wrong approach, but its still true nonetheless that lower judiciary has higher chance of corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts