ravishingravi Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 ]IMHO its a fact. Many people do call Modi a mass murderer and if an interviewer asked Modi about that then he did absolutely nothing wrong - in fact more interviewers should have had the guts to do this a long long time ago. Also' date= I don't remember many honest people running way when asked an uncomfortable question - they try to answer it or at least try to provide some justification for their position. Modi just ran away. Yeah modern discourse in India politics. Nothing needs to be proven to be fact. Well Raegan did say "Facts are stupid things". Not accepting the SC observations is however a bigger insult. If not accepting it, atleast findings should be challenged Lets be clear, negligence or ineptitude are not equal to "mens rea" or guilty intent unless proven otherwise. I have great time for bleeding hearts if they are able place compelling argument. In absence of that, it is just empty vessels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 He does the same thing in the Jayalalitha interview I referred to earlier in the thread. But Modi fanboyzzz feel only Modi gets targeted. Their behavior is exactly like Pakis who believe everything is a kaanspiracy thiyori against their watan. When their pseudo bhagwaan is made nanga then BBC kya aur Wall Street Journal kya - they all become elements of targeting Modi' date=' have no journalistic standards, have no moral standards. [b']They even live in the delusion that the criminal investigations against him are all part of some kaansiraacy, tou ye chhote mote interview kya hain. :dontknow: Let us assume it is true. They swear on the SIT judgment ("clean chit") but they refused to look at details of the judgment which clearly casts aspersions on Modi's intentions to the very least. There is some inconsistency in point of view here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Yeah modern discourse in India politics. Nothing needs to be proven to be fact. Well Raegan did say "Facts are stupid things". Not accepting the SC observations is however a bigger insult. If noy accepting it' date=' atleast findings should be challenged Lets be clear, negligence or ineptitude are not equal to "mens rea" or guilty intent unless proven otherwise. I have great time for bleeding hearts if they are able place compelling argument. In absence of that, it is just empty vessels.[/quote'] Shut the feck up with your lies, will you? I asked you earlier to back up your statement that 25% of Muslims in Gujarat voted for Modi - silence. Now you are lying like Gardiner about Supreme Court observations supposedly clearing Modi - please provide facts about where the Supreme Court cleared Modi. On the contrary, it's AC said there is enough evidence in the SIT report to start criminal proceedings against Modi and it has also admitted a petition that challenges the SIT's observation about no criminal proceedings against Modi. Jhoot par jhoot - you want to post such garbage please do it in the comments section of Times of India or your Great Bong Unkil's blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Let us assume it is true. They swear on the SIT judgment ("clean chit") but they refused to look at details of the judgment which clearly casts aspersions on Modi's intentions to the very least. There is some inconsistency in point of view here. Aapke upar aa gaya na ek namoona ki Supreme Court has given some clean chit to Modi - now I have asked him to back it up with facts. All I will get is silence and then he will post the same garbage in some other or this thread in a couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Two things we need to be absolutely clear on - SIT is in no position to give any "clean chit". SC has found SIT's report to be "unsatisfactory" and it asked it to look into the AC findings. Despite that the SIT "ignored" the SC's recommendation and filed a closure report. It didn't even send a formal notice to the CJP as is required per law. Further, it has taken SIT one year to let the complainant access all the documents - it fought hard to not allow access. I avidly remember a similar discussion on Ishrat Jahan case where the NIA's response to HC was shot down by Modi supporters because it did not share the text but only wrote a letter. I also recollect Amartya Sen's episode of NalandaU where there was also an attempt to call Sen names because he did not jot down "how he arrived at those three names". If we consider those standards as a benchmark, SIT has violated actual code "Code of Criminal Procedure" forget ethics and norms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Two things we need to be absolutely clear on - SIT is in no position to give any "clean chit". SC has found SIT's report to be "unsatisfactory" and it asked it to look into the AC findings. Despite that the SIT "ignored" the SC's recommendation and filed a closure report. It didn't even send a formal notice to the CJP as is required per law. Further' date=' it has taken SIT one year to let the complainant access all the documents - it fought hard to not allow access.[/quote'] If these fanboyzz had the IQ level to absorb these facts, they would not have been running around spreading lies about the clean chit which each of them pretends to carry in their pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 If these fanboyzz had the IQ level to absorb these facts' date=' they would not have been running around spreading lies about the clean chit which each of them pretends to carry in their pockets.[/quote'] I think one can safely say that SIT violated the Code of Criminal Procedure and that would be a nail in the coffin of the "independent and objective" angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I think one can safely say that SIT violated the Code of Criminal Procedure and that would be a nail in the coffin of the "independent and objective" angle. The SIT report clearly says that Modi's decision to allow the kar sevak's bodies to be publicly displayed was "strange". Yet it does not probe that issue further with regards to Modi and recommends no action against him for taking this "strange" decision. Sham and cover-up reeks from it from start to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Yeah modern discourse in India politics. Nothing needs to be proven to be fact. Well Raegan did say "Facts are stupid things". Not accepting the SC observations is however a bigger insult. If not accepting it' date=' atleast findings should be challenged Lets be clear, negligence or ineptitude are not equal to "mens rea" or guilty intent unless proven otherwise. I have great time for bleeding hearts if they are able place compelling argument. In absence of that, it is just empty vessels.[/quote'] :hatsoff: Nice post, so has to be greeted with insults by a certain someone.:cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 :hatsoff: Nice post, so has to be greeted with insults by a certain someone.:cantstop: See DM what I told you about the fanboyzz in a post above. Abhi ek doosre ki backslapping chal rahi hai based on a post filled with lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The SIT report clearly says that Modi's decision to allow the kar sevak's bodies to be publicly displayed was "strange". Yet it does not probe that issue further with regards to Modi and recommends no action against him for taking this "strange" decision. Sham and cover-up reeks from it from start to end. From what I understand, SIT by itself has also decided which evidence it finds pertinent and which one it doesn't. Apparently, that can be only done in a court of law. Also, it has been unable to cite any transcript from Modi which says something to the effect of "do not take law in your own hands or you will be punished". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 See DM what I told you about the fanboyzz in a post above. Abhi ek doosre ki backslapping chal rahi hai based on a post filled with lies. What to do? Let them keep brushing things under the carpet. I hope some day they realize that even 1 life lost is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 See DM what I told you about the fanboyzz in a post above. Abhi ek doosre ki backslapping chal rahi hai based on a post filled with lies. sach hi to hai, agar koi gali ka kutta mass-murderer bolega without any facts, then Modi ko yeh batana insult hi hai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 sach hi to hai' date=' agar koi gali ka kutta mass-murderer bolega without any facts, then Modi ko yeh batana insult hi hai.[/quote'] Sach hai to it should not be too difficult for you or someone who calls himself ravishing to show us ignorant people where and when the SC cleared Modi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Yeah modern discourse in India politics. Nothing needs to be proven to be fact. Well Raegan did say "Facts are stupid things". Not accepting the SC observations is however a bigger insult. If not accepting it' date=' atleast findings should be challenged Lets be clear, negligence or ineptitude are not equal to "mens rea" or guilty intent unless proven otherwise. I have great time for bleeding hearts if they are able place compelling argument. In absence of that, it is just empty vessels.[/quote'] when I said "IMHO its a fact", I meant that many people call Modi a mass murderer - I was referring to that, not to whether Modi is guilty or not (though I do consider him guilty) so Thapar was well within his rights to ask Modi about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 From what I understand' date=' SIT by itself has also decided which evidence it finds pertinent and which one it doesn't. Apparently, that can be only done in a court of law. Also, it has been unable to cite any transcript from Modi which says something to the effect of "do not take law in your own hands or you will be punished".[/quote'] Another huge flaw in the report is that there are no official minutes of the meeting in Modi's office the day before the riots began and yet the SIT does not explain why it did not question the government about the absence of minutes for such an important meeting. India mein kutta bhi bhonkta hai, then also minutes are kept for it such is the level of red tape and yet there are no minutes for such an important meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Outsider - What does Modi's hum paanch, humaare panchees comment made during a Sep 9, 2002 imply? I am not that good with Hindi rhetoric (soon I may also be labeled a Maoist for saying this btw). Fun Fact - Gujarat government did not allow SIT access to this speech and SC had to send them an order to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Outsider - What does Modi's hum paanch' date= humaare panchees comment made during a Sep 9, 2002 imply? I am not that good with Hindi rhetoric (soon I may also be labeled a Maoist for saying this btw). It means that since Muslims are allowed 4 wives - they become hum paanch(1 husband + 4 wives) and then they produce like a factory to become pacchis(25) with 4 kids per wife on average, so according to Modi the average Muslim household has 25 residents, and we haven't counted the parents yet. Fun Fact - Gujarat government did not allow SIT access to this speech and SC had to send them an order to do so. The Gujarat government is a fascist set up - right from impeding judicial investigations, extrajudicial killings, illegal evictions of land owners, they've done it all. Mast resume hai unka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Let me just add that it is well within the discretion of the prosecuting authority (the police, CBI or SIT) to decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone in a court of law, unless directed otherwise by the court. The Supreme Court after obtaining the final report from the SIT has left the decision on accepting its closure report to the designated lower court in Gujarat. Why did the SIT not find Sanjeev Bhatt's evidence credible ? There are many reasons. Just some fun facts : Sanjeev Bhatt sent an email to Rahul Sharma (another police officer) inquiring about Haren Pandya's cell phone records to determine his presence in the "meeting" which Bhatt claimed to have attended himself. Why would he need more input about the "meeting" when he claims to have attended it ? In fact Bhatt claimed that Pandya indeed attended that "meeting" but Pandya's cell phone records show he did not. Sanjeev Bhatt also claimed to have attended another different meeting the next day, but his cell phone records show he was no where near that area at that time. He also forged an English fax message to implicate Modi, no one else (from a sub-inspector to the DG) recalls receiving that message. A more detailed perspective: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/09/06/sanjiv-bhatts-lies-nailed-129664.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 ^ Let's get to a more basic question - why are there no minutes for such an important meeting? And what did the SIT do to probe that fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts