Nobel Prize, World Bank Chief, anything is possible for R3

[DesiGuy1403]

It would take a genius like you to take a refusal to take your reading habits into consideration as a sign of interest in your reading habits.

On the matter of the Supreme Court judgement, you think a judgement in a particular year points to a crime decades before, and vindicates another crime in the years intervening. The question of the difference between criminal and civil law does not occur to you to be relevant. What more needs to be said about your ability to comprehend these issues? You then defend the great bhakt Rajiv Gandhi because in this case he acted like a sinister manipulator of communal politics, and that suits your ideology, and come out with a laughable excuse about no FIR having been lodged against him. There are thousands of criminals around whose crimes have been ignored and against whom there are no FIRs. So what? Was the act of breaking in a crime or not? Do you think that aiding and abetting it was a crime or not?

Now you have completely lost it mate.

You gave me a negative rating and I asked you to explain it. You alluded some imaginary things to me and started belittling me.
I gave my explanation with proofs from SC judgement and proved your lack of proof to supposed criminality of Rajiv.

Let's go by each point.

regarding SC judgement...your rants against me means nothing. My original post talked about "balance" not about criminality & punishment to any section. The SC judgement in my opinion is the balance, which I have pointed to you.

Regarding Rajiv, YOU are no body to judge some ones act as legal or illegal. Your bias is clouding your judgement, simple as that. As per Indian law, a person can not be called a criminal or an act criminal until it is proven. There should be an investigation to that "crime" if you are going to call it that. Just because some "no body" shouts in certain forums, does not make an act as criminal.

You have no base to stand on now....
Accept your mistake and reverse the negative rating. Your bias can not be basis for giving negative ratings.

And lastly, there is nothing worse than alluding a crime to some one when that person has not committed it.
I have not justified any violence as you alluded and it's reprehensible that you are able to get away with that blatant lie you are posting here..

Oh well, when you have been exposed for lying through your teeth and for personal abuse, what else is left except to give negative ratings to hide the post to save the embarrassment.

Go for it Joe...more Forum power to you

And these guys were preaching about intolerance in India a while back...what irony when you suppress posts that are neither abusive nor justifying violence..

@Levina @Sky lord @Darmashkian Look at the irony and intolerance of a particular senior forummer to views that don't match with his.

 

[Levina]

@Levina @Sky lord @Darmashkian Look at the irony and intolerance of a particular senior forummer to views that don't match with his

If the purpose of marking a post negative is to hide it then the post should be excessively abusive or so I think.
You can open up a thread in GHQ, if you wish.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

If the purpose of marking a post negative is to hide it then the post should be excessively abusive or so I think.
You can open up a thread in GHQ, if you wish.

Didn't know that. I have tagged moderator, I will see if he takes some action.

My posts were neither abusive nor were they glorifying violence. It is strange that my having a different view should be base for negative rating, whose main purpose here seems to hide the post!

 

[Levina]

Didn't know that. I have tagged moderator, I will see if he takes some action.

My posts were neither abusive nor were they glorifying violence. It is strange that my having a different view should be base for negative rating, whose main purpose here seems to hide the post!

Tag Slav defence.
Slav takes action on negative rating.

 

[Maira La]

Joe is become mentally unbalanced

Reported for getting personal.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now you have completely lost it mate.

LOL. Mate? Since when did I become your mate? For the purposes of your seeming to be a casual, cool poster? You'll have to try harder.

You gave me a negative rating and I asked you to explain it.

It was explained. Why is it surprising that you did not want to accept the explanation?

You alluded some imaginary things to me and started belittling me

Imaginary things? I said earlier, and I repeat: you hailed the criminal acts associated with the clandestine opening of the Babri Masjid; you approved of the placement of signs and symbols of worship when nothing existed earlier, so that there would be a case for the attack on the Masjid.

The Masjid was sealed under a court order, and its opening and the placement of the signs, and the assault on the caretaker were all criminal and a breach of the law and the restraint placed on activity within the Masjid by the court of law. You only disclaimed any intention to support the criminal assault on the caretaker. You fully approve, therefore, of the other criminal actions..

I gave my explanation with proofs from SC judgement

You have been told earlier, and you are being told now: the Supreme Court judgement was given years after the crime of breaking and entering was committed. It cannot serve - no court judgement can serve - as a retrospective justification. A crime was committed, and it cannot be un-committed by a later Supreme Court judgement which decided an entirely different, civil matter.

and proved your lack of proof to supposed criminality of Rajiv.

He encouraged and supported the crime of breaking into the Masjid. You say that there was no proof. I say that no proof is needed, as long as all know that the deed was done. I say that his lack of action itself is the proof, if such proof is needed. I say that you do not know the difference between being an accessory to a crime before the crime is committed, and being one after it is committed, namely, that there is no difference.

Let's go by each point.

regarding SC judgement...your rants against me means nothing.

Nonsense.

The Supreme Court gives a judgement on ownership of the land, and you uphold it as a retrospective justification of a different, criminal act. Are you in your senses when you write such puerile stuff?

My original post talked about "balance" not about criminality & punishment to any section. The SC judgement in my opinion is the balance, which I have pointed to you.

Even a fledgling lawyer just admitted to the bar will laugh at you. The Supreme Court judgement saying how to divide the land can have no bearing on breaking and entering the Masjid and leaving false signs of worship behind. What balance?

Regarding Rajiv, YOU are no body to judge some ones act as legal or illegal. Your bias is clouding your judgement, simple as that. As per Indian law, a person can not be called a criminal or an act criminal until it is proven.

....thereby demonstrating that your knowledge of the law is as superficial as everything else. A person can always and anywhere be called a criminal, and his actions held up to be a criminal. It is only that he cannot be punished without due process of law.

I suggest that you learn about things a little more before you enter into discussions on subjects about which you know so little.

There should be an investigation to that "crime" if you are going to call it that. Just because some "no body" shouts in certain forums, does not make an act as criminal.

And do you think any lunatic will file a case, barred in any case by the statute of limitations, on a person who died long ago?

You have no base to stand on now....

LOL. Just because after several explanations, you still refuse to understand how and why you are wrong? Just because you act dumb and pretend that you are producing convincing arguments?

Accept your mistake and reverse the negative rating. Your bias can not be basis for giving negative ratings.

There was no mistake. There was no bias. And the next time you make an inflammatory statement justifying a crime, you will get another negative rating. Look forward to it, or watch the language of your posts. I shall.

And lastly, there is nothing worse than alluding a crime to some one when that person has not committed it.
I have not justified any violence as you alluded and it's reprehensible that you are able to get away with that blatant lie you are posting here..

This is precisely what you said. Justifying Rajiv's criminal action. Because opening of the Babri gates to Hindus when the court had sealed the gates was criminal. And you thought it was a good thing. For that blatant support to the breach of the rule of law, you got a negative rating. You are about to get another.

Not everything is black or white. If there is one good thing Raviv did, it was opening of Babri gates to Hindus.

As long as old crimes are not addressed, justice can never be done. Sickulars can not hide under the garb of crime having happened long back, especially since the justice being demanded by Hindus is one of balance in terms of getting our gods property back to our lord.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/nobel-pr...s-possible-for-r3.435828/page-2#ixzz4CLYKGZGE

Oh well, when you have been exposed for lying through your teeth and for personal abuse, what else is left except to give negative ratings to hide the post to save the embarrassment.

Lying through my teeth? Personal abuse? Show it; you are about to get another negative.

Go for it Joe...more Forum power to you

And these guys were preaching about intolerance in India a while back...what irony when you suppress posts that are neither abusive nor justifying violence..

I don't need the encouragement, but it is well that you thought of it. And your post justified a crime.

@Levina @Sky lord @Darmashkian Look at the irony and intolerance of a particular senior forummer to views that don't match with his.[/QUOTE]

And look what happens when you accuse him of lying and of personal abuse

 

[DesiGuy1403]

LOL. Mate? Since when did I become your mate? For the purposes of your seeming to be a casual, cool poster? You'll have to try harder.

Ok "Clown"....there is that better?
Perhaps civility is not your forte either and logic seems to have left the empty space between your ears long back.

Imaginary things? I said earlier, and I repeat: you hailed the criminal acts associated with the clandestine opening of the Babri Masjid; you approved of the placement of signs and symbols of worship when nothing existed earlier, so that there would be a case for the attack on the Masjid.

The Masjid was sealed under a court order, and its opening and the placement of the signs, and the assault on the caretaker were all criminal and a breach of the law and the restraint placed on activity within the Masjid by the court of law. You only disclaimed any intention to support the criminal assault on the caretaker. You fully approve, therefore, of the other criminal actions..

I repeat, unless your clown highness can show any court order showing Rajiv's act as criminal, you should chill and take some pills to reduce the froth at the corners of your mouth.
Coming to your alluding me justifying violence, you are insane. No No, not in a good way, you are insane in away ManiSankar Iyer way. Like I previously asked, do you think all those who support Palestinian cause also support the violence that follows?
Cat got yout tongue?

You have been told earlier, and you are being told now: the Supreme Court judgement was given years after the crime of breaking and entering was committed. It cannot serve - no court judgement can serve - as a retrospective justification. A crime was committed, and it cannot be un-committed by a later Supreme Court judgement which decided an entirely different, civil matter.

Similarly a crime was committed centuries back. THAT'S A FACT DUMBO. Perhaps your education may not have covered the crimes but ours did.
The fact that SC gave large part of the land to Ram Lalla blows your theory to bits.
Your logic has continuously failed out. Now it looks common sense has, since my justification is not retrospective, it's prospective, i.e after the SC judgement...or...did you forget I made the comments yesterday!!? Senility perhaps?

He encouraged and supported the crime of breaking into the Masjid. You say that there was no proof. I say that no proof is needed, as long as all know that the deed was done. I say that his lack of action itself is the proof, if such proof is needed. I say that you do not know the difference between being an accessory to a crime before the crime is committed, and being one after it is committed, namely, that there is no difference.

You can put crap in a nice looking bottle but it's still crap, ergo, your posts are sounding and smelling similar.
What nonsense are you talking about?
I supported the decision to open Babri, not the violence. What you are in effect saying is, people should not take correct decisions because there might be violence? Pathetic really!! That is the reason I asked for proof. NO NO, If you claim your word is gospel, I will claim Donald trump's bottom is gate way to heaven. So, show which court has said Rajiv's act as criminal. Perhaps you should study bit of law to understand why Rajiv's decision is not criminal.

Nonsense.

The Supreme Court gives a judgement on ownership of the land, and you uphold it as a retrospective justification of a different, criminal act. Are you in your senses when you write such puerile stuff?

I am justifying it now!! Are you on drugs or medication?
My justification is NOW...Repeat that fact 100 times...
What we are discussing is history, so, when judgement comes out, we discuss it as whole. not in parts.
Please stop making fool of your self.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ok "Clown"....there is that better?
Perhaps civility is not your forte either and logic seems to have left the empty space between your ears long back.

Clown? Personal insult again? You really are asking for it, aren't you?

I repeat, unless your clown highness can show any court order showing Rajiv's act as criminal, you should chill and take some pills to reduce the froth at the corners of your mouth.

No, the difference (it's there in my previous post, unless you have forgotten how to read) is that he is not convicted of a crime until there is a conviction in court, but I can certainly say, with full justification, that opening the gates of an institution closed by a court order is a crime.

Coming to your alluding me justifying violence, you are insane. No No, not in a good way, you are insane in away ManiSankar Iyer way. Like I previously asked, do you think all those who support Palestinian cause also support the violence that follows?
Cat got yout tongue?

Why should the cat get my tongue? Your arguments are so childish that I take a long time to get back to them.

I pointed out, taking the trouble of reproducing your original damning words, that you were justifying a crime. Are you saying you were not? In spite of what you wrote?

Similarly a crime was committed centuries back. THAT'S A FACT DUMBO. Perhaps your education may not have covered the crimes but ours did.

YOUR education? Isn't that a moot point? In any case, those are no longer crimes, not the kind you can try in a court. Oh, you can call it a crime, you have the right of free speech that you deny others, but it is not a crime that can be tried, and it is not a crime that can result in a conviction.

The fact that SC gave large part of the land to Ram Lalla blows your theory to bits.

What theory? You are getting confused; I put forward no theory, I merely pointed out that you were justifying a crime. Why would the Supreme Court judgement apportioning the land in part to the Hindu litigant affect a theory which I never put forward?

You really are confused.

Your logic has continuously failed out.

Oh, really? Then whose quotation was that, in glaring red? The Man in the Moon?

Now it looks common sense has, since my justification is not retrospective, it's prospective, i.e after the SC judgement...or...did you forget I made the comments yesterday!!? Senility perhaps?

Not really. You are still confused, still in lack of plain understanding: the crime took place decades ago, the Supreme Court judgement on a civil, not a criminal matter, took place decades later, after that event. So it cannot justify the previous event; that remains a crime.

Are you sure that you have understood? Do you need help?

You can put crap in a nice looking bottle but it's still crap, ergo, your posts are sounding and smelling similar.
What nonsense are you talking about?

Er, your nonsense, actually. And my posts are rather full of what you wrote. You can draw your own conclusions.

I supported the decision to open Babri, not the violence.

Oh, good. GATHER AROUND, PEOPLE, IT'S CONFESSION TIME.

What you are in effect saying is, people should not take correct decisions because there might be violence?

Pathetic really!! That is the reason I asked for proof. NO NO, If you claim your word is gospel, I will claim Donald trump's bottom is gate way to heaven.

No, that is not what I said in effect, not even once.

What I said was that violating a court judgement and opening the Babri Masjid was a crime.

OK, now it's time for you to pass through the gateway to heaven. Need a push?

So, show which court has said Rajiv's act as criminal. Perhaps you should study bit of law to understand why Rajiv's decision is not criminal.

Actually, breach of a court order is criminal. No subsequent court order can justify that initial crime. That is what Rajiv did and it was criminal. That is what you supported, and you got one negative rating.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Even a fledgling lawyer just admitted to the bar will laugh at you. The Supreme Court judgement saying how to divide the land can have no bearing on breaking and entering the Masjid and leaving false signs of worship behind. What balance?

You are confused Joe.
read my posts again.
It contains 2 parts. One regarding Rajiv opening babri and second my opinion on whole matter.
Coming to my opinion, when I said balance, I also added what I think as balance, in this case asking the land to be given to the rightful original owner.
This is the balance I was asking, which was made crystal clear in my post.
NOW YOU ALLUDED SOME IMAGINARY VOILENCE TO IT and are making a grand idiot of yourself.

....thereby demonstrating that your knowledge of the law is as superficial as everything else. A person can always and anywhere be called a criminal, and his actions held up to be a criminal. It is only that he cannot be punished without due process of law.

I suggest that you learn about things a little more before you enter into discussions on subjects about which you know so little.

Take your own advise Joe. My understand of this is much clearer than you. Ask yourself why no criminal case was filed against Rajiv and you will see your whole theory of criminality going up in smoke.

I don't want to beat around the bush. Simple fact. Can you prove Rajiv's act as criminal based on any judgement in any court in India? NO? So, alluding my support for temple opening to violence that happened is utterly despicable.
Now that you have been caught in your pathetic lies, you are bringing in your PERSONAL OPINION that Rajiv's act is criminal and hence my negative rating is justified.
Man up and agree when you are wrong.

And do you think any lunatic will file a case, barred in any case by the statute of limitations, on a person who died long ago?

Huh..Wasn't Rajiv alive when he opened babri?
Or did he come as ghost and did the work?

Your agenda seems to be clouding your judgement. FACT: Rajiv was alive for a long time after that. when he died he was not even PM. So, if a criminality was there in his actions, cases would have filed then.

Point is, you are clutching at straws when you are exposed.
My point again, I support opening of babri but I don't support violence that followed. Opening babri was the right thing, Violence that followed was wrong.
may be for your brain that is too difficult to grasp.

LOL. Just because after several explanations, you still refuse to understand how and why you are wrong? Just because you act dumb and pretend that you are producing convincing arguments

I am pretty sure people reading our exchange can easily understand who is dumb, pretentious and overbearing.
Just because you don't like my views, you gave me negative rating, instead of challenging my views, which is the norm in any forum.

When challenged and caught with pants down, you are coming up with convoluted and frankly childish arguments which are frankly embarrassing for some one who is a senior member here.

There was no mistake. There was no bias. And the next time you make an inflammatory statement justifying a crime, you will get another negative rating. Look forward to it, or watch the language of your posts. I shall.

There is bias, let's not pretend.
I don't care about the negative rating, you can give negative rating to all posts. Couldn't care less.
what is important for me is to engage the likes of you who have little tolerance for "others" views and I have done just that.
If you want to keep giving negative ratings to all my posts...go for it.
And stop preaching about language in my posts. I have read how belittle forummers here. You are the last person I will be taking advise from, in civility.

This is precisely what you said. Justifying Rajiv's criminal action. Because opening of the Babri gates to Hindus when the court had sealed the gates was criminal. And you thought it was a good thing. For that blatant support to the breach of the rule of law, you got a negative rating. You are about to get another.

Your whole premise is that Rajiv's action is criminal, which you have not been able to prove. All you have for proof is your word!!
In public forums, your word is only as worthy as mine. That is why we ask for proofs. You lack them.
So, when your whole base of Rajiv's actions being criminal is fiction, what follows next need not even be debated.

Lying through my teeth? Personal abuse? Show it; you are about to get another negative.

Why not, here it is..below are your words..Go for more negative ratings. you don't need my permission for it.

For your information, and that of all ill-educated idiots everywhere besides you (yes, I just called you an ill-educated idiot), criminal cases and civil cases are different. The Supreme Court judgement nowhere implies any criminal act was committed.

Clown? Personal insult again? You really are asking for it, aren't you?

You had problems with me being civil..So, why crib now? asking for what exactly? What exactly you think you are going to give me?

No, the difference (it's there in my previous post, unless you have forgotten how to read) is that he is not convicted of a crime until there is a conviction in court, but I can certainly say, with full justification, that opening the gates of an institution closed by a court order is a crime.

*Sigh*
we can keep doing this all day (it's there in my previous post, unless you have forgotten how to read) is that Rajiv's action of opening temple can not be crime as your word means nothing.
when you say some act or some one is criminal, that's a serious matter. One of the basic tenets of our constitution is presumed innocence until proven. But hey, since it does not fit your rhetoric, let's throw that away into a cupboard until we need it...right Joe?

Why should the cat get my tongue? Your arguments are so childish that I take a long time to get back to them.

I pointed out, taking the trouble of reproducing your original damning words, that you were justifying a crime. Are you saying you were not? In spite of what you wrote?

Again, you misunderstand.
I didn't allude to your late reply. I understand real life exists and I am not that crass to even imply that you took time.
My post meant that my position was taken yesterday, which is long after the SC order.

YOUR education? Isn't that a moot point? In any case, those are no longer crimes, not the kind you can try in a court. Oh, you can call it a crime, you have the right of free speech that you deny others, but it is not a crime that can be tried, and it is not a crime that can result in a conviction.

My point on education is moot, except as a means of insult and apologise for it.
Besides that, the only one denying free speech here is you.
I have not asked you not post here but you giving me negative rating, hides my posts and indirectly you took away my free speech, especially when the post has no offensive language or supported violence.
It was a position I took and you did not like it and curtailed my free speech.

What theory? You are getting confused; I put forward no theory, I merely pointed out that you were justifying a crime. Why would the Supreme Court judgement apportioning the land in part to the Hindu litigant affect a theory which I never put forward?

You really are confused.

Because my comments on this matter in this forum came after SC judgement.
based on SC judgement, Hindus being denied entry into a place which is holy to them is a crime as well.
Oh wait, am I using your theory of criminality to justify my position?!!

Oh, really? Then whose quotation was that, in glaring red? The Man in the Moon?

Adds nothing to the debate except showing you have good command over English. So, err, congrats on your excellent English Skills.

Not really. You are still confused, still in lack of plain understanding: the crime took place decades ago, the Supreme Court judgement on a civil, not a criminal matter, took place decades later, after that event. So it cannot justify the previous event; that remains a crime.

Are you sure that you have understood? Do you need help?

I took my position yesterday, taking even SC judgement into view.
So, even assuming your obvious lie about Rajiv's act being criminal as truth, you still loose out.
Once SC ruled that 2/3rd land belonged to Ram Lalla, closing of babri gates to Hindus for decades was nothing but a crime as well by all involved.
Wait...can some one give me authority to give negative rating pls? I want to give Joe one because he supported criminal act of closing of babri/Ayodhya mandir gates to hindus..

Er, your nonsense, actually. And my posts are rather full of what you wrote. You can draw your own conclusions.

Let's leave that too people reading our exchange, unless you want to hide my posts by giving negative ratings of course.

Oh, good. GATHER AROUND, PEOPLE, IT'S CONFESSION TIME.

Oh, good, finally you comprehend. GATHER AROUND PEOPLE. IT's UNDERSTANDING TIME FOR JOE.

No, that is not what I said in effect, not even once.

What I said was that violating a court judgement and opening the Babri Masjid was a crime.

OK, now it's time for you to pass through the gateway to heaven. Need a push?

That's exactly what you meant when you alluded the violence to me. Don't shy away now.
The SC judgement NOW negates your opinion spectacularly. That babri was closed for decades to a certain section of society, even though it historically belonged to them, is a crime Joe. You can twist it anyway you want but that's the truth.
I am pretty sure you will be more than happy to push "my kind" who have difference of opinion with you to heaven. That again, is your problem, not mine.

Actually, breach of a court order is criminal. No subsequent court order can justify that initial crime. That is what Rajiv did and it was criminal. That is what you supported, and you got one negative rating.

A criminal act as per Indian constitution is one proven in court. So, in effect, go to court, fight your case and then come and give me a negative rating.
Until then, your word can not be gospel in forums...

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Wrong.

It is your support of Rajiv opening the Babri Masjid illegally that I called support of criminal activity. It is NOTHING to do with any violence that followed. You keep thinking that and I have told you the correct reason for my negative rating IN EVERY POST.

Which part of those pointing out processes confused you?

I have no comment about your position regarding 'balance'; that is a personal opinion of yours.

That's my whole point.
When I used the word balance and explained what I meant by balance, it was crystal clear my post was never retribution about past crimes.

Go and read on what Americans are doing to American Indians and Australians are doing to Aborigines as part of "Balance" for past crimes committed on them.

If you misinterpret my post, that's not my problem.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Simply because he was Prime Minister at the time, and second, more important, his involvement, and the central government involvement in the clandestine opening up of the Babri Masjid came to light only years later.



You didn't know?

There was a lower court order sealing the Masjid. It was violation of this order that is criminal. Breaking a court order, in simple language, is a criminal act.



Heh. Again I repeat: it was your support of Rajiv's opening up of the Babri Masjid, not publicly, through an act of court, but in a clandestine manner, in the middle of the night, assaulting the caretaker, that earned you your medal.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/nobel-pr...s-possible-for-r3.435828/page-3#ixzz4CLqeblYh

Just as you like. One more red mark.



I didn't misinterpret your post; you did not know the facts of the case, and that is not important. You justified opening the Masjid when a court had sealed it.

Now back to your long post.

↑




He was alive, and no one filed a case against him. One reason is that he was not exposed until long afterwards. Does the fact that no one filed a case against him make his breach of the court order less criminal?



No, I am repeating for the umpteenth time, it is for your support of the opening of the Babri Masjid that you got your negative rating.

Opening the Masjid was the wrong thing, because of the breach of a court order.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/nobel-prize-world-bank-chief-anything-is-possible-for-r3.435828/page-3#ixzz4CLtc7qd6

Does not matter what you Say,
Can you PROVE Rajiv's criminality? Beating around the bush and giving excuses does not prove you right.
You will keep harping on you being in the right, I will keep asking you "proof" of criminality.

Similarly, SC judgement as it stands now, makes it crystal clear that the land belongs to Ram Lalla. Does that mean all people who helped close the Ayodhya to a certain section were party to criminal act? So, for supporting criminal act of keeping Babri closed, can you give yourself a negative rating?

Regarding Negative rating, keep giving them, see if I care. I wanted to engage you and show that you are in the wrong and I have done just that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Does not matter what you Say,
Can you PROVE Rajiv's criminality? Beating around the bush and giving excuses does not prove you right.
You will keep harping on you being in the right, I will keep asking you "proof" of criminality.

Similarly, SC judgement as it stands now, makes it crystal clear that the land belongs to Ram Lalla. Does that mean all people who helped close the Ayodhya to a certain section were party to criminal act? So, for supporting criminal act of keeping Babri closed, can you give yourself a negative rating?

Regarding Negative rating, keep giving them, see if I care. I wanted to engage you and show that you are in the wrong and I have done just that.

I am ending my participation in this because you are quite obviously ignoring all the information in my posts and pretending that you have nothing to answer. That will get you nowhere .

In reply to your points above, briefly,

1. No proof of criminality is required unless there is a conviction or a fine or some other punishment to be awarded. In this case, we cannot try Rajiv Gandhi, because he was not charged at the time, and he was not convicted at the time. So you cannot prove that he was a criminal in the legal sense, as he cannot be convicted; not even posthumously. And the failure of anybody to charge him merely means that he was never charged, not that he was not guilty of criminal action. Breaking a court order is a breach of the law.
2. The Supreme Court judgement allotted a part of the land to Ram Lalla . That does not mean that before the judgement, whatever actions were taken are justified by the judgement.
3. There is no question of any criminal act in keeping the Masjid closed earlier, as there was no tradition of worship inside the Masjid until 1949, So how was it criminal? The land was all along in the possession of the Waqf authorities; were they criminals and trespassers?

If your purpose was to show that you are logically right, you haven't achieved it, because you chose to ignore everything that didn't suit you, and stated that the result was that you had proved your point. That is so shallow that after all these posts, not to get the point is obviously a sad attempt at proving by persistent denial whatever you have been unable to prove otherwise.

If you keep up your personal abuse, you will keep on getting negative ratings. Do continue if you wish.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

I am ending my participation in this because you are quite obviously ignoring all the information in my posts and pretending that you have nothing to answer. That will get you nowhere .

In reply to your points above, briefly,

1. No proof of criminality is required unless there is a conviction or a fine or some other punishment to be awarded. In this case, we cannot try Rajiv Gandhi, because he was not charged at the time, and he was not charged at the time. So you cannot prove that he was a criminal in the legal sense, as he cannot be convicted; not even posthumously. And the failure of anybody to charge him merely means that he was never charged, not that he was not guilty of criminal action. Breaking a court order is a breach of the law.
2. The Supreme Court judgement allotted a part of the land to Ram Lalla . That does not mean that before the judgement, whatever actions were taken are justified by the judgement.
3. There is no question of any criminal act in keeping the Masjid closed earlier, as there was no tradition of worship inside the Masjid until 1949, So how was it criminal? The land was all along in the possession of the Waqf authorities; were they criminals and trespassers?

If your purpose was to show that you are logically right, you haven't achieved it, because you chose to ignore everything that didn't suit you, and stated that the result was that you had proved your point. That is so shallow that after all these posts, not to get the point is obviously a sad attempt at proving by persistent denial whatever you have been unable to prove otherwise.

If you keep up your personal abuse, you will keep on getting negative ratings. Do continue if you wish.

When you reply, you are not ending the discussion Joe, you are in fact continuing.

1. Agreed - So, you are in fact using your bias to proclaim an act as criminal. FYI, as PM with brute majority, he had complete control over executive to override judiciary decisions. I think people conveniently forget what Rajiv did Shah Bano case a year previously.

2. Neither are they unjustifiable, like you are doing now. Point is, at this point in time with information we have, with SC decision in hand, we can say, Rajiv did the right thing.

3. Again, you are conveniently forgetting history. Hindus couldn't worship before 1949 for obvious reasons, which even you are aware of. And you are also aware prior to it's demolition, Hindus had worshipped here for centuries. In fact this case is not new to independent India. It has been going on for well over a century. please read the judgement of 1850's regarding this case.

Point is, historically, a wrong had been committed. Since the perpetrators of this crime are not alive, all we can strive for is "balance".
Perhaps the self-styled liberals should look at western countries like USA and Australia regarding the "balance" they have achieved for historical criminal acts against American Indians and aborigines.

 

[Joe Shearer]

When you reply, you are not ending the discussion Joe, you are in fact continuing.

1. Agreed - So, you are in fact using your bias to proclaim an act as criminal. FYI, as PM with brute majority, he had complete control over executive to override judiciary decisions. I think people conveniently forget what Rajiv did Shah Bano case a year previously.

Is there some law saying that breach of a court order is illegal is wrong? That calling it criminal is wrong? And don't you think that his actions on the Shah Bano case reflects a low point in politics, though not a criminal act as in the other case?

2. Neither are they unjustifiable, like you are doing now. Point is, at this point in time with information we have, with SC decision in hand, we can say, Rajiv did the right thing.

No, we cannot. A criminal act is a criminal act. At best you can plead extenuating circumstances, but the criminality remains.

He may have done the right thing in moral terms, from your point of view, but he remains guilty of a criminal act.

3. Again, you are conveniently forgetting history. Hindus couldn't worship before 1949 for obvious reasons, which even you are aware of. And you are also aware prior to it's demolition, Hindus had worshipped here for centuries. In fact this case is not new to independent India. It has been going on for well over a century. please read the judgement of 1850's regarding this case.

As far as I know, there is no judgement of the 1850s. There were riots. Your Chacha Wiki will inform you better.
The first recorded instances of religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in the 1850s over a nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi. The Babri mosque was attacked by Hindus in the process. Since then, local Hindu groups have made occasional demands that they should have the possession of the site and that they should be allowed to build a temple on the site, all of which were denied by the colonial government.

Point is, historically, a wrong had been committed. Since the perpetrators of this crime are not alive, all we can strive for is "balance".

Your point, nobody else's. If it is your point of view that rioting and breach of orders and the tacit support of an elected government are means by which to achieve 'balance', your point of view is straightaway criminal. Rioting, breaches of court orders and breaches of faith by a government are all criminal.

Perhaps the self-styled liberals should look at western countries like USA and Australia regarding the "balance" they have achieved for historical criminal acts against American Indians and aborigines.

Perhaps they should. Perhaps we should re-open the case against Nanda Kumar. What does that have to do with this? Do you think that the Hindu was in the same position as the American Indian or the Australian aborigine?

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Is there some law saying that breach of a court order is illegal is wrong? That calling it criminal is wrong? And don't you think that his actions on the Shah Bano case reflects a low point in politics, though not a criminal act as in the other case?

If you and me do it, it is criminal.
BUT
If PM of a country uses his power to do it, it's an executive decision. That's why I gave the Shah Bano case as example.
Was Rajiv's decision on shah Bano case criminal as well? Definitely it went against the SC.
So, what's Locus stand on this?
You need to brush up your knowledge.

No, we cannot. A criminal act is a criminal act. At best you can plead extenuating circumstances, but the criminality remains.

He may have done the right thing in moral terms, from your point of view, but he remains guilty of a criminal act.

NOPE...you are wrong. Executive decision can be challenged but can not be criminal.
We can keep debating on this but you can not prove me wrong, unless there is an FIR or a case against Rajiv on this - which you don't have.
So, all you have is talk and your position of what's right and what's wrong than a constitutional position.

As far as I know, there is no judgement of the 1850s. There were riots. Your Chacha Wiki will inform you better.
The first recorded instances of religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in the 1850s over a nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi. The Babri mosque was attacked by Hindus in the process. Since then, local Hindu groups have made occasional demands that they should have the possession of the site and that they should be allowed to build a temple on the site, all of which were denied by the colonial government.

I am not going to spoon feed you on this as this is a side track to our main argument.
if you want to know the british court's judgement on this, kindly do some research.

Your point, nobody else's. If it is your point of view that rioting and breach of orders and the tacit support of an elected government are means by which to achieve 'balance', your point of view is straightaway criminal. Rioting, breaches of court orders and breaches of faith by a government are all criminal.

Actually, the opposite is true - especially if we go by SC judgement.
Again you are alluding violence to a position taken by me and you have the moral courage to give my posts negative rating!!
Actually the way I see it after the recent SC judgement awarding the land to Ram Lalla is that your position of denying a section right to worship is - Criminal.

Perhaps they should. Perhaps we should re-open the case against Nanda Kumar. What does that have to do with this? Do you think that the Hindu was in the same position as the American Indian or the Australian aborigine?

I am not a pseudo Liberal. I meant exactly what I said.