Ayodhya verdict: Ex-SC judge Asok Ganguly raises questions about evidence that land belonged to Ram

[Thamizh Puli]

It makes perfect sense you just have selective reading.

Your claim that the mosque was built over the temple is a misrepresentation. There is no concrete proof that the temple was destroyed by the Muslims and then a mosque was built over it to spite you Hindus. The proof provided to your kangaroo courts states that there were 3 pillars that could or may resemble a temple. You know well that there were homes, forts and other structures that were built in this area for thousands of years and the Muslims conquered a fort and then built a place of worship. This area was part of the military infrastructure and not civilian area.
It clearly has nothing to do with your lord's temple. BJP had 2 seats before they started this Babri mosque drama and sadly Babar had nothing to do with this mosque in the first place. You need to think objectively don't spew nonsense and then make yourself out to be a good Hindu liberal because you know there is no such thing. Read my whole post and then digest it and then reply.

those are all your wanton misinterpretations. it is quite obvious you have not read the rather long judgement where the justices have laid out the evidential basis. Not possible to debate when you make up stuff.

 

[SIPRA]

........... justices have laid out the evidential basis........

 

[M.Bison]

those are all your wanton misinterpretations. it is quite obvious you have not read the rather long judgement where the justices have laid out the evidential basis. Not possible to debate when you make up stuff.

It is very obvious that you have not read the rather long judgment yourself.
I don't need to read a judgment that is made on false pretenses. What evidential basis? what court accepts faith and belief as evidence. How old are you?

You should read the history and then come talk to me. Just because you say I make stuff up doesn't make it so. This is not an Indian forum.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

It is very obvious that you have not read the rather long judgment yourself.
I don't need to read a judgment that is made on false pretenses. What evidential basis? what court accepts faith and belief as evidence. How old are you?

You should read the history and then come talk to me. Just because you say I make stuff up doesn't make it so. This is not an Indian forum.

you don't like the turn of events and clearly you are fuming because there isn't anything you can do about it. understandable. but tough luck.
Childish of you to not read but opine of the judgement.
fortunately what you think of the Supreme Court just doesn't matter.

 

[M.Bison]

you don't like the turn of events and clearly you are fuming because there isn't anything you can do about it. understandable. but tough luck.
Childish of you to not read but opine of the judgement.
fortunately what you think of the Supreme Court just doesn't matter.

As I said, I doubt you read the judgement in its entirety. Clearly you are too stupid to argue the issue.

 

[SIPRA]

As I said, I doubt you read the judgement in its entirety. Clearly you are too stupid to argue the issue.

I give a very high value to this judgement; since it was penned by a bench, which was headed by a justice, who was very recently accused of sexual harassment, by a lady.