Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

by Uppili Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:46 pm

No FIRs against him

No cases..

No convictions

None of the commissions and committees have come up with anything.

People - including muslims - have voted him to power three times.

And yet, the so-called secularists who swear by the constitution and supposedly jump to the rescue of anyone falsely accused are the ones who are out to go after him forever and ever until some judge somewhere sometime convicts him.

~~Innocent~~ Guilty until proven ~~guilty~~ innocent - the secularist slogan.

by Kris Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:54 pm

Uppili wrote:No FIRs against him

No cases..

No convictions

None of the commissions and committees have come up with anything.

People - including muslims - have voted him to power three times.

And yet, the so-called secularists who swear by the constitution and supposedly jump to the rescue of anyone falsely accused are the ones who are out to go after him forever and ever until some judge somewhere sometime convicts him.

~~Innocent~~ Guilty until proven ~~guilty~~ innocent - the secularist slogan.

>>>> I don't know-- but my gut feel says this guy is not on the up and up, but I also find the press and his opposition disingenuous ( see my other post)

by Uppili Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:01 am

I also think he knew what was going on. All CMs - that too in India - know whats going on all the time, what with their goon cadres at every street corner keeping a watch on the public.

But that is a different matter.

Until Modi is charged, tried, and convicted - he should not be punished by the "secular fundamentalists"

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:08 am

Kris wrote:
>>>> I don't know-- but my gut feel says this guy is not on the up and up, but I also find the press and his opposition disingenuous ( see my other post)

Fortunately, "gut feel" has extremely limited value in judicial proceedings. The whole point of this thread is that he has not been convicted by the judiciary. Why bring "gut feel" into this discussion?

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:11 am

SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> I don't know-- but my gut feel says this guy is not on the up and up, but I also find the press and his opposition disingenuous ( see my other post)

Fortunately, "gut feel" has extremely limited value in judicial proceedings. The whole point of this thread is that he has not been convicted by the judiciary. Why bring "gut feel" into this discussion?

Welcome back, Propa.

by FluteHolder Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:18 am

Just curious, why no one cried/complained about our dubya when he waged war against Iraq on the pretext of WMDs and what international agencies have done against him? Worlds most advanced country with so much intelligence made a blunder on WMDs under Dubya, he was/is not held accountable. On what category this crime should be looked under? And yet, he lives under great protection and probably getting $s for his speech/visit? Does HRW has any charges/complaints against him?

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:23 am

FluteHolder wrote:Just curious, why no one cried/complained about our dubya when he waged war against Iraq on the pretext of WMDs and what international agencies have done against him? Worlds most advanced country with so much intelligence made a blunder on WMDs under Dubya, he was/is not held accountable. On what category this crime should be looked under? And yet, he lives under great protection and probably getting $s for his speech/visit? Does HRW has any charges/complaints against him?

The answer, thanks to a quick consult with Googlacharya, is yes. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/5.5.htm

All these counterexamples of "crimes other people committed" as evidence of the innocence of Modi are not to the point at all.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:27 am

Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

Here is something you might find interesting. It is a thread about claims that Modi and his administration actively encouraged and supported rioters. I quoted these claims from a rioter himself on old CH:

carvaka on old CH at http://newshopper.sulekha.com/politics_sting-op-nails--butcher-of-naroda-patiya---120961.htm wrote:Here are a couple more interesting quotes:

Bajrangi goes on to claim that he phoned the then Home Minister Gordhan Zadaphiya to tell him about the killings and ‘sort out the matter. “He just asked me flee from Gujarat,” Bajrangi tells the reporter.

The Shiv Sena leader, who shared a dais with Uddhav Thackeray recently, claimed that when Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was told of the massacre at Naroda Patiya he called him up for doing a ‘fantastic job’. “Modi helped me hide in Mount Abu for several days after the riots,” he said.

Uppili-of-six-years-ago replied:

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist? scratch

by Uppili Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:29 am

panileni paparao wrote:

All these counterexamples of "crimes other people committed" as evidence of the innocence of Modi are not to the point at all.

Right.... what evidence you have against Modi to prove his complicity?

If you have pliss to send it to Mt Sonia Mata.

If you don't have any evidence, is it alright in your book to call him a criminal?

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:30 am

SomeProfile wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> I don't know-- but my gut feel says this guy is not on the up and up, but I also find the press and his opposition disingenuous ( see my other post)

Fortunately, "gut feel" has extremely limited value in judicial proceedings. The whole point of this thread is that he has not been convicted by the judiciary. Why bring "gut feel" into this discussion?

Welcome back, SP. I hope all is well.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:31 am

Uppili wrote:If you don't have any evidence, is it alright in your book to call him a criminal?

I am not calling him a criminal, so that is a strawman. I am pretty precise in my allegations against him. There is evidence for all those accusations in the public domain. Even Uppili-of-six-years-ago believed those allegations completely.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:35 am

Uppili wrote:Until Modi is charged, tried, and convicted - he should not be punished by the "secular fundamentalists"

So what punishment has been meted out to Modiji unfairly thus far?

You "totally believed" six years ago the allegation that Modi congratulated rioters for doing a "fantastic job," and that his government helped rioters hide out until things cooled down. In other words, you "totally believed" that Modi and his government committed crimes. As you admitted back then, the problem was not one of guilt, but one of prosecution. So what exactly are you trying to do, defending a person that you "totally believed" is guilty?

by FluteHolder Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:41 am

panileni paparao wrote:
FluteHolder wrote:Just curious, why no one cried/complained about our dubya when he waged war against Iraq on the pretext of WMDs and what international agencies have done against him? Worlds most advanced country with so much intelligence made a blunder on WMDs under Dubya, he was/is not held accountable. On what category this crime should be looked under? And yet, he lives under great protection and probably getting $s for his speech/visit? Does HRW has any charges/complaints against him?

The answer, thanks to a quick consult with Googlacharya, is yes. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/5.5.htm

All these counterexamples of "crimes other people committed" as evidence of the innocence of Modi are not to the point at all.

>>
It is interesting that the article you posted never mention GW Bush. (search for 'bush' came negative in that article page).

Like Upps saying, no court/law enforcement agency so far able to find Modi guilty..

by Uppili Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:43 am

panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:46 am

FluteHolder wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
FluteHolder wrote:Just curious, why no one cried/complained about our dubya when he waged war against Iraq on the pretext of WMDs and what international agencies have done against him? Worlds most advanced country with so much intelligence made a blunder on WMDs under Dubya, he was/is not held accountable. On what category this crime should be looked under? And yet, he lives under great protection and probably getting $s for his speech/visit? Does HRW has any charges/complaints against him?

The answer, thanks to a quick consult with Googlacharya, is yes. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/5.5.htm

All these counterexamples of "crimes other people committed" as evidence of the innocence of Modi are not to the point at all.

>>
It is interesting that the article you posted never mention GW Bush. (search for 'bush' came negative in that article page).

Like Upps saying, no court/law enforcement agency so far able to find Modi guilty..

OK, here you go.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/07/12/getting-away-torture-0

This 107-page report presents substantial information warranting criminal investigations of Bush and senior administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and CIA Director George Tenet, for ordering practices such as “waterboarding,” the use of secret CIA prisons, and the transfer of detainees to countries where they were tortured.

Hope that helps.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:50 am

Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how?

by Uppili Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:09 am

panileni paparao wrote:

If you don't see my point, then you win.

He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how? [/quote]

He is not ? People boycotting him citing Gujarat riots is just that.... According to you he is punished only if he is jailed.

Basically he is on a suspended sentence.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:14 am

Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how?

He is not ? People boycotting him citing Gujarat riots is just that.... According to you he is punished only if he is jailed.

Basically he is on a suspended sentence.

People not supporting him politically is a free exercise of their political rights, based on their personal opinions of what happened in Gujarat. That is not judicial punishment. Judicial punishment is tied to due process of trial with the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. You can't expect to shut people up from talking about Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots citing a lack of conviction any more than Congress can shut people up from talking about corruption just because nobody has been convicted in the 2G or Bofors scams.

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:28 am

panileni paparao wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how?

He is not ? People boycotting him citing Gujarat riots is just that.... According to you he is punished only if he is jailed.

Basically he is on a suspended sentence.
People not supporting him politically is a free exercise of their political rights, based on their personal opinions of what happened in Gujarat. That is not judicial punishment. Judicial punishment is tied to due process of trial with the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. You can't expect to shut people up from talking about Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots citing a lack of conviction any more than Congress can shut people up from talking about corruption just because nobody has been convicted in the 2G or Bofors scams.

We can't shut people up and we wouldn't want to shut them up, but here's where I have a problem with all the anti-Modi rhetoric: Most of it is similar to Rashmunni's arguments in its shrillness, lack of logic, lack of proper proof, speculation, and at times, amazing leap of faith. In other words, it looks like the conclusions were drawn first, and then people went in search of sources and connections to support their conclusions. Just like Rashmunni does.

Also, Modi is held to a much higher standard than any other political leader in the country past or present. The same people who express outrage against Modi's comments, actions, lack of actions, do not feel or express the same outrage against other politicians. Normally, this would be okay. But we are in a situation where Modi will be pitted against these same politicians. The least we could do is evaluate them all with same yardstick.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:30 am

SomeProfile wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how?

He is not ? People boycotting him citing Gujarat riots is just that.... According to you he is punished only if he is jailed.

Basically he is on a suspended sentence.
People not supporting him politically is a free exercise of their political rights, based on their personal opinions of what happened in Gujarat. That is not judicial punishment. Judicial punishment is tied to due process of trial with the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. You can't expect to shut people up from talking about Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots citing a lack of conviction any more than Congress can shut people up from talking about corruption just because nobody has been convicted in the 2G or Bofors scams.

We can't shut people up and we wouldn't want to shut them up, but here's where I have a problem with all the anti-Modi rhetoric: Most of it is similar to Rashmunni's arguments in its shrillness, lack of logic, lack of proper proof, speculation, and at times, amazing leap of faith. In other words, it looks like the conclusions were drawn first, and then people went in search of sources and connections to support their conclusions. Just like Rashmunni does.

Also, Modi is held to a much higher standard than any other political leader in the country past or present. The same people who express outrage against Modi's comments, actions, lack of actions, do not feel or express the same outrage against other politicians. Normally, this would be okay. But we are in a situation where Modi will be pitted against these same politicians. The least we could do is evaluate them all with same yardstick.

I am all for evaluating our politicians with the same yardstick. I know I certainly endeavor to do that.

by Uppili Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:31 am

panileni paparao wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how?

He is not ? People boycotting him citing Gujarat riots is just that.... According to you he is punished only if he is jailed.

Basically he is on a suspended sentence.
People not supporting him politically is a free exercise of their political rights, based on their personal opinions of what happened in Gujarat. That is not judicial punishment. Judicial punishment is tied to due process of trial with the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. You can't expect to shut people up from talking about Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots citing a lack of conviction any more than Congress can shut people up from talking about corruption just because nobody has been convicted in the 2G or Bofors scams.

You are contradicting yourself. How do you establish complicity without proof? At best you can say "modi's possible complicity" in which case boycotting him is punishing him. it is those who dislike Modi preventing the ones who like him from hearing Modi. In other words the free speech and freedom loving "secularists" are a bunch of hypocrites, and they dont even know what they stand for.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:35 am

Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:He is innocent until proven guilty in any court of law where he is tried. I wouldn't want him to be punished by law unless duly convicted. Are you claiming that he is being punished right now? If so, how?

He is not ? People boycotting him citing Gujarat riots is just that.... According to you he is punished only if he is jailed.

Basically he is on a suspended sentence.
People not supporting him politically is a free exercise of their political rights, based on their personal opinions of what happened in Gujarat. That is not judicial punishment. Judicial punishment is tied to due process of trial with the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. You can't expect to shut people up from talking about Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots citing a lack of conviction any more than Congress can shut people up from talking about corruption just because nobody has been convicted in the 2G or Bofors scams.

You are contradicting yourself. How do you establish complicity without proof? At best you can say "modi's possible complicity" in which case boycotting him is punishing him. it is those who dislike Modi preventing the ones who like him from hearing Modi. In other words the free speech and freedom loving "secularists" are a bunch of hypocrites, and they dont even know what they stand for.

You are confused; let me illustrate this. When you said you "totally believed" that Modi committed the crime of helping a rioter abscond from the police and hide out in Mount Abu, did you conduct your own investigation beforehand? Or were you then a secularist and therefore hypocritically judged him to be guilty before a court told you that you are allowed to say what you said? Hope that helps clarify your confusion.

by Kris Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:33 am

Kris wrote:
>>>> I don't know-- but my gut feel says this guy is not on the up and up, but I also find the press and his opposition disingenuous ( see my other post)

Fortunately, "gut feel" has extremely limited value in judicial proceedings.
>>>Agreed.
The whole point of this thread is that he has not been convicted by the judiciary. Why bring "gut feel" into this discussion
>>>The gut feel thing comes up since in the end game of electability, it does matter.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:12 am

Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

Bwahahaha...

by Uppili Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

Bwahahaha...

ok...easy ...now...easy....Islamist loyal attack dog....take it easy.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

Looks like you are not recognizing the fukularistic tactic to "win" in a debate. To kill a cobra, they use two sticks - one to divert the attention so that with the other stick you can kill!

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:27 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

Looks like you are not recognizing the fukularistic tactic to "win" in a debate. To kill a cobra, they use two sticks - one to divert the attention so that with the other stick you can kill!

Guruvu-gaaru, why are you calling Uppili a snake? Also, a dharma sandeham: are you calling today's Uppili a snake as well, when you call Uppili-of-six-years-ago a snake?

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:28 pm

trofimov wrote:...Uppili-of-six-years-ago...

Are we venturing into time travel now?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:11 pm

trofimov wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Uppili wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:Uppili, did you ever get a chance to meet Uppili-of-six-years ago on old CH?

I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.
Was Uppili-of-six-years-ago a so-called secularist?

Looks like I have no changed my views at all. Look at my response to Kris in which I have stated I do think he was fully aware of what was going on. So he must have looked the other way.

But, isn't he innocent until proven guilty ?

If you don't see my point, then you win.

Looks like you are not recognizing the fukularistic tactic to "win" in a debate. To kill a cobra, they use two sticks - one to divert the attention so that with the other stick you can kill!
Guruvu-gaaru, why are you calling Uppili a snake? Also, a dharma sandeham: are you calling today's Uppili a snake as well, when you call Uppili-of-six-years-ago a snake?

This must be another fukularistic tactic!

by Sponsored content

Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.

Re: Modi - Guilty until proven innocent forever.