Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

a Mr Palin can build a million dollar home with the help of some friends

hmmm.. any proof for this assertion.

BTW, who helped Obama buy his "million $" home. (shhhhh.. he is the god and Rezko was just offering his prayers to the "one" ).

Okay so you can quote things you have heard and I can't ? :-)

Todd Palin has a million dollar home that was built allegedly by the people that got a contract for a stadium IIRC. Todd maintains that he built it himself (literally, meaning no formal contract was issued) with the help of "a few friends".

Don't be so sore about Obama. I know he disproved all your predictions starting from NH, but still..... We are all wrong sometimes

ha ha ha .. the first person that comes to your mind as an example for someone "inappropriately" getting a house with a friend's help, is Todd Palin ... and not Obama. Specially when one of them's friend is a convicted felon. Nice!!

...and I am sore about Obama   ROFLMAO.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

[prfsr]

a Mr Palin can build a million dollar home with the help of some friends

hmmm.. any proof for this assertion.

BTW, who helped Obama buy his "million $" home. (shhhhh.. he is the god and Rezko was just offering his prayers to the "one" ).

Okay so you can quote things you have heard and I can't ? :-)

Todd Palin has a million dollar home that was built allegedly by the people that got a contract for a stadium IIRC. Todd maintains that he built it himself (literally, meaning no formal contract was issued) with the help of "a few friends".

Don't be so sore about Obama. I know he disproved all your predictions starting from NH, but still..... We are all wrong sometimes

ha ha ha .. the first person that comes to your mind as an example for someone "inappropriately" getting a house with a friend's help, is Todd Palin ... and not Obama. Specially when one of them's friend is a convicted felon. Nice!!

...and I am sore about Obama   ROFLMAO.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

And to you Sir!

I am not surprised that you ignored the simple fact that Obama has been more thoroughly investigated (by the Repub's, journos, whoever else) than Palin for obvious reasons. And friends being felons -- it must hurt that none of your party could make any hay on this But you know what, I understand. Was any election prediction of yours correct, or even close?

[flute]

Regardless of whether or not Kasab (and other terrorists caught red-handed) gets a trial, it will be a farcical one at best following the traditions of Nuenberg, Saddam, and Milosevic. While it is nice to portray that the legal system is sound and will give everyone justice...at almost all times in history the travel of the vanquished has been a theater. I'm sure the same will happen with Kasab as Roy will spearhead the demand for sparing his life and returning him safe n sound to pakistan,.

In that case I suggest conjugal visits by Ms.Roy in the interim until such a grant is made.

Ha ha ha.. 

Wonder what kind of screwed up kid that visit will produce.

cheap shot..

It is tough to keep up with you.  So we are trying our best at that art.

substantiate..which cheap shot did I indulge in?

As if you asking me couple of posts above to get someone killed so that you can pray is not a cheap shot.  You live off of that.  Come on now.  Admit it.

you are kidding now right? my point was, how can I pray for a soul to rest in peace( which is what I originally said on a old thread which you keep bringing up) if the person is still alive? since you seem to support lynching kasab, I said, why don't you kill him first ..

First point me to a post where I specifically said that on this thread.  No beating around the bush.

well I said "seems" and I got that impression because you said you trust the judgement of dex,ruchir & WN on this thread ( specifically quoting the exchange regarding lynching in public stadium). WN clearly suggested lynching on this thread, what else can I deduce? anyway, if you are not in agreement with is suggestion, my point stands revoked.

I did
read my post again, please. I suggested that he should be left in closed stadium full of people.. now it is you who is jumping to the conclusion that he will be lynched by people. Who knows they may garland him. Hmm.. looks like you have a very low opinion of and trust in our "aam junta" 's ability be fair and do the right thing. Wah re, Mr Democracy

well Mr.SmartAss, you should read your post and others( in support of your post) in the context. You did post after your initial post and never cared to clarify.

[ruchir]

1) Did I say anywhere that Al Qaeda or Lashkar E Toiba are to be designated as soldiers or be subject to GC ? I simply made a statement of when the Geneva Convention is applicable.  Perhaps you should read carefully before jumping to conclusions.

You mean you didn't mean that? If you didn't then I wonder why would you bring in GC when talking about terrorists? What could be the purpose? In your opinion, are LET and AQ fighters really soldiers? Are they POWs? From what I know only a soldier fighting in a uniform and fighting under the flag and symbol of a nation can be given POW status. So why talk about POW when topic of discussion is terrorists?

2) And since you brought it up --- As far as the Taliban were concerned (specific reference to the Afghanistan situation), the Taliban who the US captured would and should have been treated as POW's (yes, I am aware of what GC says about uniform) because using the uniform clause to justify denying soldiers (Taliban) who fought and defended their country is using a technicality as a crutch to circumvent the spirit of the law.

Spirit of the law ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Since when did you start spinning like a Lattu, Pitamah? What spirit of the law are you talking about? When rules and clauses of Geneva Convention were written, did terrorism exist? Were those rules written with these Islamic terrorists in mind?

Those rules were written with real soldiers in mind. That was the spirit under which GC was written. Nobody had envisioned then the kind of terrorism and guerrilla warfare we see today. So please don't confuse the spirit of GC. GC was written solely and only for the purpose of giving fair treatment to captured soldiers. The key word being soldiers. It was not written to give fair treatment to captured terrorists and guerrilla fighters, simply because they are just fighters, not soldiers. They don't have affiliation to any nation, hence GC does not apply to them.


Bush Admin did not come out with the term "enemy combatant" out of nowhere. In the history of modern warfare, no nation had declared war on a bunch of terrorists and guerrilla fighters on the scale that we saw in Afghanistan. Since these fighters were not an army of soldiers, they could not be called POWs. So what do we call them? If we call them POW, then we give them GC. How can they get GC when they are not soldiers of any nation? And Bush did not do any thing out of ordinary by keeping them in GBay. He was merely acting on the precedent setup by everyone's favorite President Clinton. Clinton used to pack these so-called "enemy combatants" away to prisons in Egypt and Turkey, for them to be tortured there and information extracted. At least Bush was better because GBay, being operated by US, was in media eyes and many from media and Senate were actually able to visit the place.

[ruchir]

WTF is wrong with YOU?

wondering the same here..oh wait I got my answer..never mind

Oh... so you finally peeked in a mirror?

Oh, and I also have a thought on phucking Kasab getting legal representation. I think there is no need for anyone to tell any lawyer not to give legal representation to Kasab. I would suggest that Indian public should make sure that any lawyer who gives legal representation to Kasab does not get any other case in rest of his life. There should be public boycott of the lawyer who represents Kasab, rather than telling lawyers not to represent him. If MoFo Kasab wants, he can get lawyers from PAK or any other supporting country to represent him. If any Indian lawyers shows his patriotism by representing him then Indian public has full rights not to give him any business for rest of his life. Maybe, all TV channels plaster his face on TV screens letting everyone know who is representing Kasab, maybe shops can stop selling merchandise to him, Taxis can refuse to pick him, Airlines can refuse to give him tickets, maybe IT department should do an needle-in-the-haystack kind of investigation in his finances. I'm sure MoFo Kasab will find some PAK lawyer to represent him... problem solved.

if what you suggested happens and if there is no lawyer ready to represent him and if I were a lawyer, I don't mind representing him. I did probably be overcome with hatred and repugnance for kasab, but I will overcome them for the sake of India and represent him to make sure his trial and his sentencing carries the stamp of international standards of justice. I did be contributing to the image of India as a modern, mature functioning democracy.

Ha ha ha ha.... 

First of all, tell me what has democracy go to do with representing Kasab? See, that's the thing. Intellectual guys like you like using all these flashy words like "modern", "mature", "democracy" but forget to see where the usage is required.

Who is stopping you or any other lawyer from representing Kasab? At least not me. I am talking about people's reaction to the person representing Kasab. Since you are talking about democracy, I am saying people should make sure that they tell that lawyer what they think about him. If they like him representing Kasab, that's fine and dandy with me. If they don't like him representing Kasab, then in a democracy they have the right to make their displeasure known. And I am giving ideas on how to do it in a non-violent way (since you are a *hi fan). I am talking about *hian policy of non-cooperation. Let no one co-operate with this lawyer for the rest of his life, if people don't like him representing Kasab.

[flute]

WTF is wrong with YOU?

wondering the same here..oh wait I got my answer..never mind

Oh... so you finally peeked in a mirror?

Oh, and I also have a thought on phucking Kasab getting legal representation. I think there is no need for anyone to tell any lawyer not to give legal representation to Kasab. I would suggest that Indian public should make sure that any lawyer who gives legal representation to Kasab does not get any other case in rest of his life. There should be public boycott of the lawyer who represents Kasab, rather than telling lawyers not to represent him. If MoFo Kasab wants, he can get lawyers from PAK or any other supporting country to represent him. If any Indian lawyers shows his patriotism by representing him then Indian public has full rights not to give him any business for rest of his life. Maybe, all TV channels plaster his face on TV screens letting everyone know who is representing Kasab, maybe shops can stop selling merchandise to him, Taxis can refuse to pick him, Airlines can refuse to give him tickets, maybe IT department should do an needle-in-the-haystack kind of investigation in his finances. I'm sure MoFo Kasab will find some PAK lawyer to represent him... problem solved.

if what you suggested happens and if there is no lawyer ready to represent him and if I were a lawyer, I don't mind representing him. I did probably be overcome with hatred and repugnance for kasab, but I will overcome them for the sake of India and represent him to make sure his trial and his sentencing carries the stamp of international standards of justice. I did be contributing to the image of India as a modern, mature functioning democracy.

Ha ha ha ha.... 

First of all, tell me what has democracy go to do with representing Kasab? See, that's the thing. Intellectual guys like you like using all these flashy words like "modern", "mature", "democracy" but forget to see where the usage is required.

Who is stopping you or any other lawyer from representing Kasab? At least not me. I am talking about people's reaction to the person representing Kasab. Since you are talking about democracy, I am saying people should make sure that they tell that lawyer what they think about him. If they like him representing Kasab, that's fine and dandy with me. If they don't like him representing Kasab, then in a democracy they have the right to make their displeasure known. And I am giving ideas on how to do it in a non-violent way (since you are a *hi fan). I am talking about *hian policy of non-cooperation. Let no one co-operate with this lawyer for the rest of his life, if people don't like him representing Kasab.

kya baat hain ruchir saab, aaj aap bahut has rahe hain, every other post seem to be start with ha ha ha? are you typying sitting at a dentist's office with laghing gas on?

[ruchir]

WTF is wrong with YOU?

wondering the same here..oh wait I got my answer..never mind

Oh... so you finally peeked in a mirror?

Oh, and I also have a thought on phucking Kasab getting legal representation. I think there is no need for anyone to tell any lawyer not to give legal representation to Kasab. I would suggest that Indian public should make sure that any lawyer who gives legal representation to Kasab does not get any other case in rest of his life. There should be public boycott of the lawyer who represents Kasab, rather than telling lawyers not to represent him. If MoFo Kasab wants, he can get lawyers from PAK or any other supporting country to represent him. If any Indian lawyers shows his patriotism by representing him then Indian public has full rights not to give him any business for rest of his life. Maybe, all TV channels plaster his face on TV screens letting everyone know who is representing Kasab, maybe shops can stop selling merchandise to him, Taxis can refuse to pick him, Airlines can refuse to give him tickets, maybe IT department should do an needle-in-the-haystack kind of investigation in his finances. I'm sure MoFo Kasab will find some PAK lawyer to represent him... problem solved.

if what you suggested happens and if there is no lawyer ready to represent him and if I were a lawyer, I don't mind representing him. I did probably be overcome with hatred and repugnance for kasab, but I will overcome them for the sake of India and represent him to make sure his trial and his sentencing carries the stamp of international standards of justice. I did be contributing to the image of India as a modern, mature functioning democracy.

Ha ha ha ha.... 

First of all, tell me what has democracy go to do with representing Kasab? See, that's the thing. Intellectual guys like you like using all these flashy words like "modern", "mature", "democracy" but forget to see where the usage is required.

Who is stopping you or any other lawyer from representing Kasab? At least not me. I am talking about people's reaction to the person representing Kasab. Since you are talking about democracy, I am saying people should make sure that they tell that lawyer what they think about him. If they like him representing Kasab, that's fine and dandy with me. If they don't like him representing Kasab, then in a democracy they have the right to make their displeasure known. And I am giving ideas on how to do it in a non-violent way (since you are a *hi fan). I am talking about *hian policy of non-cooperation. Let no one co-operate with this lawyer for the rest of his life, if people don't like him representing Kasab.

kya baat hain ruchir saab, aaj aap bahut has rahe hain, every other post seem to be start with ha ha ha? are you typying sitting at a dentist's office with laghing gas on?

Actually, no. I am in my office. It's just that I am reading a lot of funny stuff on the DG lately.

[flute]

WTF is wrong with YOU?

wondering the same here..oh wait I got my answer..never mind

Oh... so you finally peeked in a mirror?

Oh, and I also have a thought on phucking Kasab getting legal representation. I think there is no need for anyone to tell any lawyer not to give legal representation to Kasab. I would suggest that Indian public should make sure that any lawyer who gives legal representation to Kasab does not get any other case in rest of his life. There should be public boycott of the lawyer who represents Kasab, rather than telling lawyers not to represent him. If MoFo Kasab wants, he can get lawyers from PAK or any other supporting country to represent him. If any Indian lawyers shows his patriotism by representing him then Indian public has full rights not to give him any business for rest of his life. Maybe, all TV channels plaster his face on TV screens letting everyone know who is representing Kasab, maybe shops can stop selling merchandise to him, Taxis can refuse to pick him, Airlines can refuse to give him tickets, maybe IT department should do an needle-in-the-haystack kind of investigation in his finances. I'm sure MoFo Kasab will find some PAK lawyer to represent him... problem solved.

if what you suggested happens and if there is no lawyer ready to represent him and if I were a lawyer, I don't mind representing him. I did probably be overcome with hatred and repugnance for kasab, but I will overcome them for the sake of India and represent him to make sure his trial and his sentencing carries the stamp of international standards of justice. I did be contributing to the image of India as a modern, mature functioning democracy.

Ha ha ha ha.... 

First of all, tell me what has democracy go to do with representing Kasab? See, that's the thing. Intellectual guys like you like using all these flashy words like "modern", "mature", "democracy" but forget to see where the usage is required.

Who is stopping you or any other lawyer from representing Kasab? At least not me. I am talking about people's reaction to the person representing Kasab. Since you are talking about democracy, I am saying people should make sure that they tell that lawyer what they think about him. If they like him representing Kasab, that's fine and dandy with me. If they don't like him representing Kasab, then in a democracy they have the right to make their displeasure known. And I am giving ideas on how to do it in a non-violent way (since you are a *hi fan). I am talking about *hian policy of non-cooperation. Let no one co-operate with this lawyer for the rest of his life, if people don't like him representing Kasab.

ruchir, looks like you have completely missed the import, meaning and intent behind non-cooperation. *hi waged cooperation as a means to an end. It was non-cooperation with evil until the evil doer ceases doing his evil thing.
Non-cooperation is with the evil not with evil doers or with individuals. What you are suggesting is not even close to what was suggested or how it was used by *hiji. You may not agree with *hiji, but let us not twist his acts & ideology.

In this instance, if you consider representing Kasab is an evil act (IMO it is not evil act and I am sure *hi too would not consider it an evil act), non-cooperation will take the form of not helping him in any way to represent his case or to certain extent not help him lead his life normally while representing his case. BUT, crucially, this non-cooperation should cease as soon as he stops representing kasab or as soon as the case comes to a close. Do not be under any illusion that boycotting an individual for the rest of his life is non-cooperation. If you boycott the lawyer for the rest of his life, what are you not cooperating with? it then descends into social revenge, not non-cooperation.

Above, is just to clarify the true meaning of non-cooperation as I understand.

Coming to Kasab and his defense, a lawyer representation is not about holding him not guilty, it is about making sure the legitimacy of his sentencing stands international standards of trial & justice. If we subject Kasab to lynching or killing without trial, our moral standing takes a heavy beating. This is now a internaionally followed incident, any middle eastern type of functionning will get India a very bad name. Even if we do not consider bad image, it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems. If we make exceptions each time there is an outrage, we are basically following the pak/middle east model and we too will end up in medeival ages like them. It is imperative for us to march ahead instead of back into medeival ages by resorting to uncivilized acts like public lynching, killing etc. Even a farce of a trial is better than a no trial.

[ruchir]

ruchir, looks like you have completely missed the import, meaning and intent behind non-cooperation. *hi waged cooperation as a means to an end. It was non-cooperation with evil until the evil doer ceases doing his evil thing.
Non-cooperation is with the evil not with evil doers or with individuals. What you are suggesting is not even close to what was suggested or how it was used by *hiji. You may not agree with *hiji, but let us not twist his acts & ideology.

blah blah blah blah.......

In this instance, if you consider representing Kasab is an evil act (IMO it is not evil act and I am sure *hi too would not consider it an evil act), non-cooperation will take the form of not helping him in any way to represent his case or to certain extent not help him lead his life normally while representing his case. BUT, crucially, this non-cooperation should cease as soon as he stops representing kasab or as soon as the case comes to a close. Do not be under any illusion that boycotting an individual for the rest of his life is non-cooperation. If you boycott the lawyer for the rest of his life, what are you not cooperating with? it then descends into social revenge, not non-cooperation.

Who said representing Kasab is an evil act? I never used the word "evil". Did you see me do that? Again, your fertile imagination is working some serious overtime. I used the word "patriotic", that too in a sarcastic way. Please read my post again. I was saying that representing Kasab (in his defense) would be an unpatriotic act (at least IMO). So, since IMO the lawyer would be doing an unpatriotic act, I would expect the public to treat him like wise, in a non-violent way. And I consider his act to be so far low in morality that IMO he a social revenge would be justified. Do you know how sexual predators are treated in US? Once you register a sexual predator, you find it very very hard to get employment, residence etc. Basically it becomes difficult for you to survive. IMO the act of representing Kasab (in defense) would be a lower moral act than being a sexual predator.

Coming to Kasab and his defense, a lawyer representation is not about holding him not guilty, it is about making sure the legitimacy of his sentencing stands international standards of trial & justice. If we subject Kasab to lynching or killing without trial, our moral standing takes a heavy beating. This is now a internaionally followed incident, any middle eastern type of functionning will get India a very bad name. Even if we do not consider bad image, it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems. If we make exceptions each time there is an outrage, we are basically following the pak/middle east model and we too will end up in medeival ages like them. It is imperative for us to march ahead instead of back into medeival ages by resorting to uncivilized acts like public lynching, killing etc. Even a farce of a trial is better than a no trial.

He he he... back to international standards and all that *? Who the phuck cares about international standards? Who defines these standards and who validates that they are worthy of being followed? Let us say for argument's sake that tomorrow there is an Islamic world order on planet earth. They establish the international standards of trial and justice and say that stoning to death is a legitimate way of giving death penalty. Should India agree to that international standard? I talk only from Indian perspective, not international. At the cost of repeating ad nauseum, I am all for having a court trial for him. Let him find a lawyer. I'm sure he can find a Paki or Saudi lawyer to represent him.

And stop using phrases that you either don't know what they mean or are completely misplaced in the line of argument. I am talking about stuff like "it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems". How will you strengthen a system that exists for 60+ years, just by having a trial for Kasab? What will the trial of Kasab prove? That Indian court system works? After 60 years you still need to prove that Indian court system works? That it is valid and fair? I mean, come on... you need a Kasab trial to prove that? This is bankruptcy of ideas at it's worst.

Now come to lynching. Who said Kasab should be lynched? Even WN did not say so in as many words. It is YOU who interpreted his post that way. Why did you interpret it that way? Do you have secret dreams of lynching someone, and now that a post was made your thoughts went in that direction right away?

[flute]

ruchir, looks like you have completely missed the import, meaning and intent behind non-cooperation. *hi waged cooperation as a means to an end. It was non-cooperation with evil until the evil doer ceases doing his evil thing.
Non-cooperation is with the evil not with evil doers or with individuals. What you are suggesting is not even close to what was suggested or how it was used by *hiji. You may not agree with *hiji, but let us not twist his acts & ideology.

blah blah blah blah.......

In this instance, if you consider representing Kasab is an evil act (IMO it is not evil act and I am sure *hi too would not consider it an evil act), non-cooperation will take the form of not helping him in any way to represent his case or to certain extent not help him lead his life normally while representing his case. BUT, crucially, this non-cooperation should cease as soon as he stops representing kasab or as soon as the case comes to a close. Do not be under any illusion that boycotting an individual for the rest of his life is non-cooperation. If you boycott the lawyer for the rest of his life, what are you not cooperating with? it then descends into social revenge, not non-cooperation.

Who said representing Kasab is an evil act? I never used the word "evil". Did you see me do that? Again, your fertile imagination is working some serious overtime. I used the word "patriotic", that too in a sarcastic way. Please read my post again. I was saying that representing Kasab (in his defense) would be an unpatriotic act (at least IMO). So, since IMO the lawyer would be doing an unpatriotic act, I would expect the public to treat him like wise, in a non-violent way. And I consider his act to be so far low in morality that IMO he a social revenge would be justified. Do you know how sexual predators are treated in US? Once you register a sexual predator, you find it very very hard to get employment, residence etc. Basically it becomes difficult for you to survive. IMO the act of representing Kasab (in defense) would be a lower moral act than being a sexual predator.

Coming to Kasab and his defense, a lawyer representation is not about holding him not guilty, it is about making sure the legitimacy of his sentencing stands international standards of trial & justice. If we subject Kasab to lynching or killing without trial, our moral standing takes a heavy beating. This is now a internaionally followed incident, any middle eastern type of functionning will get India a very bad name. Even if we do not consider bad image, it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems. If we make exceptions each time there is an outrage, we are basically following the pak/middle east model and we too will end up in medeival ages like them. It is imperative for us to march ahead instead of back into medeival ages by resorting to uncivilized acts like public lynching, killing etc. Even a farce of a trial is better than a no trial.

He he he... back to international standards and all that *? Who the phuck cares about international standards? Who defines these standards and who validates that they are worthy of being followed? Let us say for argument's sake that tomorrow there is an Islamic world order on planet earth. They establish the international standards of trial and justice and say that stoning to death is a legitimate way of giving death penalty. Should India agree to that international standard? I talk only from Indian perspective, not international. At the cost of repeating ad nauseum, I am all for having a court trial for him. Let him find a lawyer. I'm sure he can find a Paki or Saudi lawyer to represent him.

And stop using phrases that you either don't know what they mean or are completely misplaced in the line of argument. I am talking about stuff like "it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems". How will you strengthen a system that exists for 60+ years, just by having a trial for Kasab? What will the trial of Kasab prove? That Indian court system works? After 60 years you still need to prove that Indian court system works? That it is valid and fair? I mean, come on... you need a Kasab trial to prove that? This is bankruptcy of ideas at it's worst.

Now come to lynching. Who said Kasab should be lynched? Even WN did not say so in as many words. It is YOU who interpreted his post that way. Why did you interpret it that way? Do you have secret dreams of lynching someone, and now that a post was made your thoughts went in that direction right away?

apology accepted..no more on this from me directed at you. happy holidays.

[ruchir]

ruchir, looks like you have completely missed the import, meaning and intent behind non-cooperation. *hi waged cooperation as a means to an end. It was non-cooperation with evil until the evil doer ceases doing his evil thing.
Non-cooperation is with the evil not with evil doers or with individuals. What you are suggesting is not even close to what was suggested or how it was used by *hiji. You may not agree with *hiji, but let us not twist his acts & ideology.

blah blah blah blah.......

In this instance, if you consider representing Kasab is an evil act (IMO it is not evil act and I am sure *hi too would not consider it an evil act), non-cooperation will take the form of not helping him in any way to represent his case or to certain extent not help him lead his life normally while representing his case. BUT, crucially, this non-cooperation should cease as soon as he stops representing kasab or as soon as the case comes to a close. Do not be under any illusion that boycotting an individual for the rest of his life is non-cooperation. If you boycott the lawyer for the rest of his life, what are you not cooperating with? it then descends into social revenge, not non-cooperation.

Who said representing Kasab is an evil act? I never used the word "evil". Did you see me do that? Again, your fertile imagination is working some serious overtime. I used the word "patriotic", that too in a sarcastic way. Please read my post again. I was saying that representing Kasab (in his defense) would be an unpatriotic act (at least IMO). So, since IMO the lawyer would be doing an unpatriotic act, I would expect the public to treat him like wise, in a non-violent way. And I consider his act to be so far low in morality that IMO he a social revenge would be justified. Do you know how sexual predators are treated in US? Once you register a sexual predator, you find it very very hard to get employment, residence etc. Basically it becomes difficult for you to survive. IMO the act of representing Kasab (in defense) would be a lower moral act than being a sexual predator.

Coming to Kasab and his defense, a lawyer representation is not about holding him not guilty, it is about making sure the legitimacy of his sentencing stands international standards of trial & justice. If we subject Kasab to lynching or killing without trial, our moral standing takes a heavy beating. This is now a internaionally followed incident, any middle eastern type of functionning will get India a very bad name. Even if we do not consider bad image, it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems. If we make exceptions each time there is an outrage, we are basically following the pak/middle east model and we too will end up in medeival ages like them. It is imperative for us to march ahead instead of back into medeival ages by resorting to uncivilized acts like public lynching, killing etc. Even a farce of a trial is better than a no trial.

He he he... back to international standards and all that *? Who the phuck cares about international standards? Who defines these standards and who validates that they are worthy of being followed? Let us say for argument's sake that tomorrow there is an Islamic world order on planet earth. They establish the international standards of trial and justice and say that stoning to death is a legitimate way of giving death penalty. Should India agree to that international standard? I talk only from Indian perspective, not international. At the cost of repeating ad nauseum, I am all for having a court trial for him. Let him find a lawyer. I'm sure he can find a Paki or Saudi lawyer to represent him.

And stop using phrases that you either don't know what they mean or are completely misplaced in the line of argument. I am talking about stuff like "it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems". How will you strengthen a system that exists for 60+ years, just by having a trial for Kasab? What will the trial of Kasab prove? That Indian court system works? After 60 years you still need to prove that Indian court system works? That it is valid and fair? I mean, come on... you need a Kasab trial to prove that? This is bankruptcy of ideas at it's worst.

Now come to lynching. Who said Kasab should be lynched? Even WN did not say so in as many words. It is YOU who interpreted his post that way. Why did you interpret it that way? Do you have secret dreams of lynching someone, and now that a post was made your thoughts went in that direction right away?

apology accepted..no more on this from me directed at you. happy holidays.

I am glad you apologized. Happy new year to you too.

[flute]

ruchir, looks like you have completely missed the import, meaning and intent behind non-cooperation. *hi waged cooperation as a means to an end. It was non-cooperation with evil until the evil doer ceases doing his evil thing.
Non-cooperation is with the evil not with evil doers or with individuals. What you are suggesting is not even close to what was suggested or how it was used by *hiji. You may not agree with *hiji, but let us not twist his acts & ideology.

blah blah blah blah.......

In this instance, if you consider representing Kasab is an evil act (IMO it is not evil act and I am sure *hi too would not consider it an evil act), non-cooperation will take the form of not helping him in any way to represent his case or to certain extent not help him lead his life normally while representing his case. BUT, crucially, this non-cooperation should cease as soon as he stops representing kasab or as soon as the case comes to a close. Do not be under any illusion that boycotting an individual for the rest of his life is non-cooperation. If you boycott the lawyer for the rest of his life, what are you not cooperating with? it then descends into social revenge, not non-cooperation.

Who said representing Kasab is an evil act? I never used the word "evil". Did you see me do that? Again, your fertile imagination is working some serious overtime. I used the word "patriotic", that too in a sarcastic way. Please read my post again. I was saying that representing Kasab (in his defense) would be an unpatriotic act (at least IMO). So, since IMO the lawyer would be doing an unpatriotic act, I would expect the public to treat him like wise, in a non-violent way. And I consider his act to be so far low in morality that IMO he a social revenge would be justified. Do you know how sexual predators are treated in US? Once you register a sexual predator, you find it very very hard to get employment, residence etc. Basically it becomes difficult for you to survive. IMO the act of representing Kasab (in defense) would be a lower moral act than being a sexual predator.

Coming to Kasab and his defense, a lawyer representation is not about holding him not guilty, it is about making sure the legitimacy of his sentencing stands international standards of trial & justice. If we subject Kasab to lynching or killing without trial, our moral standing takes a heavy beating. This is now a internaionally followed incident, any middle eastern type of functionning will get India a very bad name. Even if we do not consider bad image, it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems. If we make exceptions each time there is an outrage, we are basically following the pak/middle east model and we too will end up in medeival ages like them. It is imperative for us to march ahead instead of back into medeival ages by resorting to uncivilized acts like public lynching, killing etc. Even a farce of a trial is better than a no trial.

He he he... back to international standards and all that *? Who the phuck cares about international standards? Who defines these standards and who validates that they are worthy of being followed? Let us say for argument's sake that tomorrow there is an Islamic world order on planet earth. They establish the international standards of trial and justice and say that stoning to death is a legitimate way of giving death penalty. Should India agree to that international standard? I talk only from Indian perspective, not international. At the cost of repeating ad nauseum, I am all for having a court trial for him. Let him find a lawyer. I'm sure he can find a Paki or Saudi lawyer to represent him.

And stop using phrases that you either don't know what they mean or are completely misplaced in the line of argument. I am talking about stuff like "it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems". How will you strengthen a system that exists for 60+ years, just by having a trial for Kasab? What will the trial of Kasab prove? That Indian court system works? After 60 years you still need to prove that Indian court system works? That it is valid and fair? I mean, come on... you need a Kasab trial to prove that? This is bankruptcy of ideas at it's worst.

Now come to lynching. Who said Kasab should be lynched? Even WN did not say so in as many words. It is YOU who interpreted his post that way. Why did you interpret it that way? Do you have secret dreams of lynching someone, and now that a post was made your thoughts went in that direction right away?

apology accepted..no more on this from me directed at you. happy holidays.

I am glad you apologized. Happy new year to you too.

looks like you missed the "accepted" word.. looks like it goes with your views on other things too..you only see what you want to see and ignore things which do not fit your world view.