This debate reminds me of how-many-angels-can-sit-on-the-head-of-a-pin ...
FN
To my comment: However, in his latest message, Santosh is actually giving
two figures - 2000 killed and 1200 killed. I do grant that my earlier figure
of 1100 could well be wrong. But then given the final quote in his message,
surely I am nearer the correct figure than Santosh is.
Santosh
Santosh Helekar had earlier written: I have no obligation to accept what U.
G. Barad claims to be the official estimate. There are many official
estimates, each one different from the other and from Barad's official
estimate. I for one is using the estimate of Human Rights Watch given in the
- Original Message -
From: U. G. Barad dr.udayba...@gmail.com
However, in his latest message, Santosh is actually giving two figures –
2000 killed and 1200 killed. I do grant that my earlier figure of 1100
could well be wrong. But then given the final quote in his message, surely
Santoshbab: 2000
Dr. Barad: No only 1100
Santoshbab: Barad's estimate of 1100 wrong,
Dr. Barad: My estimate of 1100 is 'official'.
'Official' Ruling from CCGPO ( Court of CyberGoan Public Opinion), Hon. Xri
Zuze Karrom Ali presiding: 11 years and all we have is Atya Patya? Whoever has
Santosh Helekar writes: I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad
claims to be the official estimate. There are many official estimates,
each one different from the other and from Barad's official estimate. I
FOR ONE IS USING THE ESTIMATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH given in the following
quote
On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com QUOTE:
Authorities in India’s Gujarat state are subverting justice, protecting
perpetrators, and intimidating those promoting accountability 10 years after
the anti-Muslim riots that killed nearly 2,000 people, Human Rights Watch
Dr Barad:
I've no other choice than to say, 'the law presumes
all innocent of crime(s) until proven guilty!'
Response:
1.Going by your response, anyone not found guilty by the Courts is
deemed 'innocent'. Technically this is the correct legal position.
However we live in a world which is
I dont understand what Santosh Santosh Helekar get by quoting false
figure of 2000 being killed in the post-Godhra riot! The number of persons
being killed as reported officially by the government in court of law is:
around 1100, of which about 20 - 25 % Hindus and that many Hindus died in
Santosh Helekar:
I have absolutely no problem believing that U. G. Barad is sincere in his
condemnation of killing of innocent people.
Response:
Can one condemn the killing of innocent people but not the perpetrator of
such crimes?
Regards,
Marshall
Marshall Mendonza writes: Going by your response, anyone not found guilty
by the Courts is deemed 'innocent'. Technically this is the correct legal
position. However we live in a world which is governed not merely by legal
technicalities but also by moral, ethical, social and cultural values.
I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad claims to be the official
estimate. There are many official estimates, each one different from the
other and from Barad's official estimate. I for one is using the estimate of
Human Rights Watch given in the following quote from 2012:
QUOTE
Marshall Mendonca has laid out a superb case covering all salient points
concerning Mr. Modi's involvement in the Gujarat Riots and his inaction in
dealing with them in a states manly and amicable way. Marshall has detailed
every relevant point exposing Mr. Modi's inactions and cover-ups in
Santosh Helekar writes: I have no obligation to accept what U. G. Barad
claims to be the official estimate. There are many official estimates,
each one different from the other and from Barad's official estimate. I
for one is using the estimate of Human Rights Watch given in the following
quote
I could not find an answer to my question in Kishwar's multi-part article,
regarding Modi's culpability in the killing of 2000 innocent people by acts of
commission and/or omission. I only found the usual political justifications and
post-hoc rationalizations by Kishwar.
Cheers,
Santosh
Having watched Shekar Gupta's earlier interviews, I tend to agree with JC
that Gupta interrupt too often. At one moment, Manohar Parrikar told me,
let me complete. At least twice, Gupta completed the sentence for
Parrikar, which is odd. Gupta may not sound as a professional bully but
he fell
On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:02 AM, Eugene Correia eugene.corr...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to agree with JC
COMMENT:
What exactly is happening? When is that 'biggesht' moon likely to reappear?
Say what? jc agreeing with Barad and Eugene Correia with JC .while Santosh
Helekar playing on the same
FN:
Is there a Part II to this?
Response:
That is what it appears from the title to the video upload
http://www.ndtv.com/search?q=walk+the+talk
Regards,
Marshall
On above subject line, four Goanet members namely Marshall Mendonza, Jose
Colaco, Santosh Helekar and Augusto Pinto expressed their own views. I
thought of answering all those responses in one message.
My comments on the interview were relating to the link that I had sent, and
not the full
In his partial agreement with my comment, Jose Colaco said: Mr Shekar
Gupta, when you ask a question of a person, please allow the person to
respond. It was a pain to listen to you interrupt Mr. Parrikar in
mid-sentence. Dr. Barad is right. You came across in this interview as an
arrogant and
U. G. Barad.:
In his partial agreement with my comment, Jose Colaco said: ?Mr Shekar
Gupta, when you ask a question of? a person, please allow the person to
respond. It was a pain to listen to you interrupt Mr. Parrikar in
mid-sentence. Dr. Barad is right. You came across in this interview as an
On 23 June 2013 08:22, Marshall Mendonza (MM) wrote (My comments as JC):
MM1: One needs to view the entire interview instead of just a 2-3
minutes clipping before jumping to any hasty conclusions.
JC1: Not very sure how MM deciphered (there) what someone else watched
(here). Is he (also)
On 23 June 2013 17:52, Marshall Mendonza mmendonz...@gmail.com wrote:
One needs to view the entire interview instead of just a 2-3 minutes
clipping before jumping to any hasty conclusions.Here is the entire
interview:
My own impression of this interview is that Mr. Gupta was not tough enough on
Mr. Parrikar. The question should have been whether Modi was culpable in the
killing of 2000 innocent human beings or not, by an act of commission or
omission? That is the only question that matters in respect of
In reply to Marshall's 4th response, should I say, 'If the Congress
leadership were to dig into the BJP's role in fomenting the 2002 Gujarat
pogrom, there is no doubt the BJP would retaliate by clamoring for an
inquiry into the Congress Party's own culpability in the 1984 anti-Sikh
massacre.'
This is with reference to this video:
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/bjp-chief-minister-takes-on-modi-over-
gujarat-riots/279956?pfrom=home-lateststories
2mins 30secs
It is titled BJP chief minister takes on Modi over Gujarat riots. The
title clearly gives the channels summary of
I do not agree with UG Barad that Manohar Parrikar 'could not articulate well
in English ' and that he 'got sort of trapped'.
Two other comments:
(1): Mr Parrikar did NOT slam Mr. Modi as the female news person stated.
(2): Mr Shekar Gupta, when you ask a question of a person, please allow
27 matches
Mail list logo
