5 ms·

> In fact even the prime Minister modi was on a mass murdering case of Gujarat 2002. He was the chief minister when the riots Happened!! That guy has still not

> In fact even the prime Minister modi was on a mass murdering case of Gujarat 2002. He was the chief minister when the riots Happened!! That guy has still not even apologized or said sorry to the families whose people were killed. I think you should stop whatever you are doing and get appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court of India. Obviously you know so much more than what they know or have deduced about criminals in India, much less the PM.

andrewvijay 10y ago
did you not read the word 'was' ? Im not saying he is a mass murderer. Im only saying he was on the case for long. Your insecurity about this only makes me even more suspicious.
- yogesha 10y ago
  Then why should he say sorry?
  - andrewvijay 10y ago
    Responsibility.
    - adictator 10y ago
      If he said "Sorry" the scumbags would say "See, he said 'Sorry', obviously he's guilty", if he does not say "Sorry", the remaining scumbags say "He did not even say 'Sorry', he needs to take responsibility"! If you think people can't see through such antics as you're playing, you are really deluded & grossly underestimate the general intelligence of humans!
  - alokyadav15 10y ago
    for " political correctness " .
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- adictator 10y ago
  WTF man! Just because people do not agree with you, they become "insecure"? Unless you have been living under a rock or deep inside a cave you should know that almost every political party in India as well as many international NGO's, including our very own Hillary Clinton were out to "Get Modi". There were at least two Special Task Forces (STFs) that said there is no evidence of Modi being involved in the killings. He was the CM at that time, that was his only fault. The Courts in India have given him a clean chit, this was when he was a mere CM, at a time when the Congress party was in power. I mean, you got be really dense... And what's with the 'was'? Just because you claim someone "was" a mass murderer, you can absolve yourself when every known & serious inquiry against him proves otherwise? Please try to be objective & analytical. Look up facts. Just because you like things to be a certain way does not make it so. Try to understand the divisive politic people play, but their best hands couldn't prove what was false. I meant it seriously - if anyone can prove that he is guilty, go and make your case. Stop being a keyboard warrior!!
mu1ex 10y ago
That'll be tough mate. Judiciary in India is another corrupt system, where only money works.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
What's with your negative and sarcastic response to a commenter who actually cares about a serious situation? If something he said was untrue or misleading, please cite facts or refute so we can be in on the joke.
- adictator 10y ago
  The commenter is deluded and does not care for facts. This case has been running in prime coverage for the last 10-12 years because almost everybody took an interest in it, because they wanted to "Get Modi". Many inquiries were setup, including special task forces, commissions, many US & European based NGO's in the guise of missionaries came to India searching for mass graves, he was banned from getting a Visa to enter the US, the supreme court in India held multiple hearings etc. After all that, he was deemed innocent. This shows that there is plausible evidence that the commenter was not serious, & in fact a troll or he was absolutely clueless, yet does not & cannot resist from accusing someone of being a "mass murderer". So there, that's the joke! You can't get more serious than that about this situation.
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    Thank you for providing the context that is helpful. However a quick skim of content seems to suggest that a significant amount of people do not have confidence in the impartiality of the investigations, and that it remains a controversial issue.
    - adictator 10y ago
      >a significant amount of people do not have confidence in the impartiality of the investigations Generally, you would be right in assuming that. But in this case, Modi was in quite a vulnerable situation, when the primary opposition party (Congress) was in power in the central government at that time; they even had CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) in their control, there were too many international parties out to dig up evidence and accuse him (which they did, sans evidence). But at the end, not one charge stood up. In other words, he was proven innocent multiple times against all odds. The Visa ban was also overturned without a whimper, in fact Modi & Obama became such good friends....

andrewvijay 10y ago

did you not read the word 'was' ? Im not saying he is a mass murderer. Im only saying he was on the case for long. Your insecurity about this only makes me even more suspicious.

yogesha 10y ago
Then why should he say sorry?
- andrewvijay 10y ago
  Responsibility.
  - adictator 10y ago
    If he said "Sorry" the scumbags would say "See, he said 'Sorry', obviously he's guilty", if he does not say "Sorry", the remaining scumbags say "He did not even say 'Sorry', he needs to take responsibility"! If you think people can't see through such antics as you're playing, you are really deluded & grossly underestimate the general intelligence of humans!
- alokyadav15 10y ago
  for " political correctness " .
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
adictator 10y ago
WTF man! Just because people do not agree with you, they become "insecure"? Unless you have been living under a rock or deep inside a cave you should know that almost every political party in India as well as many international NGO's, including our very own Hillary Clinton were out to "Get Modi". There were at least two Special Task Forces (STFs) that said there is no evidence of Modi being involved in the killings. He was the CM at that time, that was his only fault. The Courts in India have given him a clean chit, this was when he was a mere CM, at a time when the Congress party was in power. I mean, you got be really dense... And what's with the 'was'? Just because you claim someone "was" a mass murderer, you can absolve yourself when every known & serious inquiry against him proves otherwise? Please try to be objective & analytical. Look up facts. Just because you like things to be a certain way does not make it so. Try to understand the divisive politic people play, but their best hands couldn't prove what was false. I meant it seriously - if anyone can prove that he is guilty, go and make your case. Stop being a keyboard warrior!!

mu1ex 10y ago

That'll be tough mate. Judiciary in India is another corrupt system, where only money works.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

What's with your negative and sarcastic response to a commenter who actually cares about a serious situation? If something he said was untrue or misleading, please cite facts or refute so we can be in on the joke.

adictator 10y ago
The commenter is deluded and does not care for facts. This case has been running in prime coverage for the last 10-12 years because almost everybody took an interest in it, because they wanted to "Get Modi". Many inquiries were setup, including special task forces, commissions, many US & European based NGO's in the guise of missionaries came to India searching for mass graves, he was banned from getting a Visa to enter the US, the supreme court in India held multiple hearings etc. After all that, he was deemed innocent. This shows that there is plausible evidence that the commenter was not serious, & in fact a troll or he was absolutely clueless, yet does not & cannot resist from accusing someone of being a "mass murderer". So there, that's the joke! You can't get more serious than that about this situation.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  Thank you for providing the context that is helpful. However a quick skim of content seems to suggest that a significant amount of people do not have confidence in the impartiality of the investigations, and that it remains a controversial issue.
  - adictator 10y ago
    >a significant amount of people do not have confidence in the impartiality of the investigations Generally, you would be right in assuming that. But in this case, Modi was in quite a vulnerable situation, when the primary opposition party (Congress) was in power in the central government at that time; they even had CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) in their control, there were too many international parties out to dig up evidence and accuse him (which they did, sans evidence). But at the end, not one charge stood up. In other words, he was proven innocent multiple times against all odds. The Visa ban was also overturned without a whimper, in fact Modi & Obama became such good friends....