“Yapa, intellectualism isn’t required to recognize honesty;”

That must be the reason for your display of lack of respect for honesty.

Thanks!

Yapa, intellectualism isn’t required to recognize honesty; only intelligence and morality is required. You possess neither. Therefore, I think it is clear where the with whom the disability lies.

Dear DB;

I think your intellectual capacity doesn’t permit you to distinguish dishonesty from honesty. Otherwise you wouldn’t have painted one party in black and the other party in snow white in Dambulla incident.

It was my fault to have engaged with intellectually disabled in discussions.

Thanks!

Lol, Yapa, you remind me of Saddam Hussein who, after he was driven out of Kuwait in 1991 with heavy losses, declared that it was in fact his original strategy and that he had therefore won the war 😀 So are you now declaring that you spent the last couple of weeks trying to convince all of us that the monks were criminals worthy of investigation, and nothing more? I once told you that I pity your students for the karma of being saddled with a rogue for a teacher. Your intellectual dishonesty has once more confirmed it. Perhaps you missed out on this when I first wrote it, so do enjoy it even now; I doubt you’ll be able to take anything out of it though: http://blacklightarrow.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/blacklight-manual-bm-9876-counter-guerrilla-intellectual-operations/

Dear DB;

..I am glad to see that you now accept that the monks who avoided court and instead chose to commit arson and vandalism are indeed the criminals in this incident; a point that has taken you several weeks to understand :D”

Eventually you have understood a bit of what I have been trying to teach you.

It has been a hectic task. All my students grasped subtle theories in Physics much easier than this. If you were a Physics student I don’t know how much I would have to teach a single concept. I was very fortunate.

Thanks!

“DB should not waste that much of words out of the argument.”

Unfortunately, this was necessary since my words within the argument were beyond your intelligence.

“My argument was simple.”

It is not just your argument that is simple. However, my argument is that you are wrong.

“While agreeing that the attack on the mosque (whether it is legal or illegal)was wrong and punishable under the penal code,”

How can it be punishable under the penal code if you’re unsure that the act is illegal? 😀 Also, how is it that you’re unsure if arson and vandalism are illegal acts? I thought you said you had extensive experience of the law?

“what I said was reaction to the incident too was not reasonable and gone to the extremes that it would bring negative effect to the country than benefits.”

No, that is not what you said. What you did say was that the reaction to the incident was wrong, and a reason to avoid an investigation of the incident. I can quote your exact words if your memory is failing 😉 You also haven’t shown us how peaceful protests and political pressure could be taken to anti-SL extremes. Rather, your argument has shown us how the state support of religious extremism, coupled with an unwillingness to follow the law of the land can bring both the country and Buddhism into disrepute.

“I think, any sensible man would not refuse this notion if he is honest.”

Regardless of your faulty grasp of the concept of honesty (not to mention justice and sensibility), I have easily refuted your notions, and you have no further argument beyond questioning my motives.

“Criminals and law breakers never want to go to court. I think that explains the whole episode.”

This statement evidences my earlier point that it isn’t just your argument that is simple. But I am glad to see that you now accept that the monks who avoided court and instead chose to commit arson and vandalism are indeed the criminals in this incident; a point that has taken you several weeks to understand 😀

“It is the criminal acts of the monks that has caused the conflict. If the mosque was illegal, the monks could simply have gone to court and had it demolished. You are very keen to have the victims go to court, but not the criminals 😀 You have a strange view of the law.”

Criminals and law breakers never want to go to court. I think that explains the whole episode.

Thanks!

DB should not waste that much of words out of the argument.

My argument was simple.

While agreeing that the attack on the mosque (whether it is legal or illegal)was wrong and punishable under the penal code, what I said was reaction to the incident too was not reasonable and gone to the extremes that it would bring negative effect to the country than benefits.

I think, any sensible man would not refuse this notion if he is honest.

[Edited out]

Thanks!

Yapa,

1. Police does not need a complaint from somebody to take action on criminal offences. If some one is murdered, even if the body is unidentified police should initiate criminal investigations in to the murder. That day, police was present during the whole episode. Therefore, there is no need of anybody to put a formal complaint to the police.

2. Do you know for sure whether they had complained to the police or not? DB says that they did to the President. If that is corrrect, why should they complain to Dambulla police as they have alredy complained to the all powerful president, supreme commander of armed forces. Moreover, when looking at the behaviour of the police and government officals that day do you expect the muslims to have any faith in the police? Can you blame them for not complaining to police?

3. Any body can say that the mosque is illegal. So far no body has proved it. The legal guardians of the mosque do not have to prove it. Your neigbour can say that your house has been constructed on a land belong to him. To prove that he has to file a case in a civil court and ultimately it is the court decision that matters. That is the simple truth. If you are free please go to any civil court you will find hundreds of people who have been trying to prove somebody’s land/house is illegal for years, while the defendents are happily living in the disputed properties.

4. Although you and DB are up in arms debating this issue the matter seems to have been settled at the highest level. After all, all the powerful muslim politicians are with the governement, MR is not going to gain anything by supporting Dambulla Monks, the muslim countries expressed their concerns, the Sinhala buddhists nationalist, who are with government haven’t taken this issue further probably Dambulla monks are not with them. After all Dambulla monks seem to be not so powerful.

3. You should question the Dambulla monks, not the mosque, for failing to file a case in the court to prove that it is illegal. As you know, these land disputes are not simple. I suspect, Dambulla monks know that they can not prove that the land belong to them. That’s why they do not take legal action.

“the issue does not limit to that four questions alone.”

If there are other questions, do voice them. But in the meantime, it is important that you answer these questions since they address your argument; namely, that the mosque is illegal, and that action against criminals necessitates a formal complaint.

“On the other hand he has not answered many more than four questions posed by me, but slipped away giving cunning word puzzles.”

They are puzzles only to the stupid and ignorant. If I haven’t answered a question put, you need simply reiterate the question, as I have done with you.

“He is appealing to popularity, and it is easy strategy, but it is not the truth. I posted a story from the Arabian Nights to expose the fallacious nature of his arguments, but Groundviews did not give space to it for some reason.”

Perhaps GV is under the impression that fairy tales have nothing to do with a discussion on the law. Strange people, these GV editors.

“You will see how those for questions were irrelevant, and nothing more than a crafty plot planned in order to trick the truth in a dishonest intention.”

If they are irrelevant, do show us how they are irrelevant; as I have done with your arguments.

“But I have no problem in exposing such treachery.”

Will you do a similar exposure as your beloved monk did in Dambulla? 😀

“Slipping away from questions is his strategy, it has never been my trait.”

Then you should have no problem answering those questions put to you.

“He might in the wrong notion that David is David. No it is a misconception.”

I am indeed David 😀

“Please wait and see. I will strip off his crookedness.”

How long must we wait? You promised to do similar strippings over a year ago. Unfortunately, your thalagoya friend in Dambulla has already beaten you to it and stripped in public.

“You seem to believe the fairy tale that history repeats. David cannot deceive for ever with his catapult. Your cunning tactics never deceive Goliaths for ever.”

David did not deceive Goliath, he killed him. Which fairy tale have you been reading?

“Your strategy seems to be to rest arguments on the fallacious notion that Enemy’s enemy is a friend to show that I am an enemy to the readership. But the truth is the opposite. People engage in dishonest endeavours by distorting fact is the common enemy.”

Instead of whining about being victimized, why don’t you just answer the questions and convince us of your superior strategy and intellect.

“1.There is no dispute about the wrong illegal action of the monks and thugs. I and you also condemned that action, and at the very beginning I said they should be brought into book. So the action of the monks cannot be a point of debate between “the David” and me. It is something irrelevant to the debate.”

There is indeed a dispute; and that is that while you term arson and vandalism to be merely “illegal” (and below in point 6 as simply “mistakes”), I have termed it as criminal. Your failure to understand the difference is at the core of your belief that civil action can address a crime. It cannot. If you will admit that you do not understand this, I can explain it to you. If you instead pretend to understand, you will continue to be ignorant.

“2. At the very beginning of the debate, I condemned the inaction of the government including the president and the Defence Secretory. I think one cannot attribute their faults on me as well.”

Can you link to any such condemnation that you have made? I cannot see it. On the other hand, you have justified the authorities’ inaction by inventing the notion that the victim must make a formal complaint to initiate such action.

“3. I reiterated legal action should be taken against the culprits who behaved in the illegal manner in the incident, and my position was despite the reluctance of the police to pursue the legal proceedings.”

Once again, your ignorance of the difference between criminal and civil leads you to believe that the latter can replace the former. This is an ignorance of even the basics of law.

“4. I showed that they (aggrieved party)had enough strength and resource to go in that line, but they had opted for other alternatives other than the legal procedure.”

You did not, since as I pointed out, neither strength nor resources can change the judicial system which does not allow a private citizen to conduct either a criminal investigation nor a prosecution. Only the authorities can do that.

“There were simple additional efforts needed to pursue in that line, like making a formal and descriptive complain to the Police but they didn’t do.”

Firstly, the have made such a complaint (and I have linked you to the news item confirming it), though you refuse to accept that fact; and secondly, such a complaint is not necessary for an investigation to be conducted. You insist that the latter is necessary, and I have asked you to quote the law or precedent that dictates this. You have failed to do so.

“If they did make a complain it is nothing more than to follow the procedure and to use it as an eye wash.”

So after insisting that a complaint is necessary (even though it is not), you attempt to invalidate that very complaint by falsely attributing an ulterior motive to it. I say falsely, because an attempt to follow procedure can be suspect only if the motive itself is suspect. There is no evidence of any such suspicious activity, and you are unable to provide any, in spite of repeated questioning. You are simply trying to tarnish the victims by unsubstantiated insinuations. This reveals the low morality of your character.

“If the police did not proceed with they could have complained to the IGP. That didn’t happen. They could have brought that into the attention of the executive and push the case towards taking legal action against the culprits. That didn’t happen.”

It has happened. Complaints have been made to the president (the executive). In spite of now recommending such a course, you had previously termed such actions “illegal”.

“They could have report to the judiciary that their grievances were not heard by the police and complain against the police to judiciary. Any injustice done to even an individual in principle can be reported to the judiciary expecting justice and relief. They lacked no money or able people to help them go in this line.”

They may yet do this, if other forms of pressure do not work. It is their choice which course to take and when, and aspersions on their honesty cannot be made by you simply because you disagree with them.

“Even though David just deny without any basis, the case could have taken as a private plaint. Either he is ignorant or dishonest in this case as well.”

In order for you to prove my ignorance and/or dishonesty, I have asked you to quote the law or precedent that shows a private plaint in a civil court can be used to convict a person in a criminal matter. You have been unable to do so, obviously, instead proving your own dishonesty and ignorance.

“David has no proof even to the fact that even a single complaint was made by the “aggrieved party” to Police, he just slipped away from the question saying that he is not the OIC of Dambulla.”

I did no such thing. Why are you resorting to outright lies? I furnished you the evidence in the form of the news report on the complaint. I said I wasn’t the OIC when you asked me for the details of the complaint (name of complainant, receiving officer, etc) which only the police and the complainant have the details of.

“He has been persistently denied the necessity of the arrived party’s enthusiasm to pursue the case.”

I’m not sure what the above means, since your grammar and syntax is so appalling. Why don’t you use simple language instead of confusing yourself by trying to sound educated? What is this arrived party? It is you that has adjudged their level of enthusiasm, not I.

“He cannot not to have any knowledge how the things happen in Sri Lanka. You will never be able to get even a birth certificate, without harbouring it going after this fellow and that fellow. It is impossible he cannot have such knowledge how the matters happen in Sri Lanka. Contrary to this normal behaviour in Sri Lanka, evOn the other hand everything happened in a totally different mode and David suddenly wants things to happen just according to the book. That is good strategy.”

Again, what does the above mean??? 😀 What has a birth certificate got to do with my having no knowledge of the details of a complaint? On the other hand, how is it that you cannot quote the law you claim the building of the mosque violates?

“When the case of illegality of the mosque came up with the evidence many champions forget they have a mouth and only the David wants to use foul strategy to cover up its illegality with crooked nonsense.”

So where is this evidence? That is one of my four questions to you.

“Why others are silent on this matter. Why the don’t answer the Divisional Secretory who said the mosque was illegal or why not take action against her.”

Why should action be taken against her, when no action has been taken against the mosque? If her claim is used to justify the demolition of the mosque, then action can be taken. You seem to be eager for action to be taken against anyone but your beloved criminal monks 😀

“I don’t think David and other advocates are blind to reports like this.”

Not blind; just skeptical. Who is Jagath Jayawardene and “NAK” (whatever that is), and under what laws have they proclaimed the mosque illegal?

“There were many reports to the effect that the mosque was illegal, but no one is vocal but want to keep silent or a culprit wants to slip away from it using the muscular power of the mouth, they are colour blind to opposite facts.”

However many reports (or rumours) that the mosque is illegal, these are irrelevant if the law that prohibits the mosque cannot be found.

6. How can you explain this abnormal behaviour of the aggrieved party in Sri Lankan context.”

On what grounds do you say the behaviour is abnormal? It is for this reason that I asked you to quote the laws or precedents that dictate what you suggest is “normal”> You have failed to do so 😀

“The behaviour can be justified in Davisd’s Utopian Land, not in ground realities in the Sri Laknan context.”

Actually, they can be justified by law (and I have done so). What are the ground realities you believe justify breaking the law?

“What David’s strategy was to shoot the messenger not the message. He bashes me as a supporter of the monks, it is untrue and irrelevant to the argument, there is no dispute regarding monks wrong activity.”

To the contrary, it is your message (ie that the victims are responsible for prosecution of criminals, and that the victims in this case are guilty of illegalities) that I have shot down convincingly. Your defense of the monks criminality is also quite worthy of a bashing.

“He wants to show me as a friend of the government and a racist to gain undue advantage of popularity, rather than sticking to the argument.”

Lol, where have I suggested you are a friend of the government? With friends like you, the government wouldn’t need enemies!

“He just wanted to show the government mechanism as a escape goat to cover up the reluctance of the aggrieved party to pursue the legal action.”

There is no such government mechanism that can be made an “escape” goat 😀 It is the failure by the authorities to follow the legal mechanism that is enabling a cover up of the monks’ crimes.

“He approves lobbying and other means of action and active participation of the aggrieved party”

I have neither approved nor disapproved their choice of action; I have only approved them being the choice.

“but vehemently refuse their any participation or help to proceed it in the legal direction saying it is nothing but a responsibility of the police.”

It certainly is the responsibility and the duty of the authorities to investigate criminals. Private citizens cannot do so, and to attempt it would be illegal. Are you advocating such illegal actions?

“I think David would behave in the same manner if some thing happened to even to his toe nail even by a mistake of an outside party.”

“He would sleep tucking his hands and the head between his hind legs until the police pursue the case and prosecute the culprits.”

Are you suggesting that I must take the law into my own hands and pursue the criminals myself?

“7. Illegal structure is not something to be concerned according to this gentlemen, but only illegal attacks.”

I am very concerned with illegal structures, but I want them first proved illegal. This is one of my four questions to you — can you prove the mosque illegal? Up to now, you have failed to do so 😀

“Illegal acts of civil nature are not illegal for him, but only criminal things.”

Acts tried in civil court are not necessarily illegal. Again, if you knew the difference between the civil and the criminal, you wouldn’t be making such a fool of yourself 😀 Civil courts concern themselves with damages (or the prevention thereof), not illegalities. Eg: a man may not be doing anything illegal in divorcing his wife for another woman, but she can still sue him for damages in a civil court, and may be awarded compensation.

“He seems to be interested in criminal activities alone.”

I think violent crime should take precedence over property disputes, yes.

“8. He just want to rely us on news reports chosen by him,”

You are free to choose your own news reports if you can find any that contradict the one I have produced.

“and the strategy against fact forwarded by is just denials and demanding further evidence from my mouth alone, he does want to keep his eyes straight not to see them.”

Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean 😀 but I haven’t asked for evidence from your mouth (we’ve all seen the nonsense that comes out of that hole), but for evidence. At the beginning you said you don’t want to place faith in whims and fancies; neither do I. I prefer evidence. I have the same stance when it comes to accusations of war crimes — the Darusman Report suggests that the allegations are credible enough. It seems you agree, Yapa.

“9. He wants to brand the effect the conflict as wrong indemnifying the root causes. He does not want to see at the illegality of the mosque, without which nothing of the sort would have happened. He protect the root cause as sacred.”

It is the criminal acts of the monks that has caused the conflict. If the mosque was illegal, the monks could simply have gone to court and had it demolished. You are very keen to have the victims go to court, but not the criminals 😀 You have a strange view of the law.

“There are many more to expose.”

I can’t wait to see these exposures. Will they be as shameful as your beloved monk’s public exposure of his genitals?

Crookedness is not an alternative for genuine arguments. Honesty is one of the best policies if it is not the one.”

Then why do you persist with crookedness and dishonesty?

“David is well known for using unethical strategies from the beginning of the history.”

You mean asking for evidence is an unethical strategy? Then you must be of the opinion that the GoSL is being unethical in asking for evidence of war crimes. I see.

“You can talk irrelevant vagaries instead of the points relevant to the argument to confuse others. However, it does not work with me.”

Evidence and the law is very relevant in a discussion on a legal dispute. It is irrelevant only to the criminals.

“You have put too much money on your dishonesty, but it is no problem for me.”

Glad to hear it. Could you then (with no problem) answer these questions that you have been unable to thus far:

1. Can you quote the law that forbade the building of that mosque?
2. Can you prove in any way whatsoever that the mosque is illegal?
3. Can you quote the legal precedent that allowed a civil court to rule in a criminal matter?
4. Can you quote the law that states the victim must make a formal complaint in order that the authorities act in a criminal matter?

Thanks! 😀