I think its the entertainment time, so here’s a question.
A lot of media reports question about the possibility of Sarath Fonseka contesting with the JVP getting more preferential votes than Ranil Wickramasinghe.
What many of these reports don’t seem to consider is that preferential votes come out of actual party votes.
Here are the Colombo district Presidential election results:
Mahinda Rajapaksha | 614,740 | 52.93% |
Sarath Fonseka | 533,022 | 45.90% |
Ranil got 329,524 preferential votes out of the 441,841 votes for UNP (75%) in 2004 General election. That was with 1,057,966valid votes in the district.
UNITED NATIONAL PARTY | 441,841 | 41.76% |
UNITED PEOPLE’S FREEDOM ALLIANCE | 414,688 | 39.20% |
JATHIKA HELA URUMAYA | 190,618 | 18.02% |
Sarath Fonseka got under swan 533,022 votes in the presidential election, with 1,161,382 valid votes.
In the provincial council election in 2009, Colombo district votes were:
UNITED PEOPLE’S FREEDOM ALLIANCE | 530,370 | 57.78% | 25 |
UNITED NATIONAL PARTY | 327,571 | 35.69% | 15 |
PEOPLE’S LIBERATION FRONT | 21,787 | 2.37% | 1 |
(voter tern out is rather low at 917,915)
Lets assume for the sake of argument that UNP vote base remains at this lowest position. This is quite unlikely — people would be less likely to vote a part just because there’s one candidate in the alliance, and also SF’s popularity right now can’t be what it has been. Even in this case, UNP gets 327,571, while JVP gets 533,022 – 327,571 = 205,451. Lets assume as the party leader and chief candidate, Ranil maintained the 70% of party preferential votes (in the absense of Fonseka) instead of original 75%: This would mean 229,300 preferential votes, which is still larger than the maximum SF could get (205,451), assuming a 100% preferential vote rate (which is likely). Which means Ranil should be safe and dry yet again.
Scenarios that can break this prediction:
Here’s the entertainment part:
- UNP getting even lower vote percentage from Colombo, and JVP doing better at the expense of it.
- Ranil getting a worse than 63 % (i.e. 205,451/327,571) preferential votes.
If (1) happens the UNP will learn that media circus and breaking pots doesn’t help. Good for them. Only bad thing is JVP getting an undue lifeline, which will encourage them to character-centric exploitative politics. But let that be a lesson for the UNP for nurturing the monster. I’m sure not many in the UNP will look at Mangala kindly after that. Kind of thing like having to sacrifice MP posts which should have been theirs to the JVPers, all because they made a hero out of Fonseka just three months ago, isn’t going to help anyone’s morale.
If (2) happens, all the better for the UNP. That will encourage them to kick Ranil out, which is, again, due for long.
This is a worst-case scenario for the UNP, and I don’t think in long-term perspective, whatever outcome won’t be bad fir it.
And whatever outcome would be too good for JVP either. Fons already claimed that he alone is responsible for the total increase of UNP votes, and if Fonseka can increase <25k JVP votes to >200k, he will demand even more from the JVP. Not the first (second or third, for that matter, lol) time JVP creates a monster it can’t control.
A very unlikely scenario is UPFA losing, but even if that happened (for the sake of argument), main scene outlined above isn’t gonna change much and I won’t feel too sorry about UPFA for taking votes for granted.
There’s no way Fonseka’s gonna beat Ranil. He has the elephant… Unless Fonseka’s freed (which is unlikely), he won’t be able to win a lot of votes. He’ll remain quite popular and eventually become a martyr though.
A Free Fonseka would probably create more trouble to JVP than to the government at the moment. On the other hand, Keheliya Rambukwella scored highest preferential vote in Kandy (third all-island) while in remand, and iirc Mahinda Ratnatilake had similar performance under similar conditions.
The really interesting question is, will Duminda Silva come first like in the Provincial Council Election. Who says this is a fundamentalist country? Look how far a kidnapper, a rapist, can go.
“Look how far a kidnapper, a rapist, can go.”
you are surely not talking about Sarath Fonseka going that far after what he did “in a manner unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman” in Diyatalawa Army Training Center — right?
Obviously you can’t compare keheliya’s case and this one. People voted Fonseka coz they wanted change. Can’t see how he’s going to give them that from behind bars… Diyathalava thing is something I don’t know. Could be true, could be false. Duminda’s case is different. He made news, and everyone knows who the hell he is. Same can be said about Mervyn.
About that allegation against Fonseka. Have they ever been proven?
question to you: did you even bother finding out? The allegation was there out in the open, there was documentary evidence, that he was charged for *something* and the “charge” stated shows that they didn’t want to elaborate: it wasn’t a simple rumor (like the “computer jilmart” or “gota buying this and that”) And I didn’t see any other explanation from SF camp, like “look, this was the real offense, not rape”.
Did you know this before voting?
Did you have any idea that this is a lie? explanation?
Did you think it could be true? Then didn’t it bother you?
And Duminda Silva was elected so far to be a PC member, may be an MP soon. You don’t think that the head of the state needs tougher scrutiny?
And I didn’t campaign for Duminda Silva, you campaigned for Sarath Fonseka.
It is a shame if we compare Daminda Silva with SF. We have strong arguments against SF on his politics. The people did not accept it. That was why he defeated by such a margin. Duminda is having money only, nothing else. But SF has given something to Motherland. And it is not a crime to contest against Mahinda. What we are feeling here is not democracy. We all know the personnel characters of most of the politicians (sorry I do not have written evidence). Discussing such things is pointless & disgusting.
Then we become like ITN & Roopawahini.
It’s a different thing that Duminda and Sarath are not comparable for certain things. However, the point here was that Lefroy was lamenting Duminda’s election as a provincial councilor on the basis that he was a rapist. Then he must explain whether a rapist is suitable as head of the state, or whether he had cleared that issue about Fonseka (and how). Otherwise he is a hypocrite and that’s the point I want to get through.
There were no reasons to vote Duminda Silva, that also is a different story. My point is, “people electing a rapist” is just a cheap rhetoric. Idiots who voted Duminda did not vote him for being a rapist either. Similarly, those who voted SF didn’t *consider and weigh* the fact that he was allegedly a rapist. That’s what matters here, and those who voted SF calling Duminda a rapist is pot calling kettle black.
On the other hand, Prasad, being a rapist won’t be brushed off as “a personal matter” about a politician, if proven, even in the United States. Neither would it be considered “disgusting” to discuss it.
Sure I knew he was accused of rape in the late seventies but as far as I know, he wasn’t found guilty and was never punished. Maybe he really did it, but people are assumed innocent until they’re found guilty… Duminda and Mervyn weren’t found guilty either. But we all know what happened there. We even saw Mervyn doing it… Mahinda’s nepotism however is out in the open. His corruption is too. Everyone who ate from the Temple Trees knows that.
And you campaigned for Mahinda
does Mahinda also have rape charges? not to my best knowledge. Enlighten me, or stick to the topic, which was that you had a big issue about people voting someone with rape charges.
Corruption and Nepotism, unlike raping, can ruin a country… I have no issue with people voting people with rape charges and not proven guilty. I have an issue with people voting people who raped actually raped an underage girl. Maybe he had the consent of the girl, but still it’s rape coz the girl was underage. Now don’t tell me Duminda wasn’t found guilty. If you really believe that he’s not guilty, you’d have already said so by now.
I don’t speak for Duminda and I do think he did rape the girl (by the way, while he was a UNP PC member, whom Ranil did not kick out despite requests by many.)
Issue here is, you are throwing everything you can find to Anti-MR camp. Duminda comes into mind and you use it. In doing that, you forget that SF was provably convicted and punished for something which the anti-SF camp claimed was a rape, and SF camp was totally silent about it.
If you were that much rape conscious, you should have given a thought to it rather than brushing it off as cheap mud-slinging. It had *some* factual basis. The point is that you were NOT bothered. Here, Duminda is an insignificant political nobody (despite number of votes) who wasn’t even given a ministerial position in the PC and who has almost zero influence in Country’s future. Yet you worry about HIS rape charge!
Punished? Exactly what was the punishment he was given? As far as I know, he wasn’t.
he was “Severely Reprimanded”. Point still remains that you hold a provincial councilor who has no significant influence in shaping country’s politics (at least right now) in a level of scrutiny that you don’t hold the head of the state aspirant, which YOU campaigned for. I never campaigned for Duminda and never will.
Are you saying that (forgetting the media, because in 70ies media isn’t what it is today and SF’s case happened inside a camp) you found what SF did isn’t as “serious” as what Duminda did depending on the punishment alone – or you ignored is as “not serious enough evidence” EVEN AFTER comparing the significance of two positions?
But then again, you are the one who ignored everything wrong about SF, but offered to not vote him if someone can prove that Danuna is involved in hicorp.us right? So I think your priorities are just different. 🙂
Wow. I only now saw that link you had provided. I thought he was directly accused of rape and wasn’t found guilty (since he was found guilty, he must have spent about 5, 6 years in a prison cell). But in that document (I don’t know whether the source is reliable) it doesn’t even say anything. Prejudice against good conduct? ….. I am asking you, where’s your conclusive proof that he raped a woman, was charged for it, was found guilty for it, and was appropriately punished for it? Severely reprimanded, what does that even mean? Hah hah. Basically, reprimanded means, to rebuke somebody for a wrongdoing. Hah hah. Stormcrow, don’t tell me that you don’t know that rape is a serious crime. If you do it, you’re gonna spend at least half a decade behind bars (under civilian laws. I think military laws are even harsher)… It’s only now I understand why you said “charge stated shows that they didn’t want to elaborate.” It says basically nothing. You say that you didn’t see any explanation from the SF camp that it was some other offence, not rape. Wow, that’s conclusive proof that he raped a woman, was charged for it, found guilty for it, and was appropriately punished for it. What did you want him to say? “No it wasn’t rape. I was found masturbating”??? I know he’s a crook. He lied about HiCorp. But I don’t think he raped a woman. Severely reprimanded?? Wow. What a punishment for raping a woman. I’d be raping them everyday.
did you ever read the words i used to link to the image? And I stated my argument very clearly, you can read it up – to *repeat*:
Opposition used this document in many media and claimed that the given offense was raping a servant of a certain officer (or someone like that, look it up). This wasn’t just like Gotabhaya buying hotels etc with no evidence whatsoever. Fonseka camp was completely silent about this. If the given charge sheet was for another charge (given that it was something less than rape), it wouldn’t have been easier to clarify what the actual charge is. This leads to REASONABLE DOUBT that the actual charge was rape, but it couldn’t be proven.
How long did Duminda Silva Spent in Jail?
In the above comment, it should be “since if he was found guilty, he must have spent about 5, 6 years in a prison cell.” … Hah hah. Can’t stop laughing. Severely reprimanded for raping a WOMAN??? And that’s all?? Hah hah.
I want a very clear, yes or no answer to this stormcrow. Do you think, the army’s punishment for raping a woman, is to severely reprimanding the rapist?
see above
You avoid my question. That’s dishonest. So I ask you again, and I want a yes or no answer. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT THINK THE ARMY’S PUNISHMENT FOR RAPING A WOMAN IS TO SEVERELY REPRIMAND THE RAPIST, AND LET HIM GO? Just answer the question. We can end this discussion right after.
I’m not going to let you avoid the question, because your answer will settle everything.
It won’t settle anything. Look what i have been saying from the beginning:
My point, if it was not clear, was that compared to Duminda Silva who went as far as contesting Provincial council and who is a known crook, some one who contests for the head of the state needs tougher scrutiny. I was asking whether you considered that. Look at my words:
Of course if the case was proven beyond doubt, he would LIKELY have tougher sentence (I don’t know the military law, but I think it will be much tougher). But then again, this could have happened only if the case could be proven and rest followed in a fair way. Enlighten me, how long did Duminda stay in jail? A time suitable for a rape?
And now that I have answered your question, answer the three questions of mine above.
The accusation that Fonseka was charged and punished for rape first appeared on mudslinging booklet without an imprint. Do you know that it is illegal to even possess such publication? Anyway I though that he was charged for rape, and was never punished for it (otherwise he should’ve been imprisoned for at least half a decade). That’s the end of that. It didn’t bother me. Why should it? … But now it seems, he wasn’t even charged for rape, and have been appropriately punished. Instead he was charged for “something”, and was only “severely reprimanded” for it. Duminda wasn’t properly punished for his crime (in fact I thought he wasn’t punished at all). Does that automatically mean that Fonseka too wasn’t properly punished. That’s hell of an assumption… You are dishonestly avoiding my question. Do you or do you not believe that the Army’s punishment for raping a woman is to severly reprimand the rapist???
Your whole argument for SF is “if he committed rape, where was the punishment”. Do you accept or not (yes/no) that your case is contradictory in the case of Duminda Silva, and THERE, just for a Town Councilor (whom I did not campaign for), you apply even more stringent criteria (punishment != truth) while for a head of the state (whom you DID campaign for) you seem to simply let the matter go even without expecting even an explanation on the case. If the charge was not rape (and assuming it was much less than rape) the simple thing to do would have been saying what it was.
your admission that you didn’t even know what the real charge was shows that you didn’t even bother finding out, despite your admission to the awareness of the case.
So as far as I am concerned, you are a hypocrite. You wonder that a guy with a reasonable suspicion for rape can go as far as a town councilor, and have no issue about another guy with the same charge going as far as head of the state.
What kind of “convincing” allegation do you expect? It happened inside an army camp, in 70ies or so where there was no big media, SF was just an officer of no public importance and the victim was allegedly a servant. Do you think (ASSUMING SF really did it) the publicly available “evidence” against him would be as strong as publicity against Duminda? I’m not saying that this is a proof that SF did it. I’m just curious about your method of reasoning.
Punishment != Truth in Duminda’s case since you yourself acknowledge that he actually committed the rape. But in SF’s case, yes, I ask you if he committed a rape, where’s the punishment? Duminda’s case is so well known that a DISHONEST GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDIST like you (dishonest because you avoided answering my Yes/No question) has no option but to acknowledge that he really committed rape. SF’s case is entirely different. Just because Duminda bended the law, you want me to assume that Fonseka too bended the law? Do you also want me to assume that since Duminda did it, everyone else who were charged for rape, and were found not guilty, did the same? That’s Mahinda-logic I guess.. You wanted a yes/no answer. Unlike you, I’m not dishonest, and will give you the answer. NO. NO. NO. One more. NO. Where’s the contradiction? Duminda’s case is well known, and even you accept the punishment != truth. Now just because of that, do you think punishment != truth in every other such case? WOW… Fonseka camp was silent about it. What else can they do? Even if the charge was for something much less, could they say what it was? “It wasn’t rape. I was found masturbating.”
“you yourself acknowledge that he actually committed the rape.”
quote me? I said that I *believe* he committed a rape. I wasn’t voting him anyway so that’s not a big issue for me. If I were to vote Fonseka, I’d try to verify about the allegation about him at least to the amount i can.
“(dishonest because you avoided answering my Yes/No question)”
I did answer: to quote: “Of course if the case was proven beyond doubt, he would LIKELY have tougher sentence (I don’t know the military law, but I think it will be much tougher).”
“Duminda’s case is well known”
I argued that SF’s case couldn’t possibly have been “well known” in that time and context, EVEN IF it was true, so comparison is not even to use that as a valid argument. Do you argue that had SF really committed the crime, he SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUNISHED and case should have been given more publicity? Duminda got away with a lot more media exposure and while the victim was iirc much better off in terms of power than a domestic servant of 70ies.
You have acknowledged that Duminda raped a girl. Look at your post on 23rd February 2010, at 8.22 a.m. where you say “I don’t speak for Duminda I do think he did rape the girl.” Unless you delete it, everyone can see it. You lied about you not acknowledging that he committed a rape…. Yes you did answer my question. But that was after I pressured you to do so. Look at the comment you made on 23rd February 2010, at 5.12 p.m. That is your response to me when I asked you for the second time to give me a yes/no answer. There you try to avoid it for the second time, saying “that won’t settle anything.” … Call me (falsely of course) a hypocrite. Whatever you say doesn’t matter since you are proven DISHONEST… I believe there’s not enough sexual tension between us to carry this on forever. I have proven that you are DISHONEST, and that’s enough for me. I’m out of this thread.
* SF was charged for an ‘unknown offense’ and the opposition accused that it was ‘rape’.
* SF did not disclose the offense.
* This raised the reasonable conclusion that the offense was either rape or something equally serious.
Those who campaigned to make SF the president willingly overlooked this reasonable conclusion that SF was either involved in rape or something equally serious.
By their own admission they didn’t even bother to verify whether the said rape charges were true or not. Neitehr did they press SF for a response so that they could clear their doubts before campaigning for SF.
does “I think he did” mean “he did” in your English?
My personal opinion doesn’t matter unless you apply the SAME criteria for Fonseka: both cases, there was a woman comparatively powerless than the rapist, and in both cases, rapist got free. I personally think Duminda did it because i know thru media most of what happened. I don’t know that much about Fonseka, NOT MERELY BECAUSE it was negligibly small but also because it happened long ago in a totally different context. Only thing I know is that there was SOME reasonable documentary evidence that Fonseka did not explain. Had Duminda did the same thing in 70ies, for instance, against a servant woman, MOST LIKELY he would go unnoticed too. HENCE, lack of “wide coverage” isn’t a proper way to compare Fonseka against Duminda. Two cases happened in two different contexts. In fonseka’s case, *what I saw in the context* is enough for me to suspect him, the same way I suspect Duminda.
How many times of repetition of “you are proven dishonest” etc won’t prove your case, but you are free to do so. If you like that kind of argument, I could also say “you are proven dishonest”.
I think I have written enough and you may answer, but this has taken longer than the article itself, so I think I’d rather let the readers judge, unless I feel like answering you more. Sorry for not providing enough attention in case I don’t reply, but feel free to comment. (In case you think that you have “proven” that I’m so and so, I don’t think that you’d need to write again anyway.)
you said, “Just answer the question. We can end this discussion right after.” [Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 4:23 pm]
and I answered you in the immediate reply. [Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm ] “Of course if the case was proven beyond doubt, he would LIKELY have tougher sentence (I don’t know the military law, but I think it will be much tougher)”
In the next reply, [Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 2:33 am] you say:
You are dishonestly avoiding my question.
As a reply to this, at [Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 4:12 am] I **quote** the above comment again and point out that I did answer.
then in the comment at [Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 7:09 am] you say, “Yes you did answer my question. But that was after I pressured you to do so. ”
In short, other than merely quoting what i said previously, I didn’t give you any “answer” to the “question” between 2:33 and 7:09. In other words, for the same answer, you once claimed I’m “dishonestly avoiding answering” and “answered under pressure”. Both cannot be true at once. Which one is right?
I intended not to comment anymore on this thread. But I can’t help but pointing out, even in the above comment storcrow
?
Part was missing in the above comment. So I write it here. I intended not to comment anymore on this thread. But I can’t help but pointing out that even in the above comment he avoids answering to my accusation that he dodged answering my yes/no question… I just realised that even after I pressured him again and again to give an yes/no answer, he hasn’t given that. I was under the impression that he had. There’s so many comments that it makes your brain go fuzzy… I specificlly asked him to give a yes no answer. He hasn’t given one. Instead he says “of course if the case was proven beyond doubt, he would likely have tougher sentence”. Is this his yes/no answer? I asked him specifically does he believe that the Army’s punishment for raping a woman is to severely reprimand him and then let him go. I asked him for a yes/no answer. Look at what he has given. Hah. What more proof do I need to prove that this government propagandist is DISHONEST?
did you read the answer by me at [Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 8:12 am]? You already acknowledged that i did answer (under pressure).
in case you want a yes/no answer, for the question “DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT THINK THE ARMY’S PUNISHMENT FOR RAPING A WOMAN IS TO SEVERELY REPRIMAND THE RAPIST, AND LET HIM GO?”
and if ““Of course if the case was proven beyond doubt, he would LIKELY have tougher sentence” is not acceptable for you for whatever the reason, then the answer is NO.
I simply fail to see the point but in case you think there is any please explain what it is.
Lefroy, a yes/no answer:
Do you think that What Duminda’s got is the punishment under SL penalty code for raping an under aged girl?
yes/no.
No. But what does that prove? Does it prove that because Duminda wasn’t properly punished, Fonseka wasn’t either? If so, as I said earlier, that’s Mahinda logic… You still haven’t given a yes/no answer. What’s worse is that the answer you have given is misleading. You say if the case was proven beyond doubt, he would’ve been given a tougher sentence. The word tougher is relative. Here you are talking relative the sentence he was given, to be severely reprimanded… Now if the charge was rape, and if it wasn’t proven, why would he be officialy, severely reprimanded? Are you telling me there’s such thing as proven NOT beyond doubt?
if proves that your case of taking the punishment meted out for the crime (especially taken after 30 years) as criteria of judging the extent of crime is wrong.
It doesn’t prove that Fonseka did the crime. It just proves that your argument (for absolving Fonseka) is wrong.
(and if I were like you, and I am not, it would give me a chance to hysterically repeat that you are a DISHONEST FONSEKA PROPAGANDIST and say “hah”.)
“Are you telling me there’s such thing as proven NOT beyond doubt?”
There’s such a thing that when the serious crime could not be proven due to some technicality, still there is something else that could be proven. **For instance**, the case of RAPE wasn’t proven because he claimed consensus and there wasn’t any evidence, but he was caught pants down with the servant which may be an offense in itself. FOR INSTANCE.
Proven NOT beyond doubt. WOW.
this kind of comments happens when there are issues with basic comprehension.
I think I have made my point. Tc Mr. YES/NO dishonest government propagandist. Hah.
Do you claim that your “no” answer in Duminda’s case also means that Duminda “was not proven beyond doubt” hence your calling him a “rapist” was wrong?
Otherwise, it’s clear for anyone to see who is dishonest here. YOU ARE, that’s the only point you made.
Is that a question or are you trying to prove that you’re not only dishonest, but also dumb. What the hell have I been telling all this time, Mr. Yes/No Dishonest?
In case you sincerly don’t understand, Duminda’s wasn’t a case inabilty to prove, it was a case of him bending the law with money and politics.
what i said for long was that SF’s could have been a case even easier to bend with power, hence the small punishment itself isn’t proof that the charge was a smaller one than rape, hence your rejecting it on that grounds wasn’t warranted. I see you couldn’t understand that simple argument, or you pretend that you can’t because that would show your dishonesty, so you claim that:
* while duminda’s case wasn’t proven, you know that he is a rapist.
* SF doesn’t need such suspicion because his punishment shows that the charge of rape wasn’t proven.
See the contradiction? I don’t think you will, because, to follow your own style of name calling, you are either dishonest or dumb or both.
But I wonder why you asked me a question after I had said take care. It couldn’t possibly be because you think you haven’t proven anything yet, could it? Hah.
“But I wonder why you asked me a question after I had said take care. ”
You said some stuff and said TC. I answered you. I think that’s perfectly fine. It seems that you don’t think so. In that case, I say TC next, and I hope you would follow your own policy.
TC.
Some stuff? All I said was I think I’ve made my point. How does that ask questions for you to answer?.. Anyway, since you repeat yourself, now I have to explain it to you all over… While Duminda’s case wasn’t proven, I know (since you are an adult, and knows the meaning of words depend on the context, I imagine you know that the word “know” here means “believe”) that he’s a rapist. You yourself, as you said, believe that he’s a rapist…. Then you lie. You say “[according to me] SF doesn’t need such suspicion because his punishment shows that the charge of rape wasn’t proven.” Mr. Yes/No Dishonest, is that what I said? I repeat, is that what I said? … What I said was SF doesn’t need such suspicion because the charge, as I see it, isn’t a rape charge to begin with… I used two facts to tell you why I think the charge wasn’t a rape charge. They are, 1). In the charge sheet you talk about, rape isn’t even mentioned. So technically, it isn’t a rape charge.. 2). The punishment for that charge was “severe reprimandation.” I don’t think that is the punishment he would’ve been given if it was a rape charge, and if it was proven…. For the sake of the argument say it was a rape charge. Even then, how can you even compare it and Duminda’s case. Duminda’s case is so well known, so much a part of our collective history, that even a dishonest government propagandist like you have to say that you think he’s a rapist… You and I know (firmly believe) that Duminda, with his money, and political power, bent the law the way he wanted. Just because he was able to do that, do you say all people who weren’t found guilty after being charged for rape, did the same? Are you saying that because Duminda was able to do that, it automatically means Fonseka, who was a junior officer back then in 76, did the same? … These are fantastic assumptions only a dishonest government propagandist can make. First, you claim a charge that says nothing about rape simply because the UPFAers (a lot of crooks) said it was a rape charge, and because Fonseka camp was silent about it. Then you say, even though he wasn’t properly punished, that doesn’t mean he’s innocent, because Duminda wasn’t innocen either. You deserve an award for these brilliant assumptions Mr. Yes/No… Finally about the fact that Fonseka was silent when the UPFAers said the charge was a rape charge. I’ve already answered this, but I’ll do it again. Say the charge wasn’t a rape charge (it wasn’t, both technically, and as the punishment suggests). Say the charge was for masturbating in public. He was severely reprimanded for it. Now, can he say, no it wasn’t rape, I was found masturbating?
“How does that ask questions for you to answer?”
go look up “answer” in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/answer
You are arguing for the sake of argument, and mostly repaet the same arguments again and again.
For instance, for the question
“Are you saying that because Duminda was able to do that, it automatically means Fonseka, who was a junior officer back then in 76, did the same?”
Read my response at [Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 9:02 am].
So this would be my final response for you. Let the readers judge for themselves.
Some words are missing in the above comment. It should be “First you claim that a charge that says nothing about rape, can be a rape charge, simply because UPFAers (a lot of crooks) said it was the case”.
Yeah let the readers judge. Tc.