Quote:
|
Maybe it was for reasons of humilitation...but we are not obligated to assume that IMO. The burden of proof is on HIM, not us.
|
Quote:
|
... I am unwilling to assume innosence by default...
|
This is a very weird aproach - actually it would be very funny, if it wouldn't be so frightening..
Have you ever considered, that proving something not existing, is sometimes much more difficult, than proving someting exist. It is sometimes impossible to prove one's innocence, when one is innocent.
For example, if I now claim that you're a yellow space monkey with superpowers, you might find it very difficult to prove i'm wrong. Or if I claim, you have killed a half dozen of hobos, it is the same thing.
It is the reason, why in justice and usually in common life, the guiltiness is the one to be proven, not innocence. It is common sense.
I'm very sceptic against any argument based on almost free speculation with no evidence, and defended only by demands to claim one's wrong. As I see it, this is exacltly you're doing with these issues about terrorism and W.M.Ds.
There were not evidence of the weapons. For Saddam, it was likely impossbile to even proof, that he had destroyed the weapons. We discussed about this before.
There is no evidence of partition of terrorist activities. Now you're taking exactly same aproach. There is no evidence, but somehow you're assuming guiltiness by default.
Overall, I would like to repeat, that the terrorist connection is really a weak argument, and I would like to see you admiding it.
Anyway, the speculation about the terrorist connections is little vain in this part of the story. If there had been real terrorist connections, the U.S military would had likely found the evidence. They have been there for some time already. Certainly, there shouldn't be too many unknown issues about Saddam's Iraq left.
- BtD