Search results

Over a million people and there was risk of civilian casualties. If the decision was made to take it down before over the ocean and people died/were injured as a result I'll bet you'd be criticizing that as well, right?

Why would it given that the yardstick for execution is 100% proof of guilt, not conviction itself. I've explained this multiple times now from my position. The rest is just supposition and would result in a percentage of innocent people being wrongfully executed.

Bzzzt, Nil points. Ya really should give up on this whole clairvoyance sort of thing you've got going on there Stripe cos you are invariably off the mark with it...

Oh, so a post that's beyond a paragraph amounts to a 'rant' to you does it? Sure, they were both full of shouting, all caps, exclamation marks etc etc. You're funny Stripe, inadvertently but still funny... 😆

Yeah, that's not what I believe but then hey, kinda par for the course with you ain't it? :ROFLMAO:

Or possibly, just maybe it wasn't shot down until over the ocean because the debris could have killed people on the ground, just to add a non conspiracy option here...

In what way, do tell!

See the above to Derf. I'm sure you'll find some way of twisting it to mean something I don't etc.

I've used examples where an initial conviction was absolutely proven to be wrong. You do realize that absolute innocence can be proven as well as guilt, right? I used these examples as there are some who advocate that a conviction of guilt should lead to a swift execution afterwards, no appeals...

Wouldn't have been a thread worth creating. You might like to start a myriad ones all over the place, I don't.

Well, unlike you I don't reduce people to who they vote for as a bit more nuanced than that thanks and 'attack on this forum'? What are you on about now?

Just because I haven't personally witnessed a case being proven beyond doubt doesn't equate to it not having happened. If that was your 'point' then it wasn't much of one. I've already given two cases where convicted people were proven innocent down the line. So it's not an 'impossible standard'...

No, that could also apply to cases I've even witnessed. What's your point?

It is where it comes to taking someone's life.

Which is why I don't.

If '2,000 Mules' is your yardstick for "fact" then says it all...

Too easy...

Not in all convictions, no. If there's value in it then why would I want to do away with it?

You don't give answers on point either. You do realize that there are cases where absolute proof has been ascertained, right? That particular goal is certainly possible if absolute guilt is established before taking someone's life.

No she didn't, she lost by 17,000 votes fair and square.