|
Situation: Someone punches you in the face.
What we can infer:
1. You know exactly who did it, assuming you had your eyes open.
2. Any reasonable bystander/witness who had been around long enough would know exactly who did it.
In other words, incontrovertible proof with stories that corroborate.
Situation: Terrorists blow up WTC.
What we can infer:
1. Someone did it.
But who?
Now I hardly call anything the government has supplied to the public to be incontrovertible proof. Perhaps they have it, but think of it this way....
If you walked on the scene and saw some guy punch another, you'd wonder what's up and maybe even think it's wrong for him to do that. Now what you don't know is what led up to that punch. For all you know it's just a guy returning the punch to another guy who punched him.....or maybe it's the first guy throwing an unprovoked punch?
Now the government hasn't provided us, the public, with the proof for us to truly know what is going on. What I see? I see one guy (US) punching another (other countries). If I were a policeman, I'd be putting handcuffs on the US. The court figures out who's guilty, not the officer.
So what's the difference between terrorists and a guy punching another? Knowledge and understanding of the situation. I don't pretend to know who's guilty and who's not.....so how do you know that we didn't execute innocent people who were "guilty" in the eyes of the government? Bear in mind this is the same government who gets its intelligence from an agency that swore the Chinese embassy was part of a different government......personally, I think that was no mistake, but I don't know.
b
|