perhaps merely your suffering the
Now Now little boy.... You're being stupid.
The whole point of this arguement is to state that lack of evidence does not mean that the suspected offender is catagorically innocent as you have stated back to me.
We simply gave a viewpoint and used you for an example.
The more you answer like this, the more "you" look stupid.
due
As we have stated numerous times before, no one can catigirically state that Habib is innocent or guilty. The only exception to the fact is Habib himself.
You are using the reasonable doubt situation is that Habib is not charges therefore he is catigorically innocent.
You statement is stupid to the same effect if anyone says that Habib is catigorically guilty.
Taqiyya Muslims are liarsLike I always said? 2 primitive sects with primitive rligions more suited to running a mafia than running a religion and living in a modern socirty? And with this the...
We used the viewpoint (in which you took it hook, line, sinker and rod) and your response shows how stupid you look.
Let's see:
You haven't provided ANY evidence of:
a) Documents to back up Habib's claims that he went to Pakistan for cleaning contracts or schooling for his children.
b) The money raised (looking at webjet costing about AUD 3,500 to 5,500) to go to Pakistan especially when on a welfare pension and having at least three children.
c) Reasons for Habib's refusal to answer question pertaining his whereabouts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, his knowledge of September 11 in a 60-minutes interview especially when he called (without substantial evidence) many governing bodies as corrupted.
Therefore his character is QUESTIONABLE.
THAT'S logic... "Human" logic!!
