dru2, on 2010-07-31 20:47:52, said:
somo, on 2010-07-31 15:02:45, said:
I find it hard to believe how many posters here are so willing to condem a man before he has had a trial. I have not seen or heard of any evidence he was involved in any terrorist acts or planned any or encited any and even if i had I would not rush to judgement. Fighting for political rights should not be confused with terrorism but that is what the powers that be would like everyone to do and so far nearly all the contributors here have willingly fallen this blatent distortion because it fits in with their limited redneck lynch mob mentality.
Well - take out the 'neck' and there you have it, spot on: ...limited red lynch mob mentality. I couldn't have put it better myself!
Using the logic that he has not been found guilty in a court means that Hitler is innocent.
When will people learn if some one commits a crime they are guilty no matter what the courts say. If the court says he is innocent all that means is they can not penalize him in any way other than what he has gone through all ready. If they did the deed they are still guilty. If the court finds him guilty and he is innocent they can penalize him but he is still innocent.
As for you not seeing any evidence that he is guilty I have not seen any that he is innocent. Only a fool would expect them to publish there evidence before trial. Besides what is it to you you are going to believe what ever the court says.













