Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by gomezcat, Mar 11, 2006.
On one hand it is good, however there will always be doubts about what he did as he did not go to trial..wonder if it is an inside job???
Are you implying that he might have been innocent?
Or that the trial would have revealed even more than was already known about his guilt?
I am not implying anything, all I am saying is there will always be doubters as he never went on trial and all the evidence was not presented. If he went to trial, there would have been less wiggle room for doubters, take the holocaust for example, if there were not Nuremburg trials would there have been as much belief??
Personally, I believe he did it and have never thought otherwise, I always wondered if the response would have been different and quicker if Muslims were raping Christian women. The Catholic church was noticably silent on this one, as they often are as it is not a crime prepetrated on their own people.
Well, the trial had started in the second half of 2002. But, like many things, it worked its way off the front page rather quickly.
The way I see it, enough of his top aides are in custody and to be tried that the story (and facts) of his invlovement will come to light.
I hope you are correct, as if all the information is not presented makes way for a lot of revisionist history.
Separate names with a comma.