quote:
Originally posted by Moni:
This does not really surprise me any.
I mean, they were saying there was no positive proof of his guilt when denying it in the first days afterward...using the American policy of assumed innocent until proven guilty against us in regard to our retalitory actions.
Positive proof must have been uncovered, or he would no doubt still be claiming his innocence in all this.
I just hope this article justifies some of the stronger views of IW members who stand fast for military units going in and taking the Al-Quaeda apart and allows those who are vehemently opposing it to see that action has to be taken and it has to be strong or something like this can and will happen again and not necessarily on U.S. soil.
I don't think people who are anti bombing in Afghanistan are anti solely because up until now there hasn't been 100% proof of guilt. As you are no doubt aware, the reasons are many. I won't go into them here because it's all been said elsewhere, many times.