Ibrahim Halawa acquited(mod warning in op-Heed it)

wes

atticu wrote: »

So you admit that it is only your opinion, and not fact.
Thank you.

I didn't. Do learn to read please.

end of the road

atticu wrote: »

Yes, I do.
The question is do you?

There is a big difference between no evidence, insufficient evidences, circumstantial evidences, etc.

no evidence was presented against ibriham in court. he was not found guilty of any crime. he is therefore innocent.

atticu wrote: »

So you admit that it is only your opinion, and not fact.
Thank you.

no . it is fact. ibriham is innocent as
1. no evidence was presented in court.
2. he was not found guilty of any crime.

givyjoe

atticu wrote: »

Yes, I do.
The question is do you?

There is a big difference between no evidence, insufficient evidences, circumstantial evidences, etc.

A person acquitted (luckily) does not have to prove their innocence. If there was any credible evidence they would have brought him to trial instead of simply holding him for 4 years without charge.

If he was a white catholic, would you be so feverishly convinced he is 'guilty' of something? Tell us, what is he guilty of in your opinion and what is the evidence?

Nettle Soup

I am delighted for the poor young fella. I hope he can put the hell of the last 4 years behind him.

atticu

wes wrote: »

I didn't. Do learn to read please.

Thank you, I learned to read when I was a child.

Please learn to prove your claim, if you don't prove them, then they are taken for what they are, opinion.

atticu

end of the road wrote: »

no evidence was presented against ibriham in court. he was not found guilty of any crime. he is therefore innocent.



no . it is fact. ibriham is innocent as
1. no evidence was presented in court.
2. he was not found guilty of any crime.

Can you back that claim up, please.

atticu

givyjoe wrote: »

A person acquitted (luckily) does not have to prove their innocence. If there was any credible evidence they would have brought him to trial instead of simply holding him for 4 years without charge.

If he was a white catholic, would you be so feverishly convinced he is 'guilty' of something? Tell us, what is he guilty of in your opinion and what is the evidence?

I never made any claim, therefore there is nothing that I need to prove.

Go back and read my posts.

givyjoe

atticu wrote: »

I never made any claim, therefore there is nothing that I need to prove.

Go back and read my posts.

Right, so you don't believe he is guilty of anything then?!

wes

atticu wrote: »

Thank you, I learned to read when I was a child.

You clearly need to work on your comprehension skills.

atticu wrote: »

Please learn to prove your claim, if you don't prove them, then they are taken for what they are, opinion.

Stop with the lies. Accusers need to provide proof (which is what demands for proof of innocence are btw, despite your claims to the contrary). Halawa is being release, as there was no evidence against him, this has been already established, so no need for a link. I also provided a link on the 2nd point.

So provide some evidence of guilt, or stop your constant lies about what isb being said. I know your think your being clever, but you are making an accusation, so back it up.

atticu

givyjoe wrote: »

Right, so you don't believe he is guilty of anything then?!

As I posted, I didn't make any claims.
You did, but you didn't back them up, so to me and many others your claims are just your opinion.

atticu

wes wrote: »

Stop with the lies

There are no lies in my posts.

You are the one who made a claim without backing it up or proving it.

givyjoe

atticu wrote: »

As I posted, I didn't make any claims.
You did, but you didn't back them up, so to me and many others your claims are just your opinion.

What in the bejesus are you are sh!tting on about? What are you claiming then..? Are you simple? He was acquitted by an Egyptian court.. that is widely known fact.. why on earth do i need to back this up? If the Egyptian Prosecutors had evidence to find him guilty, they would have proceeded to trial. They didn't, what part of this do you not understand?

Again, what exactly is your point? Do you think he committed a crime..? If so, what crime and what is your evidence for this? Can't be too hard to answer a simple question.

First Up

atticu wrote:

There is a big difference between no evidence, insufficient evidences, circumstantial evidences, etc.

No evidence was offered. Do you have information to suggest the prosecution had evidence but chose not to present it?

atticu

wes wrote: »

you are making an accusation

Please quote my post with this accusation.

wes

atticu wrote: »

There are no lies in my posts.

You claim I provided no evidence to back up my claims. I did. You are lieing again.

atticu wrote: »

You are the one who made a claim without backing it up or proving it.

I did provide proof. I provided a link. Halawa being acquitted is well known, so no need for a link (which btw has been provided by others already on this thread).

Still, I'll be nice and provide it again:
Ibrahim Halawa acquitted of all charges, expected to be released within days


For the 2nd point I provide a link. Again, you are lieing.

Now, please back up your your claims of guilt, as demanding some be proven innocent, is a clear accusation of guilt.

wes

atticu wrote: »

Please quote my post with this accusation.

Your constant demands to prove someone innocent, is an accusation of guilt. Now provide evidence please for your clear accusation. What your doing is not especially clever.

So, come one, what is Halawa guilty of? Also, proof of this guilt, please. You have been unable to back up your accusations multiple times, and have refused to do so on multiple occasions.

I answered your bull**** questions several times. Do me the same courtesy, and do stop lieing about what me not providing proof. I have done so. You have not.

EMPunk

wes wrote: »

You claim I provided no evidence to back up my claims. I did. You are lieing again.



I did provide proof. I provided a link. Halawa being acquitted is well known, so no need for a link (which btw has been provided by others already on this thread).

Still, I'll be nice and provide it again:
Ibrahim Halawa acquitted of all charges, expected to be released within days


For the 2nd point I provide a link. Again, you are lieing.

Now, please back up your your claims of guilt, as demanding some be proven innocent, is a clear accusation of guilt.

Hey Lionel Hutz being that you are such a great law talkin' guy , you should perhaps know that being acquitted does not mean innocence , far from it

givyjoe

EMPunk wrote: »

Hey Lionel Hutz being that you are such a great law talkin' guy , you should perhaps know that being acquitted does not mean innocence , far from it

He wasn't even brought to trial, so what do you believe he is not innocent of.. and what evidence do you have to back it up? Acquitted after a trial is one thing, but not even being brought to trial shouldn't leave you or others scrambling to question his innocence.

First Up

EMPunk wrote: »

wes wrote: »

You claim I provided no evidence to back up my claims. I did. You are lieing again.



I did provide proof. I provided a link. Halawa being acquitted is well known, so no need for a link (which btw has been provided by others already on this thread).

Still, I'll be nice and provide it again:
Ibrahim Halawa acquitted of all charges, expected to be released within days


For the 2nd point I provide a link. Again, you are lieing.

Now, please back up your your claims of guilt, as demanding some be proven innocent, is a clear accusation of guilt.

Hey Lionel Hutz being that you are such a great law talkin' guy , you should perhaps know that being acquitted does not mean innocence , far from it

How far?

wes

EMPunk wrote: »

Hey Lionel Hutz being that you are such a great law talkin' guy , you should perhaps know that being acquitted does not mean innocence , far from it

Yeah, it does actually. Its up to the accuser to prove there case, not the other way round. Get back to me, when you or your ilk can do so.

atticu

wes wrote: »

You claim I provided no evidence to back up my claims. I did. You are lieing again.



I did provide proof. I provided a link.

You didn't provide evidence to back up your claim, all you did was say 'his sisters said so'.

Will I Am Not

If you could even make an effort, please.

wes

atticu wrote: »

You didn't provide evidence to back up your claim, all you did was say 'his sisters said so'.

Proof please of your claims, that his sister is not being truthful.

Also, proof please of Halawa's guilt.

Also, answer the questions I asked. I answered yours. If your refuse to do so, then the only conclusion, I can come to is that, you are not debating in good faith.

atticu

wes wrote: »

there is no evidences of any wrong doing on his part.

This is the claim that you made.

Either you have something to back up your claim, or it is just your opinion.

wes

atticu wrote: »

This is the claim that you made.

Either you have something to back up your claim, or it is just your opinion.

I did, back up your claims of guilt please.

atticu

wes wrote: »

Proof please of your claims, that his sister is not being truthful.

Also, proof please of Halawa's guilt.

We don't know if she is being truthful or not because you won't back up your claims.

Why are you looking for proof that Halawa is guilty, do you believe he is guilty?

atticu

wes wrote: »

I did, back up your claims of guilt please.

No, you didn't.
You only gave your opinion

I haven't made any claim, so nothing for me to back up.

wes

atticu wrote: »

We don't know if she is being truthful or not because you won't back up your claims.

Prove that she is being untruthful. Your are making an accusation, now prove it.

atticu wrote: »

Why are you looking for proof that Halawa is guilty, do you believe he is guilty?

You demanded proof from me, now I demand you prove your claims.

wes

atticu wrote: »

No, you didn't.
You only gave your opinion

I haven't made any claim, so nothing for me to back up.

You have repeatedly. Now proof please.

EMPunk

wes wrote: »

Yeah, it does actually. Its up to the accuser to prove there case, not the other way round. Get back to me, when you or your ilk can do so.

No , no it does not , i suggest keeping you pseudo intellectual understanding of the legal system to a minimum least you further embarrass yourself.