Saudis warn France about Al Qaeda-Yemen plan attack

Gorden Duff. LOL. Better to represent the allegories found in Aesop's Tales. At least they hold real truth. Gorden Duff's conspiracy of world domination by Israel concludes that the CIA is responsible for 9/11 on the orders of the Israeli Mossad. Of course the assumptive underpinnings of the demise of OBL held by Duff is that al-Qaeda is now rendered harmless. That further US/NATO presence in Afghanistan is unnecessary. The 'war on terror' is now a conspiracy of  the US  as dupe, supported by JEWS in the name of a global Zionist plot of world domination. Where is Jesse Ventura when the world needs him?

@thirty-aught-six.What Gordon Duff says may not necessarily be one hundred percent accurate,but can not be dismissed outrightly.I would suggest you to read 9/11 and American Empire.Ponder over scietific evidence and eye witness accounts and then accept it or reject it.

How the Nigerian shoebomber,Umar Abdulmutallab could enter European Union without a passport,take a Detroit bound flight without having a passport?.Are these pertinent questions or not?The problem is that whatever appears in so-called mainstream media,owned and controlled by corporate houses and other vested interests,is accepted by the public as ultimate truth.Independent,investigative journals are rubbished as conspiracy theorists.We prefer to live with preconceived notions.

Does proof mean official version only?Are false flag operations prattler's tales?Haven't conspiracies with deeper implications and ramifications to achieve desired ends been hatched?9/11 has raised many questions which till date are begging answers.Mumbai terror attacks were orchesterated to eliminate an upright and honest and dedicated police officer.The circumstances in which some officers were killed and the official version,often contradictory,even wives of those officers could not force it down their throats and are demanding proper investigation by a competent authority.

Facts have to be culled,whether accepted or not.We have to rely on circumstatial evidence to arrive at right conclusions.Generally,we deliver judgements even before trial begins.

Conspiracy does not result from distrust of a government,it is constant denial of truth which creates doubts in the public mind.Conspiracies are engineered to fulfill an objective,ranging from murders to bank robberies,assassination of a leader to overthrow of a government.If people distrust a government,which rarely happens because majority of people think that whatever a government does,it does for the common good,in so-called demoracies,they vote it out not because of distrust but because of belying of their hopes and expectations.Distrust of a government and conspiracy are two different phenomena.

As usual you attempt to put your words in my mouth to create your argument. You use circumstance to claim intent. It's a false premise.

Quote those words of mine which I have put in your mouth to construct my argument.I never use circumstance to claim intent.When there are no eye witness accounts or documentry evidence to prove a conspiracy,circumstantial evidence is relied upon even by court of law.

1/ "Conspiracy does not result from distrust of a government". I didn't say conspiracy is a result of distrust of government. I said, Distrust of government can not be reasonably supported by trust in conspiracy.Two very different statements. 2/ Your assertion that "circumstantial evidence is relied upon even by court of law" is false. Circumstantial evidence must be connected to an inclusion of fact and does not stand as "reliable" evidence in of itself.  It must be connected to a provable fact of direct evidence to have any weight in the decision.

You have not answered my questions.Were these my words which I put in your mouth?Certainly not.In response to your comment I said that conspiracy does not result from distrust of government and didn't attribute my words to you.If you assume something and base your arguments on that,I can not help it.

Courts have heavily relied on circumstantial evidences if it could be corroborated.On number of times no direct evidence could be found,no eyewitness accounts and court deliver judgement against the accused.

If you have to say something more,you are welcome.

I gave you your quote. The dance that your comment is independent of mine is proven false by the record of the conversation obvious for all to read. Give an example of a criminal court relying solely on circumstantial evidence with out direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence needs to be related to the proven facts of a case. As usual, your statement contradicts itself. First you say, "Courts have heavily relied on circumstantial evidences if it could be corroborated." Corroborate means it must confirm or support a known. Therefore not heavily relied on. Then you say," On number of times no direct evidence could be found,no eyewitness accounts and court deliver judgement against the accused." Which one is it. Your assertions are contradictory.

That was my quote,no doubt,and was in response to your comment.I stick to my point that on occasions courts have heavily relied on circumstantial evidence."which one is it"?let me tell you.

Recently,the Supreme Court(of India)has ruled that in number of cases where direct evidence is scanty,circumstantial evidence plays an important role.A bench comprising of Justice K.T.Thomas and justice R.P.Sethi,in a criminal appeal in a murder case observed that the trial court can convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence,furnished by the prosecution,provided it was so complete as to leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused.

This is the ruling of the apex court in India.What I meant was that circumstantial evidence has had to be relied on.If I added in next comment that it has to be corroborated,which means confirmed not direct evidence,is not tantamount to contradiction.It is matter of common sense that what circumstantial evidence suggest has to be proved,and if proved could be sole basis of conviction.Nothing else is required.

"It is matter of common sense that what circumstantial evidence suggest has to be proved,and if proved could be sole basis of conviction.Nothing else is required." It has to be proved in relation to something, something more is required, and therefore circumstantial evidence can not be the sole basis of conviction. Keep trying. There's light at the end of the tunnel.