>>13651737How so? The autistic argument over the general's appointment which was already addressed?
>>13651739>Circumstantial evidence should be more than enough to convict and execute any political figure or economic elite.?? A claim made by which leader? What are you even talking about? Where is this policy?
>Get your circumstantial evidence wrongThe circumstantial evidence is all we have because China will not release more. They denied the WHO another investigation into its lab last month. I think
>>13651737 uses this to his advantage by claiming this is all tiny data that doesn't lead to a firm conclusion - data which almost any country would provide from now. China is the only country that would react with such a lack of transparency. Perhaps NK is in the same tier, nowhere else. This is the only upper hand you have. We weren't given the data, they openly denied us access to the data, and now the "muh circumstantial evidence" defense is what you're doubling down on. Unfortunately it's true. But it only makes you look worse. And even bugmen should empathize with why people become more suspicious
To BOTH of you non-native English anonshere - a "preponderance of evidence" - which is the basis of their conclusion - is a legal standard that means "more likely than not" aka more than 50% likely. It's used in minor criminal trials. The highest standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" for something like murder or rape, in which you can't ruin someone's live over a more than 50% likelihood. In the complete absence of hard data, they're using what data we can find without China (which literally shut down their database) to reach that conclusion. It is not extreme and the anon rambling about executing leaders is going full schizo mode.
>Why am I constantly posting this?To get you fuckers to understand what needs to be done.
I never said I disagreed with that. You're veering further off topic in bizarre ways.
