Not at all. While you've attempted to cloak your nonsensical assertions in the garment of some rational argument, it's quite apparent that you're not interested in examining the actual nature of Megrahi's trial and the evidence presented, as you have still not attempted to do so. Instead, you have incessantly repeated a statement about his legal conviction, which is irrelevant, since that is being challenged.
Now you are just trying to dodge it, but it is unavoidable.
You claimed that I did not refer to this claim, and yet I have.
Your fleet was already obliterated, there's nothing you can do about it, it's nothing but space junk now.
Things should work more like this:
1. You make Point A.
2. I issue a rebuttal to Point A.
3. You issue a response to my rebuttal. You do not simply repeat Point A; it has already been addressed.
It's in the third portion of that process that you're unsuccessful.
I would suggest that this had something to do with no. #3's success relying on no. #2's success, which was, unfortunately, a failure.
I'm glad we are in agreement again.
No, it isn't. Firstly, you've made no claim as to his actual guilt or innocence; you've merely repeated established statements about his legal conviction. You have not attempted to address challenges to the conviction, and as seen here, base the entirety of your commentary on that conviction, despite the fact that I've provided evidence of deficiencies present in the nature of his trial that you've not commented on.
I am here to counter your argument that the evidence is non-satisfying.
To do that you need to bring your claims as to why it isn't, I'll quote them using the quote button in the lower-right corner of your message box, and then I'll reply to those claims by saying that they're ridiculous and explaining why are they so ridiculous.
So just bring your claims already.
The evidence was offered in the form of the UN observer's complaints about the nature of the trial and my own mention of additional disputes. That would be the portion of my post that you offered a two-sentence and off-topic reply to.
That is your holy evidence?
A complaint by a UN official?
You just said that my evidence being the Law system's decision is not an evidence, and now you declare a UN official's complaint against the trial handling by the court "an evidence"?
Seriously, don't you see the bizarreness and hypocrisy in this statement?
Actually, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert criminal guilt, as I commented. That is the case both inside and outside of the courtroom. But no matter who the burden of proof lies on, the more relevant fact is that I've named several alleged deficiencies in Megrahi's trial that you've simply ignored and chosen not to comment on. The apparent reason for this is that you do not know of any response to offer, which is hardly surprising. That there were unjust elements in the prosecutorial case seems rather apparent.
Where are those several alleged deficiencies that you had pointed out? Where are they, Agna?
Correct, right up there in space, together with your ruined fleet.
Now would you kindly bring them back to Earth so I could debate them?
If it was legitimately unsatisfying so as to have resulted in an acquittal in his first trial, then perhaps, since the imposition of double jeopardy is also unjust. In this specific case, I'd say that his release was probably acceptable, since the purpose of criminal justice is and must be deterrence.
So you're saying that a renewed trial where he'd be acquitted is unnecessary, and that he should just be released while still being a convicted murderer?
Do you realize that there is no sense of rationality in your words, and that you advocate the forsaking of the law system and its procedures?