In defense of history's worst: Osama Bin Laden is innocent (Part 1)

Before I move on, I would like to clarify Con's definition of Osama Bin Laden. Con claims that he is the 'founder of Islamic Militant group al-Qaeda', something that has yet to be proven as fact in the context of this debate. In fact, I will actively challenge that idea in my proceeding arguments.Moving on.In this round, I will simply provide a rebuttal of my opponent's arguments as the burden of proof is on Con. I would also like to remind voters that the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt in your mind that Bin Laden may not have been responsible for the crimes he has been charged with, then you must agree with the resolution that Osama Bin Laden was innocent. 9/11 I am surprised to see that Con has made such a small argument to support such an obvious and large hoax. I do not contend the idea that there were nineteen hijackers or 2966 lost lives, these facts have no relevance to the case as long as Con cannot show that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks. In the source Con provided, claiming that there is "video evidence" of Bin Laden confessing his crime, I urge voters to click on that source (3) and take a look at it. The video simply claims to take excerpts from the video, though the actual video cannot be seen. I thus put forward the argument that this is an illegitimate source as it provides no video and "The Guardian" is biased and not a reputable source[1]. Furthermore, there is no columnist or writer name in the article, and thus accountability is also reduced. The quote or so called 'confession' that Con has chosen to take is therefore invalid.Other Crimes Con then incorrectly claims that Bin Laden has been charged with other crimes. In the one trial that Con used as an example, the "four defendants standing trial" were "El Hage", "Mohamed Odeh", "Mohamed al-'Owhali", and "Khalfan Mohamed"[2]. El Hage is the only member alleged to have a connection to Osama Bin Laden, but this guy wasn't even "charged with direction participation in the embassy bombings". So the only person who has a connection to Bin Laden isn't charged with the direct participation in the embassy bombings. Hm. Furthermore, Bin Laden never stood in this trial and need not have a chance to have his say, which greatly harmed his chances of proving his own innocence. If that isn't enough, all this 'evidence' simply comes from one witness, the only direct quote about Bin Laden from him being Bin Laden wanted to buy a plane because they had "goods they wanted to ship from Peshawar to Khartoum", something that, by itself, is not illegal. The rest of Al-Ridi's (the only witness) accusations against Bin Laden are either paraphrased or simply stuff he said to Bin Laden. Neither of which incriminate him. "The evidence of the charges were from courtroom testimony from a former Al-qaeda member and phone records." This point is simply false, there is neither mention of al Qaeda or phone records in the source provided. Al-Qaeda The link Con has provided for his Al-qaeda argument is yet again another article from the Guardian. Furthermore, no sources are provided from the article, I could also write a piece of journalism on a mythical terrorist committing atrocious crimes in a make-belief organisation if I wished to. This article simply cannot be taken as evidence.SummaryCon has completely failed to prove Bin Laden is responsible for any of the crimes he is alleged to have committed. If anything, this says less about Con's debating ability and is more of a comment on the complete lack of evidence for Bin Laden committing a crime. In my next round I will not only highlight the flaws in Con's arguments, but also provide evidence myself against Bin Laden having anything to do with terrorism as well as the debunking of al Qaeda. [1] http://rationalwiki.org...;[2] http://edition.cnn.com...;