What I gather from your posts is that you already bought these stories without doing your own research. You are bringing suppositions, and impressions based on 'if' for I to disprove. Now you want to place the burden on I. Do your own homework!

Your burden of proof is way out of order. Try shifting the burden of proof to the well established liars. "If" is not sufficient to work with, to repeat stories, and there is no way I can easily supply evidence to invalidate suppositions. You have to do your own research. There is simply no way for any of us with our limited resources to supply direct evidence to prove if everything Bush, Blair and most major media sources were saying about Iraq and WMDs were false. But we have history, their dishonesties, false motivations and unaddressed racism alongside other biases to come up with a reasonable idea of who was lying in the situation.

I am NOT the one who have a history of lying. The burden of proof is NOT on I. It is the Western media, Bush and his supporters, Blair and his supporters, and 'white' sympathizers who have to prove what they are saying beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof has to be placed on those who consistently lie, those who have shown disrespect for poor people, the aggressors and those who have a history of stealing resources. In my book they are always lying until someone can prove otherwise, and even with that they continue to lie based on their 'hidden' agendas. I only believe the aspects of what can be proven. They get no leeway based on their history.

I have already shown the lengths to which they go to fabricate stories. They are simply unbelievable, as far as I am concerned, and I will not waste my time trying to unravel every story they come with. They change or manufacture them at a rate to keep sensible people constantly distracted, if they are not careful or have a principled position.

I have already stated that I am not giving any blanket support to Mugabe, but based on the size of the anti-Black land reclamation forces in and outside of Zimbabwe, together with the extreme measures they are using to paint Mugabe as the enemy, I would be very careful about saying anything that lends support to them. Because of the intensity of their campaign against Mugabe, I know their fight is not simply with Zimbabwe or Mugabe. They want to ensure that returning the stolen land to blacks is a failed exercise in order to discourage other African nations from doing the same. This is not just a campaign against Zimbabwe or Mugabe, but it is a campaign to show that trying to correct colonial wrongs in the interest of blacks will not succeed, much the same as they are doing in Haiti and other African countries. Intense 'white' media and political campaigns always tie back to the command or acquisition of the resources that belong to other non-white people.

In short, this 'white' campaign is to ensure that the resources that were stolen by whites remain in the hands of whites, and that any idea of a successful black revolution is stamped out.

They will not get my support, either directly or indirectly, through careless statements.