I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.

Is there any evidence to the contrary? I don’t need certainty in order to act on a well-founded suspicion.

The interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.

No one can be a sound judge if he does not give due weight to convincing suspicions.

We doubt that any facts actually exist. We only have observations and interpretations. Most of the interpretations remain questionable.

Without Statistics and numbers, it's a mere thought of unconvincing opinions.

Rabid suspicion has nothing in it of skepticism. The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person.

Several excuses are always less convincing than one.

For allegations against the rebels, Beeley’s threshhold of proof is so low that it’s almost non-existent. For allegations against the regime it’s so high that it may never be reached.

What can be asserted without proof can be dissmissed without proof.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence

Suspecting and knowing are not the same.

Not enough evidence God! Not enough evidence!