if one wishes to convince people, then one needs to present a certain level of evidence,
Why should the west now demand evidence.... when did that start being important?
the U.S has presented their footage, while Russia only has claims, what is going to convince people more?
So now evidence is important?
Might come as a shock, but the people of the west don't give a shit about the truth, and they don't care about cruise missiles hitting Syria, or anywhere else.
They are helpless sheep watching their kids get short changed on their education, and waiting lists for healthcare get longer and longer, and the roads and bridges in their area get worse and worse while millions of dollars of cruise missiles are launched at Syria.
It doesn't matter if they all hit or none of them hit... they never got the choice to either launch or don't launch... that is what democracy is... you get a vote every half decade and whoever you vote for does what they want until a few months before re-election time... when they will promise anything... once they are in they will again do what they like.
On top of that we have the 2017 bombing, according to the footage, it shows more destruction then Russian claims, further discrediting the Russian side.
People don't know much about explosive charges, they simply see what remains.
Meanwhile the Syrian military, with Russian and Iranian support are crushing the opposition... who cares what missiles made it and what missiles didn't and why.
This is why """PR""" wise, this is a U.S victory.
The US has always been a PR victory... but in terms of everything else a huge fail.
Why else would it need to sanction and bully and punish other countries?
No, the Jury is the public, the prosecutor is the States, and the Defense is the Russians/Syrians, the judge is no one really.
So in this case the prosecutor looked at some dubious evidence from one source and decided the defence was guilty and launched a minor attack... ie jury, judge, and sentiencer... the public had no say.
It is amusing that the jury is debating whether the sentence was carried out effectively or not, when the evidence that led to the sentence is so weak... basically what they are really deciding is whether this was a war crime or not.
It's about what's gonna convince the Jury, and they normally go with the seemingly hard evidence.
Fuck the Jury... they are irrelevant sheeple.
No matter what they decide justice is no longer possible.