logic. Logic would demand evidence of what you propose, there needs to be proof for it to be true, whereas, if there is no proof (as in this case) then logic would suggest it is false.

Professional athletes may be on the same team as people who take steroids, but that doesn't mean they do also. They MIGHT, but you cannot logically make that conclusion until you have evidence.

so for example, where was the evidence of WMDs in Iraq that made it a valid invasion? you would argue that there is so it would be logical for the invasion, and i would say otherwise.

two sides to the sword.

the truth is hidden alot in todays politics and you should know that, but it doesnt mean at all that these events or "conspiracies" have not took place, and the the stories involving government officials relations/gains etc to these companies begs that there is something there.

your example is unclear, please explain it more clearly.