The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.
As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!
If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).
It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).
Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!
More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").
Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.
In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.
I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!
For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty. Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate. Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.
Back from work so lets take a look and comment on all of your points as usual.
"The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you"
It is the Ahle Sunah perspective that Ali couldn't or didn't bring the killers of Usman to justice because they were part of his administration and further up in the military ranks. Or what ever other reason they have and put forward. The Ahle Sunah believe that this was the reason and cause of fitna and what caused Jamal and Safeen.
"As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!"
Ok, so Usman's wife couldn't recognise them because their faces were covered. Possibly they were wearing balaclavas. But which group they were from and belonged to was known, how and why? Can you explain.
"If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra)."
Usman's wife was present before, during and after the murder. She got caught up trying to protect and defend her husband and even got injured in the process. That makes her a prime and key witness in the case. You can twist it as much as you like just to avoid the investigation.
Yes this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes and is not a matter of Shariah law 😊 As far as Hassan and Hussein is concerned we will come to them as well. Lets deal with the one you've mentioned and brought in first.
"It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra)."
Ok wise guy. Lets give you something to run from. Usman was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? You claim the killers belonged to a specific group, what makes you think this and can you identify the group and why you think that particular group? Either answer and explain or keep running.
"Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!"
Are you daydreaming. Where and when did I admit Imam Hassan was wrong and what reason did I give and why?
"More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles")"
Reality and facts along with history tells you what kind of a man he was and his character and role is clear. You are blinded by two things which have overcome your senses and ability to think straight. 1, The enmity you have about the Shia. 2, Member of defend the Sahaba campaign.
"Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement."
Please do explain this. Why and what makes you think as such.
"In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot."
Muawiyah was more beneficial to himself and his agenda. That's why his reign is considered Malookiyath rather than Caliphate. And he is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. Do give Shias a break and have a bang with the Ahle Sunah over why this is so.
"I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!"
Caliphate and Imamah are two totally and completely different things. Start a thread on them when ever you feel like it. I have fully explained Hassan's stance and position regarding the treaty with Muawiya.
"Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed."
Allah knew and Iblees even told him that he is going to do what ever he can to lead mankind astray or have a hand in it. Still Allah allowed him to get on with it. Not only this but Allah gave him the means and tools to do it. According to your theory who's to blame here? I've mentioned this before but you're running from it, why?