Pakistan drugged out on defense & debt

[ares]

Pls do show the newspaper which is quoting the source for it numbers..and who says its not established..just because you don't know..it does not mean its not established.

I already told you these numbers a few months back ..but you din't believe me then..as I had forgotten the link to the original news ..write now you have the news written by a Pakistani economist ..but you are still in denial..coming up with weird theories that the numbers are fudged..but unable to prove it.

 

[ares]

Hey ares, I've had contact with aliens recently. Now go prove that claim wrong. LOL

Ohh I trust you on this one.. they must be missing you.

 

[SMC]

LOL this is comical now. Sore loser mentality.

It's not established, i.e. there's no reliable source to prove it. That's the reason why it's not established, not because I don't know.

Which newspaper quotes sources for its claims? You're right that not every newspaper doesn't quote sources for it claims, but if it doesn't do that then its claims go the same route that the claims of this newspaper went. Only haters who want to believe the source believe it. It's not taken seriously if looking from neutral perspective.

Again, learn what the word 'denial' means.

And I've explained my point about these numbers being fudged and you asking me prove that they're fudged a million times. So I won't go into it again.

 

[SMC]

Ohh I trust you on this one.. they must be missing you.

Not the best claim I suppose.

But how about this one.

Bharat supports terrorist groups in Pakistan, China, Afghanistan. Now go prove that wrong.

LOL. So if you can accept that India is a terrorist state, I'll accept this too.

 

[ares]

LOL this is comical now. Sore loser mentality.

It's not established, i.e. there's no reliable source to prove it. That's the reason why it's not established, not because I don't know.

Which newspaper quotes sources for its claims? You're right that not every newspaper doesn't quote sources for it claims, but if it doesn't do that then its claims go the same route that the claims of this newspaper went. Only haters who want to believe the source believe it. It's not taken seriously if looking from neutral perspective.

Again, learn what the word 'denial' means.

And I've explained my point about these numbers being fudged and you asking me prove that they're fudged a million times. So I won't go into it again.

As I said before ..I ll repeat my self ..either prove this source or the numbers or the aritcle itself is fudged by contradicting it with accurate numbers or if you can't ..just take its word ..untill you can.

Because author of this article has written many books on Pakistan's economy ..so I am going trust his word more than yours..untill you can back up your numbers.

 

[SMC]

 

[ares]

Not the best claim I suppose.

But how about this one.

Bharat supports terrorist groups in Pakistan, China, Afghanistan. Now go prove that wrong.

LOL. So if you can accept that India is a terrorist state, I'll accept this too.

You just gave your foot in your mouth on the previous one!!.do you really wanna troll?

 

[SMC]

I am not trolling. I am just using your type of argument. Answer my point.

 

[ares]

I am not trolling. I am just using your type of argument. Answer my point.

Mine is ontopic ..yours is not.

 

[SMC]

Mine is ontopic ..yours is not.

It's directly related to the type of argument you're using to try to "prove" your point, hence it's on topic. If you admit that India is a terrorist state, then we can agree that this article is true. Now answer it.

 

[ares]

It's directly related to the type of argument you're using to try to "prove" your point, hence it's on topic. If you admit that India is a terrorist state, then we can agree that this article is true.

It is not related..
you are the one who is calming the numbers are fudged ..I am not, so the onus of proof lies on you.

 

[SMC]

It is not related..

Of course it is, I just showed how. Answer it.

you are the one who is calming the numbers are fudged ..I am not, so the onus of proof lies on you.

No, this is how it goes. You and the article author are claiming that those are the numbers, hence the onus of the proof lies on you and them.

 

[ares]

Of course it is, I just showed how. Answer it.



No, this is how it goes. You and the article author are claiming that those are the numbers, hence the onus of the proof lies on you and them.

Author of the article is Pakistani analysts who writes for an international newspaper..who has written many books on Pakistani economy ..so I am going to believe his article as a source...untill some one can prove otherwise.

and if you believe he has quoted wrong numbers..you take it up with him.

Contrary to your previous claim, no news paper quotes source for its numbers..

 

[SMC]

Author of the article is Pakistani analysts who writes for an international newspaper..who has written many books on Pakistani economy ..so I am going to believe the his article as a source...untill some one can prove otherwise.

and if you believe he has quoted wrong numbers..you take it up with him.

Contrary to your previous claim, no news paper quotes source for its numbers..

I have no doubt that you're believing this article as a source, because it feeds your ego and goes along with your world view, and I don't care if you believe the article, but the point is that no neutral should take this article by itself as a source.

I just did search on him, and he seems like a vehemently anti-Pakistan author. So you can believe him if you want. Look at the very first sentence, he claims that Pakistan spends 7 times on education as on defence, yet you know and I proved a few weeks back that that's a false claim. Just because he says something, it doesn't magically become true.

Remember, he's not someone who calculates these figures himself. He has to get these figures from somewhere. If he can't state that then his books, articles are no good. There's plenty of people who write articles and books who aren't taken seriously in this world. LOL

Newspapers quotes source for a claim IF that claim is not well established. This claim in particular is not well established.

 

[SMC]

So essentially you're an appeal to authority in this case. But this guy isn't an authority as far as these things are concerned. He needs some sort of a reliable source, such as UN, to back his claims up.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

Also, ares, you didn't answer me.

Do you agree that India is a terrorist state? Yes or no?

How about this. India spends 0.2% of GDP on education. Do you agree with that?