Proving a negative?

Flame » in reply to And you know that how?

Proving a negative?

Tom Brosz — 10/9/2004 4:57:42 PM (archived)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid a reasonable suspicion that Pakistan may be working on WMDs is not enough. Do you have reliable intelligence on this? ;)

Are we taking the position that the burden of proof is on the one who says Pakistan is not working on WMDs? Sure you want to go there?

The whole thread (17 posts)

Here's a scenario for ya - SteveS - 10/8/2004 1:29:57 AM
- So you forcibly remove one of the two parties in an arms race - alcaray - 10/8/2004 7:13:31 PM
  - re: gave victory to the one we didn't remove... - Scott Evil - 10/8/2004 10:02:03 PM
  - Would we be better off with both Iran and Iraq with WMD? - SteveS - 10/8/2004 9:12:15 PM
    - re: Would we be better off with both Iran and Iraq with WMD? - Marcia - 10/9/2004 3:46:14 AM
- re: Any way you look at it, the whole region is better off now. - Scott Evil - 10/8/2004 4:22:23 PM
  - The whole region is better off now. - SteveS - 10/8/2004 9:22:30 PM
    - re: Justifying the war - Raoul - 10/9/2004 8:20:57 AM
- re: Here's a scenario for ya - gbaikie - 10/8/2004 12:08:59 PM
  - re: Here's a scenario for ya - SteveS - 10/8/2004 11:59:13 PM
- re: Here's a scenario for ya - Raoul - 10/8/2004 7:48:29 AM
  - If a nuclear bomb wasn't a deterrent to Israel, why did Israel take Saddam's out? - SteveS - 10/8/2004 9:08:42 PM
- Pakistan. Pakistan is/was the proliferator. - Bowser - 10/8/2004 3:37:58 AM
  - Not any more. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 10/8/2004 6:12:49 PM
    - And you know that how? - Bowser - 10/8/2004 6:56:53 PM
      - Proving a negative? - Tom Brosz - 10/9/2004 4:57:42 PM
        
        You are the one who said they are NOT doing it. I assume you have a basis for that statement. - Bowser - 10/10/2004 12:47:34 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Flame

The whole thread (17 posts)