What @A Person is talking about is simply logic and common sense. There's nothing to discuss there. Sancho suffers from severe comprehension problems, followed by a weird syndrome where he is always wrong. Likely interrelated.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
What @A Person is talking about is simply logic and common sense. There's nothing to discuss there. Sancho suffers from severe comprehension problems, followed by a weird syndrome where he is always wrong. Likely interrelated.
If there is an official statement on your theory how is it still a theory ?.Which is based on official statements, not on pure fantasy like randoms stories.
I would take optimistic fantasy any day over conspiracy which endangers national security.
As I told you before, I don't have any theory, you just made that term up to distract from the fact, that there is no official denial of Hollands claim. The fact that SC refused to investigate it, also means, that the statement was never proven wrong!
Not really, you jumped into a reply of me to pic, who said that the costs for additional Rafales would be cheaper the more we buy.
To which I replied that ISE is a 1 time payment and has no relation to any follow on deal.
So I am not the one, that doesn't understand what the topic was and as shown and your attempts to justify your point that was not on topic, endend in contradicting yourself.
He is saying, that you can't argue against facts. He tried it often enough and keeps failing.
How many times the same lame argument.
- Hollands statement was political and he changed it fast.
- Some statements doest matter unless there are documents to prove it. (You said its impossible to get hance a conspiracy theory).
- SC is not an investigation agency. They looked into arguments made by the appealing party and concluded there is no misdealing prima facie. Can always re-appeal if there is any new evidance.
I have the same way of thinking than you but in my post I have taken the way of thinking of Rahul and he spread the 1 time payment on the 36 Rafale of the deal.
It's not an argument it's a fact! The statement is official and until proven wrong, remains unchallenged.
So no matter if you like it or not, or if "you" want to dismiss it by saying "it's a theory", it doesn't make it wrong.
Then prove the damn argument with a shred of evidence first to even consider it by any court of law.
It's not 'me' who dismissed it but SC. Since no one is appealing with new evidence it's just a theory made for gullibles.
Hehe, the wording doesn't change the content does it?
I have the same way of thinking than you but in my post I have taken the way of thinking of Rahul and he spread the 1 time payment on the 36 Rafale of the deal.
Well I don't care what he says, but I make clear, that ISE has no impact on more Rafale orders, especially not in relation to their numbers.
And again, I presented a fact (his statement) not an argument or theory. So it's not on me to provide evidence, but on those who want to disprove (not just dismiss) it.But then again, to prove it wrong, one would have to investigate it right?
Yes it change the way you compute the Rafale price
It will have impact of what Rahul says and this one is particularly harmful to the Rafale
As said before, ISE is a 1 time payment and has no meaning for any follow procurement.
Btw, what happened to GaN and side arrays of the F4? Why is only the addition of AASM 1000 mentioned, but no BAT 120 or Smart Glider?
We can't mention everything that will be in F4 at each official release that would be too much. There has already been a complete description of F4 in French and English, since this release nothing has been removed, and some capabilities have been added.
And then it is necessary to reserve some surprises for the competitors.
Once again your lack of knowledge in this regard astounds me.
Let me introduce you to the burden of proof :
The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
You claimed Modi did some under the table deal based on a statement made by now an opposition party member. Which all stakeholders involved in the deal denied. A statement is not proof unless it is backed with anything substantial. Basically, you are yet to show any proof thus theory.
I can't provide evidence to negate a claim without proof from you.
Just went through the old airforce monthly article and except for the GaN part, they were spot on with what is reported now.
Last edited:
Which is you, not me! You claimed that Hollands changed his statement and that it was proven wrong by Dassault, BJP, or even SC (which is factually correct, since it would be preferring a specific company, against the DPP rules), but you failed to prove all of that!
That's why you turned it to me and made it to my theory, although I only presented the fact, that his statement would prove cronyism, but as I said back then already, that can be proven or disproven only with an investigation, that includes other officials that must had been present during the talks.
His statement stands!
What is the basic dispute here? and who Who made the claim?
This is not that hard to understand. Dont play dumb.
Any nutjob can make a statement and run away.
Tomorrow if you say there is an afterlife after death based on statements made by some priest. The burden of proof is on you and the priest. So that I can examine and scientifically argue about its merits and demerits. How will I disapprove something which is not proven?
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
Edit:
Hay i found an explainer video :
