[dragonwriter]

> I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.

I don't get how you infer support of Canada's allegations from a statement that the Indian government doesn't need to rely on Canada's evidence to determine whether or not they carried out an assassination, since they either know that they did it or know that they didn't do it.

> Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it.

What do you think I meant when I said, "Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it."

It would be nice if your responses to other people's posts showed some sign that you were actually reading those posts rather than going off on a canned tirade that isn't in any meaningful way relevant to what it is nominally a response to.

[morbidious]

Ok, you are right, I will admit my mistake.