U.S. Provided Canada with Intelligence on Killing of Sikh Leader(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
U.S. Provided Canada with Intelligence on Killing of Sikh Leader
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/politics/canada-sikh-leader-killing-intelligence.html
27 comments
Saudi Arabia “got away with it” with Khashoggi. Realpolitik will prevail in the end I think.
Actually, I was just about to say if the west happens to be lying through their teeth, they would be emboldened to spread countless other lies about other countries and get away with it.
Or even better, they are already quite emboldened and have experience with lying categorically thinking it would work all the time.
Or even better, they are already quite emboldened and have experience with lying categorically thinking it would work all the time.
Can you share what it would look like for India not to "get away with it?"
Sanctions?
Sanctions?
In 1998 India had sanctions after the nuclear tests. For few months.
So good luck with that today.
So good luck with that today.
[deleted]
As we should. Canada is a trusted ally. India should know to expect healthy-ish democracies to share intel. India and Turkey are both great nations with so much potential, but they are stuck with toxic, dangerous leaders holding them back.
its far more likely so that each country can avoid laws about spying on their own citizens by having another five eyes country do it for them, and pass the information to them 'officially' whenever needed.
That is a cynical take, but there's plenty of truth there. Intelligence agencies in general are the purest distillation of the worldview that the ends justify the means.
This is really sad because the Sikh religion is one of the most enlightened and peaceful believe systems on the planet. I'm am not a Sikh, but someone interested in frameworks that humans use to cope with life.
While Sikh religion in current form is mostly peaceful and positive. Its origin is in the violent struggle against Islamic invaders and rulers in India. Kripan (a form of knife) is one of the 5 things a Sikh must(religious) wear at all times.
Also, North Indian state of Punjab saw a violent separatist movement for independent states for Sikhs (Khalistan). Many Sikhs in Canada are part of this movement in various form.
Also, North Indian state of Punjab saw a violent separatist movement for independent states for Sikhs (Khalistan). Many Sikhs in Canada are part of this movement in various form.
*Sikh communities across the world are peaceful and positive, not the Sikh religion.
Like Islam and Christianity, Sikhism, too, developed originally as a violent reaction to prevailing social conditions in the region. Religions are social constructs primarily built to give in-group members a sense of belonging and distinction against the out-group. They very, very rarely have anything to do with enlightenment and peace.
Like Islam and Christianity, Sikhism, too, developed originally as a violent reaction to prevailing social conditions in the region. Religions are social constructs primarily built to give in-group members a sense of belonging and distinction against the out-group. They very, very rarely have anything to do with enlightenment and peace.
All the proof put forward thus far is: trust me bro.
The Khashoggi Affair: The Five Stages of Saudi Denial
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-khashoggi-affair-the-f...
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-khashoggi-affair-the-f...
Iraq War: The fabrication of evidence.
Do you need links?
Do you need links?
> intercepted communications of Indian diplomats in Canada indicating involvement in the plot, was gathered by Canadian officials
https://archive.ph/JunBd
I'm sure the details of this communications will eventually become public, but usually these things take a month or two to filter down.
Undoubtedly the Modi administration has received more information about it than we have.
Hypothetically, is there some sort of motive you have for Canada to want to blame India for such a murder? What would they have to gain?
https://archive.ph/JunBd
I'm sure the details of this communications will eventually become public, but usually these things take a month or two to filter down.
Undoubtedly the Modi administration has received more information about it than we have.
Hypothetically, is there some sort of motive you have for Canada to want to blame India for such a murder? What would they have to gain?
> Undoubtedly the Modi administration has received more information about it than we have.
why undoubtedly? -- looking at the Indian response I doubt that they have.
> Hypothetically, is there some sort of motive you have for Canada to want to blame India for such a murder? What would they have to gain?
Yes, there is. The Trudeau govt will fall, if not for the support from Jagmeet Singh who is openly pro Khalistan and anti-India. Trudeau has every reason to act on behest of Jagmeet Singh. To top it all, Trudeau also aspires for the same pro-Khalistan/anti-India voters. The differences between India-Canada relationship are not new, it started soon after Trudeau became PM. In 2018 during his India visit, Trudeau, with him, invited a known Khalistani, convicted of attempted murder of an Indian Minister. But, however, the differences go all the way back to 1985 when pro-Khalistan Canadians bombed Air India Flight 182, killing all 329 aboard and failed-attempt to bomb another Air India Flight 301.
It is not to suggest that these allegation are because of this motive -- but only to list motive (since you asked).
why undoubtedly? -- looking at the Indian response I doubt that they have.
> Hypothetically, is there some sort of motive you have for Canada to want to blame India for such a murder? What would they have to gain?
Yes, there is. The Trudeau govt will fall, if not for the support from Jagmeet Singh who is openly pro Khalistan and anti-India. Trudeau has every reason to act on behest of Jagmeet Singh. To top it all, Trudeau also aspires for the same pro-Khalistan/anti-India voters. The differences between India-Canada relationship are not new, it started soon after Trudeau became PM. In 2018 during his India visit, Trudeau, with him, invited a known Khalistani, convicted of attempted murder of an Indian Minister. But, however, the differences go all the way back to 1985 when pro-Khalistan Canadians bombed Air India Flight 182, killing all 329 aboard and failed-attempt to bomb another Air India Flight 301.
It is not to suggest that these allegation are because of this motive -- but only to list motive (since you asked).
> Hypothetically, is there some sort of motive you have for Canada to want to blame India for such a murder? What would they have to gain?
Canada is part of the death cult hell bent on world domination. The current plan involves using Ukrainians as fodder in a hopeless attempt for what they outwardly claim is the defeat of Russia. India is one of Russia's key allies and blowing up such a minor event in the media follows the trend of isolating and disrupting Russia's allies, both physically and in the minds of the people in the west.
Canada is part of the death cult hell bent on world domination. The current plan involves using Ukrainians as fodder in a hopeless attempt for what they outwardly claim is the defeat of Russia. India is one of Russia's key allies and blowing up such a minor event in the media follows the trend of isolating and disrupting Russia's allies, both physically and in the minds of the people in the west.
It seems to me that this is a new troll account pushing an agenda, but in the interests of discourse, I'll bite
How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country? Does that not constitute a death march?
Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?
And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?
How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country? Does that not constitute a death march?
Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?
And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?
People can often behave similarly to LLMs, not simply regurgitating the data they have but are incapable of imagining anything outside of their dataset. Data in a dataset does not have to be accurate, unique or truthful for an LLM to produce an output that is coherent to the dataset.
It's obvious from every question you have asked that you only consume information from sources that push the "approved narrative". Are you able to imagine anything outside of your current Russia-Ukraine dataset?
> How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country?
I'm sure what you mean by that is, "do I think Russia was justified in defending their sovereignty from the numerous violations of international agreements ultimately threatening their sovereignty", then yes. "Do I think Russia is justified in liberating and defending a peoples under siege and in need of help?", yes.
> Does that not constitute a death march?
I don't really understand your question, so from wiki: "A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees in which individuals are left to die along the way. ... Death marches usually feature harsh physical labour and abuse, neglect of prisoner injury and illness, deliberate starvation and dehydration, humiliation, torture, and execution of those unable to keep up the marching pace. The march may end at a prisoner-of-war camp or internment camp, or it may continue until all the prisoners are dead. "
From that I still don't understand your question.
Anyone with any military understanding and with the factual account of the situation on-the-ground in Ukraine (which you can not get from sources pushing the "approved narrative") will draw the inevitable conclusion that Ukraine will is not and never was capable of achieving any kind of victory against Russia in this confrontation. The Western leaders must know this. I can not believe that the US military and other Western militaries have not presented detailed reports to the leaders explaining this conclusion down to the most mundane of details.
Russia has offered reasonable terms and has been present for negotiations, but it was Ukraine at the behest of the Western death-cult that has forced peace to fail each time.
> Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?
A war fought on the defense can never result in victory. The western support of Ukraine is provided on the provision that Ukraine does not attack Russian territory.
The support the western world is "giving" to Ukraine is not free. On top of the pointless death, destruction and devastation that Ukraine is suffering, Ukraine will inevitably have to repay the debt incurred from the "gifts". Ukraine is nothing to the western world, just a dog to kick and a cow to milk all the while serving as a cautionary tale designed to keep other nations in line and their own citizens blood appetite sated for now and hooked in anticipation for a feast soon.
> And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?
"the entire world" only stands against Russia in your perception, formed from a curated bubble of "approved sources". In reality, the world is split and Russia has powerful allies, one of which is the long-standing ally India. India is not just a back-room oil partner for Russia, they are an important and powerful military ally. By global population, Russia has more support than Ukraine. But of course, "the entire world" doesn't consider all lives equal so who cares about little details like that.
It's obvious from every question you have asked that you only consume information from sources that push the "approved narrative". Are you able to imagine anything outside of your current Russia-Ukraine dataset?
> How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country?
I'm sure what you mean by that is, "do I think Russia was justified in defending their sovereignty from the numerous violations of international agreements ultimately threatening their sovereignty", then yes. "Do I think Russia is justified in liberating and defending a peoples under siege and in need of help?", yes.
> Does that not constitute a death march?
I don't really understand your question, so from wiki: "A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees in which individuals are left to die along the way. ... Death marches usually feature harsh physical labour and abuse, neglect of prisoner injury and illness, deliberate starvation and dehydration, humiliation, torture, and execution of those unable to keep up the marching pace. The march may end at a prisoner-of-war camp or internment camp, or it may continue until all the prisoners are dead. "
From that I still don't understand your question.
Anyone with any military understanding and with the factual account of the situation on-the-ground in Ukraine (which you can not get from sources pushing the "approved narrative") will draw the inevitable conclusion that Ukraine will is not and never was capable of achieving any kind of victory against Russia in this confrontation. The Western leaders must know this. I can not believe that the US military and other Western militaries have not presented detailed reports to the leaders explaining this conclusion down to the most mundane of details.
Russia has offered reasonable terms and has been present for negotiations, but it was Ukraine at the behest of the Western death-cult that has forced peace to fail each time.
> Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?
A war fought on the defense can never result in victory. The western support of Ukraine is provided on the provision that Ukraine does not attack Russian territory.
The support the western world is "giving" to Ukraine is not free. On top of the pointless death, destruction and devastation that Ukraine is suffering, Ukraine will inevitably have to repay the debt incurred from the "gifts". Ukraine is nothing to the western world, just a dog to kick and a cow to milk all the while serving as a cautionary tale designed to keep other nations in line and their own citizens blood appetite sated for now and hooked in anticipation for a feast soon.
> And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?
"the entire world" only stands against Russia in your perception, formed from a curated bubble of "approved sources". In reality, the world is split and Russia has powerful allies, one of which is the long-standing ally India. India is not just a back-room oil partner for Russia, they are an important and powerful military ally. By global population, Russia has more support than Ukraine. But of course, "the entire world" doesn't consider all lives equal so who cares about little details like that.
> A war fought on the defense can never result in victory
This attitude is evident of a war of conquest. Russia is not defending it's sovereignty or anything else. It's attacking and provoking a sovereign country.
To win the war Ukraine doesn't need to invade Russian borders, it needs to defend their own. their goal isn't conquest, it's defense.
Russia has become a laughing stock, the world sat in fear of the 300lb gorilla and it turns out the 50lb chimp can lay him on the ground.
What does that say about the "superpower" of Russia?
This attitude is evident of a war of conquest. Russia is not defending it's sovereignty or anything else. It's attacking and provoking a sovereign country.
To win the war Ukraine doesn't need to invade Russian borders, it needs to defend their own. their goal isn't conquest, it's defense.
Russia has become a laughing stock, the world sat in fear of the 300lb gorilla and it turns out the 50lb chimp can lay him on the ground.
What does that say about the "superpower" of Russia?
Rare to see a level head who doesn't just believe everything they are told immediately.
Given that if this turns out to be true, and Modi etc. get away with it, I expect they will become quite emboldened about doing this more generally.