U.S. Provided Canada with Intelligence on Killing of Sikh Leader
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
Sanctions?
So good luck with that today.
Or even better, they are already quite emboldened and have experience with lying categorically thinking it would work all the time.
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.
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.
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-khashoggi-affair-the-f...
Do you need links?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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).