The claim that ‘the people who killed Nijjar were too young to be state actors’ is fallacious to begin with. It’s even more tenuous in light of everything else that’s known about the murder.
It goes without saying that there’s no reason to give any weight to India’s denial of involvement. That’s all that really needs to be said about that.
Canada expelled an Indian diplomat. There’s no reason to do that if India wasn’t involved. There’s no reason for India not to cooperate with investigations if they’re not involved. We know that Five Eyes intelligence exists that makes a connection between the assassination and the Indian government. The intelligence itself hasn’t been disclosed (and never will be - sources & methods, etc). So, waiting for that kind of disclosure before forming an opinion on this is folly at best.
The current Canadian government is horribly weak on matters of foreign interference, so if they’ve been mealymouthed regarding this assassination, I don’t think that casts doubt on India’s involvement. If anything, it’s a suggestion of the opposite.
Given the degraded state of Canada’s current foreign policy, it’s expected that they would tiptoe around confirming a direct link between India and the assassination, and may choose to never confirm it. That doesn’t mean we should infer that a link doesn’t exist.
With all that in mind, I don’t see any reason to conclude that India wasn’t involved.
Even if he was (not saying he was) that doesn’t give a foreign nation the right to covertly kill a citizen here. If they had a solid argument that he was a terrorist then surely there would have been more official methods of dealing with it.
I know Canadian and the US intelligence both say it’s linked to the Indian government, I’m saying it strange and more then a little sloppy they used kids.
It also hasn’t been proven so I’m holding off making up my mind for now.
Fair - all I’m saying is, given what we know, it’s not a situation of India’s involvement being equally likely and unlikely. It’s likely, and there are good reasons to believe it to be the case, and no good reasons to doubt it. So I think making a point of saying that it’s unproven is nitpicking and doesn’t accurately reflect the facts of the matter.
In September, the Canadian prime minister told lawmakers that “agents of the government of India” had been linked to Mr. Nijjar’s killing on Canadian soil
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The claim that ‘the people who killed Nijjar were too young to be state actors’ is fallacious to begin with. It’s even more tenuous in light of everything else that’s known about the murder.
It goes without saying that there’s no reason to give any weight to India’s denial of involvement. That’s all that really needs to be said about that.
Canada expelled an Indian diplomat. There’s no reason to do that if India wasn’t involved. There’s no reason for India not to cooperate with investigations if they’re not involved. We know that Five Eyes intelligence exists that makes a connection between the assassination and the Indian government. The intelligence itself hasn’t been disclosed (and never will be - sources & methods, etc). So, waiting for that kind of disclosure before forming an opinion on this is folly at best.
The current Canadian government is horribly weak on matters of foreign interference, so if they’ve been mealymouthed regarding this assassination, I don’t think that casts doubt on India’s involvement. If anything, it’s a suggestion of the opposite.
Given the degraded state of Canada’s current foreign policy, it’s expected that they would tiptoe around confirming a direct link between India and the assassination, and may choose to never confirm it. That doesn’t mean we should infer that a link doesn’t exist.
With all that in mind, I don’t see any reason to conclude that India wasn’t involved.
Nijjar was a wanted terrorist. There was no reason to kill him if he wasn’t. How come Canadian media always only shows pictures of a smiling friendly-faced Nijjar? How come they never show the unflattering pictures of him? Like this: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/a-skeptic-canadians-guide-to-hardeep-singh-nijjars-life-2441410-2023-09-27
Even if he was (not saying he was) that doesn’t give a foreign nation the right to covertly kill a citizen here. If they had a solid argument that he was a terrorist then surely there would have been more official methods of dealing with it.
I know Canadian and the US intelligence both say it’s linked to the Indian government, I’m saying it strange and more then a little sloppy they used kids.
It also hasn’t been proven so I’m holding off making up my mind for now.
Fair - all I’m saying is, given what we know, it’s not a situation of India’s involvement being equally likely and unlikely. It’s likely, and there are good reasons to believe it to be the case, and no good reasons to doubt it. So I think making a point of saying that it’s unproven is nitpicking and doesn’t accurately reflect the facts of the matter.
We don’t know the facts though.
The New York Times - “What We Know About the Killing of a Sikh Separatist in Canada”
Do you have a good reason to doubt the mainstream view on this? The fact that the killers were young isn’t a good reason.
CBC - Indian officials linked to homicides, violence in Canada, and pose threat to public safety, RCMP alleges