Hacker News Reader

Comment by ta8645 | Hacker News Reader

Even that article you cite stops short of saying that RAW was definitely the perpetrator.

There are occasionally people who opportunistically claim credit for crimes they didn't commit, when it suits their politics. And even if it was someone in RAW, being "close to the government", does not necessarily mean it was ordered by that government.

None of us have enough information to say for sure at this point. Yet people carry on like we know the truth without equivocation.

The Prime Minister of Canada just did a state visit to India, where he was not warmly received, and made to look foolish on the world stage. So, he has his own political calculations in this affair, and is far from an objective arbiter of truth.

View on HN

> The Prime Minister of Canada just did a state visit to India, where he was not warmly received, and made to look foolish on the world stage. So, he has his own political calculations in this affair, and is far from an objective arbiter of truth.

He is also deeply unpopular, sinking in the polls, and facing major public pressure over Canada's housing and cost of living crisis. He also has taken significant criticism for his handling of Chinese foreign interference campaigns.

A cynic might point out that starting a fight with an unpopular foreign government is a great way to distract attention from the government's domestic policy failures.

> none of us have enough information to say for sure at this point

Well, I agree; in these matters there is rarely definitive proof until the archives are opened. Given the implicit epistemic standards governing such assertions, I think this particular assertion is fine; there is a pretty good argument for it. Those standards vary by context, and sentences of the form 'intelligence agencies did blah' have relatively low standards.

(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/trudeau-india-...)

I can equally make an argument that the relatively muted reaction of the Indophile UK government suggests that there is something to these reports:

> The British foreign secretary, James Cleverly, said his government backed a Canadian investigation, adding that he expected India’s “full cooperation” in the inquiry. “Obviously, we have a very strong relationship with Canada, a very strong relationship with India,” he said.

or that the States would have denied this if they could, given the importance of the Quad; and so on.

> I can equally make an argument that the relatively muted reaction of the Indophile UK government suggests that there is something to these reports:

We can try to read the tea-leaves, but we don't know for sure.

I'm not saying it's wrong, i'm saying people should stop being so emphatically absolute in their belief that they know the truth. It's a corrosive sickness that permeates much public discourse these days.

This just seems to be a misreading of varying implicit epistemic standards. When I'm in a logic seminar I'm obviously going to mean something different in using unqualified indicatives from when I'm in the pub. I don't thereby commit the sin of having unwarranted certainty when I'm in the pub.

We're not in the pub, and we're not drunk. We're adults and can discuss things without resorting to unjustified claims. At least that's my naive hope.

> The Prime Minister of Canada just did a state visit to India, where he was not warmly received, and made to look foolish on the world stage.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason he got a cold reception was he brought the accusation he just made publicly? Would put the issue with the plane in a whole new light too...

This 100%. It is the only reason why this mudslinging is happening now.

This is a very bold claim.

> This is a very bold claim.

I don't think so.

The state visit, and the bad PR it brought to the Canadian PM is well-reported publically. And the idea that a PM makes political calculations, which don't hold truth as more important than all other factors, wouldn't be controversial to most political observers.

> This is a very bold claim.

So is blaming this killing on India. No evidence has been presented.

This was probably nothing but gang rivalry.

Indo-Canadian organized crime or Punjabi-Canadian organized crime is made up predominantly of young adults and teenagers of Punjabi ethnic, cultural and linguistic background, typically ethnic Jatt’s. [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Canadian_organized_crim...

This is overt racism.

Excuse me.. Really? How? Pray tell.

Read the Wikipedia link. There has been known and established link between Khalistani elements in Canada and Punjabi/Sikh organized crime.

Blaming it on criminal ties simply because the ethnicity of the victim? Are you serious? When is that okay?

And for your information, I live in Vancouver. I'm aware of the organized crime issue here. But not every Sikh is a terrorist or criminal (I can't believe I have to say that).

Suggesting they are criminally involved just because of their race is textbook racism.

> Blaming it on criminal ties simply because the ethnicity of the victim? … > But not every Sikh is a terrorist or criminal

Now you’re just making things up. Where in my comment did I say that every Sikh is a terrorist or criminal or I’m blaming criminal ties due to his ethnicity? Please point me to that.

I was referring to him being a Khalistani and I did point you to the fact that Khalistanis have ties with organized crime. There’s shit ton of evidence related to that.

For the record, I’m sure I know more Sikhs than you, have since childhood and none of them is a Khalistani nor a criminal.

Here's what you said:

>This was probably nothing but gang rivalry.

>>Indo-Canadian organized crime or Punjabi-Canadian organized crime is made up predominantly of young adults and teenagers of Punjabi ethnic, cultural and linguistic background, typically ethnic Jatt’s. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Canadian_organized_crim...

Since you purposefully pulled a quotation from the wiki article about ethnicity, it seems pretty obvious to me you are linking his ethnicity to organized crime. Right? Am I crazy? You brought up his ethnicity. You did that.

If you meant to say Khalistanis have ties to organized crime then you should have said that. But, you didn't.

Anyways, now that you've corrected (or backtracked) to say Khalistanis have ties with organized crime, I acknowledge your correction. Though, I still don't follow the logic of "Khalistanis have ties with organized crime" therefore, this is "probably" organized crime but this has gone on long enough.

FYI, I'm not going to read your reply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com