> 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).
> 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.
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?
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.
> 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?
> The new attempt is to help setup private sector managed entities.
I get that. But these projects cannot run on political will alone. Ministers change. And parties can lose in elections. The only constant is the bureaucracy. And I have very little trust in their competence.
It’s a legacy feature of Indian democracy. Prior to this almost every public building (universities, Stadiums, Zoos, Office Buildings, Parks, etc) were named after Nehru, Gandhi or someone else from ruling family. Those names still exist.
You can take the state of Tamil Nadu as a counter example. A lot of welfare schemes have photos of politicians both dead and alive. Mostly presented in a way that implies the old guard is passing on something to the new one. It's there in a lot of other states come to think of it. But of course no one did it to such an extent at the national level than modi. Almost every other scheme is under his name
>But of course no one did it to such an extent at the national level than modi. Almost every other scheme is under his name
Here you said, that schemes are under his name, But I didn't see any
did good part is arguable but to answer your question Indian democracy is very personality driven (for the most part). We took the presidential election and merged it with parliamentary election. People in most states still vote for the leader of the party and not necessarily for the candidates in their constituency. Its like we took the worst part two systems and put them together.
I didn’t all this while, but just yesterday when my toddler was playing with my phone, the pop up opened and it got clicked as my toddler was repeatedly beating on the screen.
I guess this was their intention all along by showing repeated pop up windows.
I wonder if you could contact support and explain the situation. They can't ignore the fact that the agreement isn't valid if you weren't the one who clicked the button... right?
This argument only works in the limiting case. If 1% of HN readers read outside HN and post the good stuff here, that would keep the front page well stocked.
Well stocked with what that 1% like and appreciate, so we'd need for that 1% to be representative of the whole, otherwise users will leave until it becomes representative enough. But hey, that's a wild guess
We had slavery for almost half of our existence, we’re only just barely removed from segregation, and we’re tilting like a jenga tower into authoritarianism. We’ve had our moments, but I think the idea of American Exceptionalism was only ever an idea.
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #1
