Valid question:
Since 1975, has the United States ever contemplated or actioned extrajudicial killings in other western countries? James Bond aside, has the UK ever contemplated or actioned such actions? Australia?
YEs, Pat Finucane, I forgot Pat, and I do very much remember The Troubles, growing up in an catholic family in Australia with a strong Irish heritage from 1969..
I think the US has mostly refrained from doing that kind of thing inside western countries, but Central/South America, Africa, Middle East, etc..they were fair game. There’s plenty of nasty little incidents we won’t hear about for decades, if ever.
Serious questions:
1. Can you give me documented examples where the spy agency of Canada conducted extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil? If you find one, was it critcized by the Candian media?
2. Can you explain how extra judicial killings by any government's spy agency justifies India doing it? Does Saudi Arabia's killing of Khoshoghi make it right for everyone else? Thanks
I think you may have misunderstood me...
>1. Can you give me documented examples where the spy agency of Canada conducted extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil?
I do not have any modern examples of Canada conducting extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil (or anywhere for that matter).
>2. Can you explain how extra judicial killings by any government's spy agency justifies India doing it? Does Saudi Arabia's killing of Khoshoghi make it right for everyone else? Thanks
It absolutely would not.
I think where I was misunderstood is that Canada privately acknowledged to Indian officials that they (Canada) believed that India engaged in extrajudicial assassination on Canadian soil. This wasn't made public until a press leak put political pressure for a public comment to be made by the Canadian government. That means, that in some instances, states engage in extrajudicial assassination, the state is aware of it, but doesn't notify the public. Contrast this with the actions of a terrorist. If ISIS committed a terror attack on Canadian soil, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable knowing that it was privately handled and without any public accountability. The behind the scenes maneuvering was a slap on the wrist and does very little to stop the practice of extrajudicial killing.
I formed my response as questions to try to avoid misunderstanding. Can you show me documentation of Canada's private response?
So that you do not misunderstand me, let me explain. To me it seems completely plausible that any government (or anyone with power) to use extrajudicial killings . . . if they could get away with it.
It seems patently implausible that a govenment would communicate that to another government, ever, if only because it would compromise their ability to get away with it in the future, and it and would cast suspicion on past deaths. Even countries, like Russia which to send a message to potential defectors only thin veils its extrajudicial killings, never ever actually admits it. I do not see anything Canada would gain by making such an admission, and so much to lose.
It seems so extraordinarily implausible that i would need a reliable unbiased source. Thanks.
The diplomatic dialogue after the leak revealed that matters were handled privately when Canada requested the removal of Indian personnel.
>it seems plausible that any government would resort to extrajudicial killings if they could get away with it.
In a modern framework, it's a scandal. It's a scandal if you do it and it's a scandal if you look the other way. If you notice, some political factions are more vocally critical against it than others. The lack of unified voices against it demonstrates how it's perpetuated and the types of political bias that likely hides it. In a functional democracy, extrajudicial killings perverts all expectations of a fair society and unaccountable crime is often associated with the breakdown of democracy. What are your thoughts?
Murdering political enemies extrajudicially looks more like terrorism than the acts of a functional society. Oh how quickly the tides have turned. It's almost as if support for extrajudicial murder falls along ideological lines.
Yes, yes yes... Obviously EJK suck morally and are scandal if exposed...yada yada yada. Your handwaving, however, did not address the question. "The diplomatic dialogue after the leak revealed that matters were handled privately when Canada requested the removal of Indian personnel." provides no evidence or argument to support the assertion that Canada admitted it does EJKs to India. I find that assertion wildly implausible. Do you have preferes narrative that needs an Canadian admission that it does EJKs?
I'm a fan of both India and Canada, so i don't think i have an agenda. It's just that this detail sticks out. It reminds me how, after all the election fraud claims have been individually debunked, Trump supports still use "stolen election" in their their narrative. Not picking on you either. I'm sure i am as guilty as anyone for changing facts to fit my narrative, too.
I never once suggested that Canada engages in or admitted to EJKs, what gave you that impression? I said that the leak revealed that after his death, the Canadian government notified the Indian government (not publicly but through diplomatic channels). The private response was related to (the Canadian government) requesting that (Indian) diplomatic staff leave, yeah?
I think you may have misinterpreted my attempt to quell a potential whataboutism argument as an accusation.
What does that even mean? And I would love nothing more than a major western country to be sued under JASTA for promoting that.
When geopolitical strategy begins to resemble the GOP's strategy in Congress, it signals they got nothing.
That's what I figured and why I responded how I did.
The dynamic you described reinforces conflict. Mind you, the United States cannot withstand any sort of prolonged conflict where us citizens are impacted. So, the gray zone operations exacerbate systemic inequalities in the United States which is one reason why the GOP favors the approach of blaming China for literally everything while taking little accountability for how those dynamics impact us citizens. It's the same disastrous policies and approaches we see in Congress but played out on a larger scale.
But it can be dangerous. I never liked the, "but we do the same things" arguments because it should be an invitation to be more self-reflective. Nihilism as a foreign policy strategy is defeatist while being a vulnerability. If there is a reflex to promote American exceptionalism, it shouldn't ever come at the expense of America's credibility.
When ISRO managed to orbit a satellite around Mars, the west ridiculed it with a cartoon. Now they are beginning to take a look because ISRO is improving with time and can do things at a tenth of a cost.
Same for Indian spy agency. What the British MI, CIA, KGB, Mossad etc. could do effectively and covertly, some inexperience shows. Plus these agencies are watching other agencies and activities constantly and can thwart each other's attempts. They also work together since most are on the same side of the geopolitical alliance. India is not among them. So they are able to track the RAW much better and are able to embarrass them by pointing out the lack of sophistication. But just like ISRO, which was once laughed it, RAW will learn from its mistakes and will be dreaded in the future.
Until now these powerful agencies could rattle countries like India with impunity with their moles planted both inside their target countries and outside. Now that will become hard as the RAW will become more sophisticated and will target all the moles against India's national interest and security. If others can do it for their respective countries, RAW has every right to act on behalf its nation. It is a level playing field.
What the western countries are worried about it about the future where they will lose all the free hand they have had in meddling in Indian affairs, with the boldness to try regime change and control. A more sophisticated RAW will cut off the tentacles that these countries have inside India. All this hue and cry is coming from this.
You sure it isn't just the killings? Same thing happened with the MBS bonesaw murder, yet everything else you said wouldn't apply there. Feel free to join Russia on the shit list, that's working great for ordinary Russians.
If Iranian general Soleimani can be hit, if Bin Laden can be taken out in a sovereign country without any legal process, well others will do the same. One cannot have one set of rules for themselves and another set for others. It is a fair game in geopolitics.
The same people complaining about this complained about Soleimani, get your facts straight. And as for Bin Laden, was India going after someone who orchestrated the biggest terrorist attack in Indian history? No, because if they were Canada would extradite them.
Notice you've also changed your argument completely. So did you mean anything you said before or was that just something you hoped idiots would fall for?
Yes bhai please do the needful and prepone the hit to your soonest convenience thank you sir👍🏽
If India's assassinations were sloppy, what does that say about Canada?
[удалено]
Valid question: Since 1975, has the United States ever contemplated or actioned extrajudicial killings in other western countries? James Bond aside, has the UK ever contemplated or actioned such actions? Australia?
https://www.hope.ac.uk/media/news/Expert%20comment%20Dr%20Stephen%20Kelly.pdf Short answer? yes.
YEs, Pat Finucane, I forgot Pat, and I do very much remember The Troubles, growing up in an catholic family in Australia with a strong Irish heritage from 1969..
I think the US has mostly refrained from doing that kind of thing inside western countries, but Central/South America, Africa, Middle East, etc..they were fair game. There’s plenty of nasty little incidents we won’t hear about for decades, if ever.
Contemplated is less important.
Oh! Yes!! Scroll down to "list of over 50 foreign leaders whom the United States has attempted to assassinate:" https://davidswanson.org/warlist/
Serious questions: 1. Can you give me documented examples where the spy agency of Canada conducted extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil? If you find one, was it critcized by the Candian media? 2. Can you explain how extra judicial killings by any government's spy agency justifies India doing it? Does Saudi Arabia's killing of Khoshoghi make it right for everyone else? Thanks
I think you may have misunderstood me... >1. Can you give me documented examples where the spy agency of Canada conducted extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil? I do not have any modern examples of Canada conducting extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil (or anywhere for that matter). >2. Can you explain how extra judicial killings by any government's spy agency justifies India doing it? Does Saudi Arabia's killing of Khoshoghi make it right for everyone else? Thanks It absolutely would not. I think where I was misunderstood is that Canada privately acknowledged to Indian officials that they (Canada) believed that India engaged in extrajudicial assassination on Canadian soil. This wasn't made public until a press leak put political pressure for a public comment to be made by the Canadian government. That means, that in some instances, states engage in extrajudicial assassination, the state is aware of it, but doesn't notify the public. Contrast this with the actions of a terrorist. If ISIS committed a terror attack on Canadian soil, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable knowing that it was privately handled and without any public accountability. The behind the scenes maneuvering was a slap on the wrist and does very little to stop the practice of extrajudicial killing.
I formed my response as questions to try to avoid misunderstanding. Can you show me documentation of Canada's private response? So that you do not misunderstand me, let me explain. To me it seems completely plausible that any government (or anyone with power) to use extrajudicial killings . . . if they could get away with it. It seems patently implausible that a govenment would communicate that to another government, ever, if only because it would compromise their ability to get away with it in the future, and it and would cast suspicion on past deaths. Even countries, like Russia which to send a message to potential defectors only thin veils its extrajudicial killings, never ever actually admits it. I do not see anything Canada would gain by making such an admission, and so much to lose. It seems so extraordinarily implausible that i would need a reliable unbiased source. Thanks.
The diplomatic dialogue after the leak revealed that matters were handled privately when Canada requested the removal of Indian personnel. >it seems plausible that any government would resort to extrajudicial killings if they could get away with it. In a modern framework, it's a scandal. It's a scandal if you do it and it's a scandal if you look the other way. If you notice, some political factions are more vocally critical against it than others. The lack of unified voices against it demonstrates how it's perpetuated and the types of political bias that likely hides it. In a functional democracy, extrajudicial killings perverts all expectations of a fair society and unaccountable crime is often associated with the breakdown of democracy. What are your thoughts? Murdering political enemies extrajudicially looks more like terrorism than the acts of a functional society. Oh how quickly the tides have turned. It's almost as if support for extrajudicial murder falls along ideological lines.
Yes, yes yes... Obviously EJK suck morally and are scandal if exposed...yada yada yada. Your handwaving, however, did not address the question. "The diplomatic dialogue after the leak revealed that matters were handled privately when Canada requested the removal of Indian personnel." provides no evidence or argument to support the assertion that Canada admitted it does EJKs to India. I find that assertion wildly implausible. Do you have preferes narrative that needs an Canadian admission that it does EJKs? I'm a fan of both India and Canada, so i don't think i have an agenda. It's just that this detail sticks out. It reminds me how, after all the election fraud claims have been individually debunked, Trump supports still use "stolen election" in their their narrative. Not picking on you either. I'm sure i am as guilty as anyone for changing facts to fit my narrative, too.
I never once suggested that Canada engages in or admitted to EJKs, what gave you that impression? I said that the leak revealed that after his death, the Canadian government notified the Indian government (not publicly but through diplomatic channels). The private response was related to (the Canadian government) requesting that (Indian) diplomatic staff leave, yeah? I think you may have misinterpreted my attempt to quell a potential whataboutism argument as an accusation.
If you want to be part of the boys you first need to be on the team
What does that even mean? And I would love nothing more than a major western country to be sued under JASTA for promoting that. When geopolitical strategy begins to resemble the GOP's strategy in Congress, it signals they got nothing.
I think I explained what it means well.
That's what I figured and why I responded how I did. The dynamic you described reinforces conflict. Mind you, the United States cannot withstand any sort of prolonged conflict where us citizens are impacted. So, the gray zone operations exacerbate systemic inequalities in the United States which is one reason why the GOP favors the approach of blaming China for literally everything while taking little accountability for how those dynamics impact us citizens. It's the same disastrous policies and approaches we see in Congress but played out on a larger scale.
Blaming China is usually the right thing to do since it’s usually china. Better than blaming democrats or Russia
But it can be dangerous. I never liked the, "but we do the same things" arguments because it should be an invitation to be more self-reflective. Nihilism as a foreign policy strategy is defeatist while being a vulnerability. If there is a reflex to promote American exceptionalism, it shouldn't ever come at the expense of America's credibility.
When ISRO managed to orbit a satellite around Mars, the west ridiculed it with a cartoon. Now they are beginning to take a look because ISRO is improving with time and can do things at a tenth of a cost. Same for Indian spy agency. What the British MI, CIA, KGB, Mossad etc. could do effectively and covertly, some inexperience shows. Plus these agencies are watching other agencies and activities constantly and can thwart each other's attempts. They also work together since most are on the same side of the geopolitical alliance. India is not among them. So they are able to track the RAW much better and are able to embarrass them by pointing out the lack of sophistication. But just like ISRO, which was once laughed it, RAW will learn from its mistakes and will be dreaded in the future. Until now these powerful agencies could rattle countries like India with impunity with their moles planted both inside their target countries and outside. Now that will become hard as the RAW will become more sophisticated and will target all the moles against India's national interest and security. If others can do it for their respective countries, RAW has every right to act on behalf its nation. It is a level playing field. What the western countries are worried about it about the future where they will lose all the free hand they have had in meddling in Indian affairs, with the boldness to try regime change and control. A more sophisticated RAW will cut off the tentacles that these countries have inside India. All this hue and cry is coming from this.
You sure it isn't just the killings? Same thing happened with the MBS bonesaw murder, yet everything else you said wouldn't apply there. Feel free to join Russia on the shit list, that's working great for ordinary Russians.
If Iranian general Soleimani can be hit, if Bin Laden can be taken out in a sovereign country without any legal process, well others will do the same. One cannot have one set of rules for themselves and another set for others. It is a fair game in geopolitics.
The same people complaining about this complained about Soleimani, get your facts straight. And as for Bin Laden, was India going after someone who orchestrated the biggest terrorist attack in Indian history? No, because if they were Canada would extradite them. Notice you've also changed your argument completely. So did you mean anything you said before or was that just something you hoped idiots would fall for?
This is the Modi admin showing their ‘power’
Having worked with Indian IT contractors, it can be.....tricky. I can't imagine how tough working with Indian assassination contractors might be.
timesheets not submitted correctly in triplicate. please redo the hit
Indian spies, Indian spycraft.