Trudeau harming relations between India and Canada?

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,155
113
To add, There is nothing specifically stating that Poilievre needs to be the one receiving briefing.

CPC Lawyer explained anyone within the CPC with clearance can be briefed on this and have been briefed on other classified issue before. Trudeau is just twisting the truth.

It's just a trap to muzzle Poilievre.
Sure, someone else in the cons can be briefed.
They just can't then tell PeePee what's in the report, since he is compromised and can't get clearance.

Where did he go?
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,611
1,138
113
CBC covered it better than I would.
You're mixing it up.
Trudeau said India was involved in Nijjar's killing.
He said India was using criminal gangs in Canada to do their dirty work.
Admitted no evidence for these, just intel.
If he is going to accuse a country, he has to present evidence.
Otherwise they wont entertain him.
The other issue is with conservatives being under India's thumb.
Can't Trudeau, like DesRicardo said, release the names to someone within the CPC with security clearance as a threat reduction measure if he was so concerned?
His avoidance in all 3 cases means that he most likely wants to sabotage Pierre's campaign and distract from his issues.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,700
60,736
113
You're mixing it up.
Trudeau said India was involved in Nijjar's killing.
He said India was using criminal gangs in Canada to do their dirty work.
Admitted no evidence for these, just intel.
If he is going to accuse a country, he has to present evidence.
OK, so your issue is that you can't accuse a country without presenting evidence.
What kind of evidence is sufficient for you?

Is it, as I inferred, evidence available to a court of law, married to criminal charges?
Or is there some lesser standard you would accept?
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,611
1,138
113
OK, so your issue is that you can't accuse a country without presenting evidence.
What kind of evidence is sufficient for you?

Is it, as I inferred, evidence available to a court of law, married to criminal charges?
Or is there some lesser standard you would accept?
It is not for me to say or accept.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,113
7,017
113
Singh is a big supporter of the Sikh movement, so he supports Trudeau.
Regarding the diplomats, watch this video here from CTV.
The reporter repeatedly says that India "RECALLED" the diplomats.
At the 3:30 mark, he gets a text message as he was in the middle of saying that India recalled their diplomats, and immediately changes his tune to say that Indian diplomats were expelled.
CTV was recently found to have doctored videos and issued public apologies.
What is likely to have happened is that India did infact recall its diplomats once Canada demanded that they waive diplomatic immunity.
He was first quoting what the Indian Govt. claimed. Then he corrected himself. The fact is that Our own Govt. stated that they expelled these Diplomats.
Now you are trying to pick on that one video that CTV "doctored" to allege that this reporter is deliberately changing his tune after stating that they were "recalled"!!
Think about this. Why would any Govt. just "recall" their diplomats if they were innocent? Then they would just expel the Diplomats if it was not a tit for tat retaliation?
India just refused to waive the immunity, and that is why Canada expelled them. The UK Govt. have backed Canada in this matter!!
It is clear that an Indian official was also involved with the attempted, assassination of a USA Citizen. So no doubt that these 6 individuals have had a hand in Nijjar Singh's Killing!!

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,155
113
You're mixing it up.
Trudeau said India was involved in Nijjar's killing.
He said India was using criminal gangs in Canada to do their dirty work.
Admitted no evidence for these, just intel.
If he is going to accuse a country, he has to present evidence.
Otherwise they wont entertain him.
The other issue is with conservatives being under India's thumb.
Can't Trudeau, like DesRicardo said, release the names to someone within the CPC with security clearance as a threat reduction measure if he was so concerned?
His avoidance in all 3 cases means that he most likely wants to sabotage Pierre's campaign and distract from his issues.
CSIS and Five Eyes said India was involved in the killing, not just Trudeau. I know, you're a big Modi supporter so won't accept this.
Your issue is with the allegation that Modi is committing foreign assassinations, which it appears you support.

PeePee's issues are different. PeePee had security clearance previously but hasn't renewed it since he married. Rumours are also out that is his wife's mafia connections that might be his own personal issues, whether or not he's named as working with India to thwart Canadian democracy.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,113
7,017
113
He repeatedly said they were recalled.
Then someone at CTV texted him and he changed his tune.
Just like the Indian press is pro-Modi, the Canadian press is pro-Trudeau.
They probably texted him as he was making a mistake by stating that India "Recalls" their diplomats. He was referring to the India News Outlets at the start. That is why he corrected himself later in the video!! India did not "Recall" them, and all they did was to refuse to waive the Immunity. Once again India's Press are being subjected to censorship and have to toe the line!!

Watch this video at the 4 minute mark of Trudeau testifying at the foreign Interference Enquiry. Then again listen to Trudeau mention that the RCMP had "Real Evidence" of the Violence towards Canadians that the Indian Govt. directed. this fact was towards the end of the video!!


Obviously, the video that you are quoting is not the most recent one as it was from probably the time during the G20 Summit in India after it was brought to Modi's attention and he waved it off then!! But post the whole context of when that video was published. In fact it could have even been "doctored" as only the Indian Media are broadcasting it!!
 
Last edited:

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,700
60,736
113
It is not for me to define what is acceptable.
But we can see the results and what his ulterior motives are here.
Which is to distract.
Got it.
You don't care what evidence there is or isn't or what he presents.
You just know it is about "distracting" and therefore bs.
(Do you even care what did or did not happen? Or is that entirely irrelevant to you?)
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,113
7,017
113
He repeatedly said they were recalled.
Then someone at CTV texted him and he changed his tune.
Just like the Indian press is pro-Modi, the Canadian press is pro-Trudeau.
That is not true. The Canadian Press like The Sun and National Post etc. have been constantly critical of the Trudeau Govt from Day 1 that he took office.
They are allowed to be so, without any censorship, unlike the Indian Press, where journalists have been jailed on false pretences!!

 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts