[n_t]

Since this will soon become heated and full of misinformation, here are some details-

1. PM Trudeau called emergency session over "credible" allegations but no actual evidence. The leader of opposition has also called out lack of evidence.

2. Canada expelled a key Indian diplomat but not nothing more - basically diplomatese - https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/18/americas/canada-hardeep-s...

3. India issued statement calling allegations as baseless and irresponsible - https://bit.ly/3EHtuwe

4. India too immediately booted out key Canadian diplomat. Diplomat was so angry he almost slammed car door on a journalist (https://x.com/ANI/status/1703997495318352108?s=20)

5. PM Trudeau seems to realize he has worsened relations with no credible evidence - https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-pm-not-trying-provoke-i...

As for background, India considers two countries as those which harbors terrorists active against India - Pakistan and Canada. Canada has harbored "Khalistani" terrorists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182) for long. Recently these "khalistani" (mind you, not Sikhs) have started threatening Indian diplomats (https://x.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1676496624519122950?s=20) and attacked Indian properties and temples in Canada/UK. India recently started taking harder stance on push back on both Canada and UK for safety of it's nationals.

[Sanzig]

> The leader of opposition has also called out lack of evidence.

That is not what he said at all: https://nitter.net/PierrePoilievre/status/170389391532824992...

[papercrane]

He's since changed his position and is saying Trudeau should release more information publicly. For context Poilievre has refused to get security clearance, so it's unlikely he's seen the whatever evidence CSIS has.+

* https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/poilievre-trudeau-har...

+ there's a lot that's been written about his refusal. The short of it is that his position is that part of the process is he needs to promise not to reveal anything he sees and he has said that could interfere with his work as leader of the opposition.

[shkkmo]

I'm confused by several of your assertions.

You say Canada as "harbored" terrorists, but then link to an attack by Babbar Khalsa, which is designated as a terrorist by Canada. Do you have any basis for this assertion?

Also, I see calling credible allegations "baseless and irresponsible" doesn't inspire confidence. It's pretty clear how bad the assassination looks for India and pretending otherwise instead of promising to assist with investigations just make India look more guilty.

[mistrial9]

> "khalistani" (mind you, not Sikhs)

thank you .. also I have seen ill-informed US people accosting young Sikhs with accusations and harassment on the street in daylight .. Sikhs identified by their formal dress

[shkkmo]

While I understand that "Khalistani" have significant doctrinal differences from "traditional Sikhs", it seems like claim the Khalistani are not Sikhs is like claiming that Mormons aren't Christians. It is a prejudice based exclusion of a group in contradiction of the groups own identity.

I think explaining the differences between groups is totally worth wile, but denying the label seem like prejudice to me.

I rather doubt that Sikhs have been accosted in the US based on being confused with Khalistanis, as few americans have ever heard of Khalistanis. The attacks I heard about all had to do with ignorant Americans not knowing the difference between Sikhs and Muslims.

[reducesuffering]

> like claiming that Mormons aren't Christians

Do you agree the fundamental difference with Abrahamic religions is their choice of holy books and introduction of a holy prophet? The Jews have the Torah. The Christians had Jesus and appended the New Testament to the Torah, hence new religion, Christianity. The Muslims had Muhammad and appended the Quran to the Torah, hence new religion, Islam. The Mormons had Joseph Smith and appended the Book of Mormon to the Bible. I struggle to see how that doesn't make them a different religion just like the rest, worthy of a different name.

[freedomben]

This is the evergreen debate about what makes one a "Christian." Is it simply one who worships Jesus Christ? Is it self-labeling as Christian? Is it adherence to some arbitrary specification that mandates a "Christian" must accept specific extra-biblical doctrines?

Depending on how you define Christian, it either includes or excludes Mormons. No discussion about "Are Mormons Christian?" is productive without first agreeing on a definition.

[shkkmo]

> The Muslims had Muhammad and appended the Quran to the Torah, hence new religion, Islam.

Islam views both Old and New Testament as the word of god, but the Quran is not viewed as an appendment to them but rather as a replacement.

> I struggle to see how that doesn't make them a different religion just like the rest, worthy of a different name.

Other religions add new holy books and new holy people without transforming. The Sikhs had 10 gurus over the course of more than 200 years.

Fundamentally, it is a question of cultural identity. Here, the key point is that the Mormons claim a Christian identity. What non-prejudiced purpose does it serve to deny them that identity?

[mistrial9]

> claim the Khalistani are not Sikhs

you misunderstand - I did not say that.

[timeon]

So first you present how this accusation is baseless. But why did you added how this guy was bad and dangerous? Even when he was - it is unnecessary to your original argument and looks bit suspicious.