|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
1005 days ago
|
|
Because if they did carry out the assassination as state policy, they know that, and if they didn't, they know that, too. Would you need to review someone else’s evidence to decide if you committed a murder? Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it. |
|
As long as there is no evidence provided by Canada, India is the victim here, with Canada leveling baseless allegations on her.
That's why I said, India has to confirm Canada's factual evidence first, because it can be any politically motivated bullshit for all we know.
Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it. But even then the Canada has jumped the gun and claimed that the killings were state sponsored. In that case too India is the victim with Canada making false accusations against her.