Why not? If the evidence can be fact-checked on both sides, then its credibility can be established. All this depends on what kind of evidence Canada has (if at all they do).
I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.
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.
dragonwriter|2 years ago
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.
morbidious|2 years ago
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.
powersnail|2 years ago
morbidious|2 years ago