This was a representative of the India Government. Wars have been fought over less.
Like what?
The Vietnam War was fought almost entirely because of some dumb political theory that's total bullshit.
But if you want a less depressing answer, then look up the Pig War between the US and Britain.
Successful communist government would encourage more communist revolutions. It's not completely mad.
The US largely fought in Vietnam to keep France in NATO. It stayed after France gave left because it didn't want communism to spread.
The US largely fought in Vietnam to keep France in NATO.
Interesting. What's the story there? NATO treaty limits it so that it wouldn't have included Vietnam
France wanted to maintain its empire. This is costly and expensive, so they wanted help to do this. They used the risk of them becoming neutral in the cold war to push the US into supporting them in Vietnam. They didn't use the NATO alliance to force assistance, this wasn't clear in my comment. NATO country's like the UK didn't get involved in Vietnam, even with the US offering trying to pay them to send troops (UK was uniquely adapt at Jungle fighting relative to other western powers).
It may not seem like it today but early cold war post world war 2 the west wasn't as unified as it is today. British and France seriously consider themselves being a third way, continuing their imperial past. Not communist like Russia or Liberal like the US. Eventually the US through influence and might pushed them into fully liberal countries. America's liberal constitution/history made it's politicians and political culture anti imperialist. But they were far more anti-fascist and anti-communist, so they accepted western Europe as allies.
America's anti-communist actions often had it labelled as the anti-imperialist imperialist. But their 'empire' usually consisted of getting locals to get the country running again with US military and finical backing. This resulted in the US becoming strong allies with their conquered countries despite those countries having completely independent control of their nation and foreign policy. Like Japan and Korea (it could have been possible with Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't immediately take over).
It was an Indian man, but I'm aware of any evidence he was an operative of the Indian government.
Edit: Dumbass me, commenting before reading the article.
Naturally, our closest ally did what it does best and told us children (Canada and India) to stop fighting because they had more important interests in Asia.
More important than the literal fucking assassination of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil by a foreign power, apparently. More important than supporting it's single largest trading partner in the world. More important than supporting the country that forms the other half of NORAD.
Then again, the US DOJ literally pushed Bombardier (a Canadian jet aircraft company and massive Canadian employer) to insolvency because it might compete with Boeing. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Bombardier killed itself through the incompetence of its management and C-suite, DOJ might not have helped but a good aircraft company should be able to survive without military contracts
It wasn't military contracts that killed Bombardier. It was the DOJ blocking Bombardier sales to the US under claims of "dumping"
Seems a pretty vitriolic response for America releasing details on planned assassinations
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A newly unsealed U.S. criminal indictment has unleashed an unprecedented flood of details about an alleged plot connected to the Indian government to carry out multiple assassinations in North America.
Perhaps the most surprising allegation in the murder-for-hire indictment filed in New York State against Indian national Nikhil Gupta is a claim that there were plans to carry out three such killings on Canadian soil.
The indictment, made public Wednesday, accuses Gupta of attempting this year to arrange one killing in New York after receiving instructions from an Indian government employee.
The Indian government employee is not named in the indictment, but he is described as having held different roles, including intelligence, security management and in India's Central Reserve Police Force.
Last week, the Financial Times reported that U.S. officials had filed a criminal indictment and thwarted a similar plot against Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a citizen of the U.S. and Canada.
"This is an indictment against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a known human-rights violator who has a track record of using violence to suppress criticism and dissenting political opinion," Pannum said.
The original article contains 832 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Just do whatever you want to, kill whoever you want to... the key word to whitewash everything is "terrorist"!
India be like "we didn't do it but if we did then it was probably coz separatism is terrorism"
This was a representative of the India Government. Wars have been fought over less.
Like what?
The Vietnam War was fought almost entirely because of some dumb political theory that's total bullshit.
But if you want a less depressing answer, then look up the Pig War between the US and Britain.
Successful communist government would encourage more communist revolutions. It's not completely mad.
The US largely fought in Vietnam to keep France in NATO. It stayed after France gave left because it didn't want communism to spread.
Interesting. What's the story there? NATO treaty limits it so that it wouldn't have included Vietnam
France wanted to maintain its empire. This is costly and expensive, so they wanted help to do this. They used the risk of them becoming neutral in the cold war to push the US into supporting them in Vietnam. They didn't use the NATO alliance to force assistance, this wasn't clear in my comment. NATO country's like the UK didn't get involved in Vietnam, even with the US offering trying to pay them to send troops (UK was uniquely adapt at Jungle fighting relative to other western powers).
It may not seem like it today but early cold war post world war 2 the west wasn't as unified as it is today. British and France seriously consider themselves being a third way, continuing their imperial past. Not communist like Russia or Liberal like the US. Eventually the US through influence and might pushed them into fully liberal countries. America's liberal constitution/history made it's politicians and political culture anti imperialist. But they were far more anti-fascist and anti-communist, so they accepted western Europe as allies.
America's anti-communist actions often had it labelled as the anti-imperialist imperialist. But their 'empire' usually consisted of getting locals to get the country running again with US military and finical backing. This resulted in the US becoming strong allies with their conquered countries despite those countries having completely independent control of their nation and foreign policy. Like Japan and Korea (it could have been possible with Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't immediately take over).
Non-existent WMDs?
Look up The Pastry War.
And one in the US apparently
It was an Indian man, but I'm aware of any evidence he was an operative of the Indian government.
Edit: Dumbass me, commenting before reading the article.
Naturally, our closest ally did what it does best and told us children (Canada and India) to stop fighting because they had more important interests in Asia.
More important than the literal fucking assassination of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil by a foreign power, apparently. More important than supporting it's single largest trading partner in the world. More important than supporting the country that forms the other half of NORAD.
Then again, the US DOJ literally pushed Bombardier (a Canadian jet aircraft company and massive Canadian employer) to insolvency because it might compete with Boeing. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Bombardier killed itself through the incompetence of its management and C-suite, DOJ might not have helped but a good aircraft company should be able to survive without military contracts
It wasn't military contracts that killed Bombardier. It was the DOJ blocking Bombardier sales to the US under claims of "dumping"
Seems a pretty vitriolic response for America releasing details on planned assassinations
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A newly unsealed U.S. criminal indictment has unleashed an unprecedented flood of details about an alleged plot connected to the Indian government to carry out multiple assassinations in North America.
Perhaps the most surprising allegation in the murder-for-hire indictment filed in New York State against Indian national Nikhil Gupta is a claim that there were plans to carry out three such killings on Canadian soil.
The indictment, made public Wednesday, accuses Gupta of attempting this year to arrange one killing in New York after receiving instructions from an Indian government employee.
The Indian government employee is not named in the indictment, but he is described as having held different roles, including intelligence, security management and in India's Central Reserve Police Force.
Last week, the Financial Times reported that U.S. officials had filed a criminal indictment and thwarted a similar plot against Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a citizen of the U.S. and Canada.
"This is an indictment against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a known human-rights violator who has a track record of using violence to suppress criticism and dissenting political opinion," Pannum said.
The original article contains 832 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Just do whatever you want to, kill whoever you want to... the key word to whitewash everything is "terrorist"!
India be like "we didn't do it but if we did then it was probably coz separatism is terrorism"