> none of us have enough information to say for sure at this point Well, I agree; in these matters there is rarely definitive proof until the archives are open

> none of us have enough information to say for sure at this point Well, I agree; in these matters there is rarely definitive proof until the archives are opened. Given the implicit epistemic standards governing such assertions, I think this particular assertion is fine; there is a pretty good argument for it. Those standards vary by context, and sentences of the form 'intelligence agencies did blah' have relatively low standards. > The Prime Minister of Canada just did a state visit to India, where he was not warmly received, and made to look foolish on the world stage. So, he has his own political calculations in this affair, and is far from an objective arbiter of truth. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/trudeau-india-expulsions-canada-sikh-leader-killed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/trudeau-india-...) I can equally make an argument that the relatively muted reaction of the Indophile UK government suggests that there is something to these reports: > The British foreign secretary, James Cleverly, said his government backed a Canadian investigation, adding that he expected India’s “full cooperation” in the inquiry. “Obviously, we have a very strong relationship with Canada, a very strong relationship with India,” he said. or that the States would have denied this if they could, given the importance of the Quad; and so on.