4 ms·

Separatist yes. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a terrorist until allegations of planned terrorist attacks are confirmed by neutral parties. While he's runn

by ummonk 4y ago

Separatist yes. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a terrorist until allegations of planned terrorist attacks are confirmed by neutral parties. While he's running an org that has voolent clashed with police, there hasn't been any proper terrorist attacks by Khalistanis this time around a la the bombing of Air India Flight 182 (and attempted bombing of Flight 301) back in the day. More accurate to just call him a violent separatist.

darth_avocado 4y ago
Definition of a domestic terrorist per the FBI: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. I feel a lot of arguments on “that’s not terrorism” come in when it doesn’t affect the western countries. Just because an organization hasn’t committed any recent acts doesn’t mean they’re not terror organizations.
- honkler 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Didn’t BBC suspend it’s reporter for going against the UK govt? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6776069 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6776069 Hardly a neutral source.
    - srean 4y ago
      And why would UK govt be the purported neutral source ? They have a political interest in India and consequently interest in not ruffling the political class in power in India. Neutrality, bias etc matter less than truth.
  - darth_avocado 4y ago
    So you just accused another person of being a Hindutva Fascist just because I presented facts? Hardly meets the standard of discussion on HN.
    - honkler 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - truthsayer123 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - truthsayer123 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - programmer_dude 4y ago
    He did no such thing. Where is your evidence?
    - srean 4y ago
      Precisely. Out of no malice at all, the bodies ended up incinerated, the incriminating evidence, files, phone call records some how managed to get lost, police staff working on the case transferred, whistle blower minister pursuing the issue died out of not at all mysterious circumstances [0]. All in all it set a new standard on how pogroms are to be run. But the bottom-line lies in the fact that it had implicit support of the majority, and the party had a keen ear for that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riot...
      - truthsayer123 4y ago
        [flagged]
        srean 4y ago
        No. All I am saying is that multiple strange coincidences happens all the time, just a collection of many many coincidences, and bodies missing or charred beyond recognition, whistle blower deaths [0]. Move along, nothing to see here. Coincidences like speeches getting cut out at the parliament when a opposition party member was speaking, no malice at all, just a well timed 'technical error'[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riot... [1] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/amid-uproar-in-parliament-congresss-audio-muted-charge-against-bjp-3869020 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/amid-uproar-in-parliament-co... In a land where COVID deaths gets recorded on certificates as anything but COVID, you call for evidence ? That is so ... 90s pre-truth.
  - ummonk 4y ago
    This is even more ridiculous than calling Amritpal Singh a terrorist. The pogroms / religious riots in 2002 weren't genocide, and Modi did not perpetrate them, though he should bear responsibility for allowing them to happen on his watch either out of malice or incompetence. This has been well established by court inquiries.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  You provided no argument for your claim of terrorism, and a definition is not a factual claim. Perhaps you should start over with this argument.
- ekam 4y ago
  Based off this definition George Washington would have been a terrorist
  - thunkshift1 4y ago
    And judging by the response of the then administration (the brits) that would be correct?
- ummonk 4y ago
  The FBI uses an expansive definition of "terrorism" for obvious self-serving reasons. In reality, violent criminal acts to further ideological goals aren't terrorism unless done to actually spread terror.
  - ratg13 4y ago
    Can you give an example of a violent criminal act done to further ideological goals where the goal is not to spread terror?
    - ummonk 4y ago
      If the violence is directly in service of their goals without relying on the spread of terror, e.g. environmentalists blocking loggers, labor strikers shutting down a factory, or separatists setting up checkpoints and attacking government soldiers to create their own statelet.

by ummonk 4y ago

darth_avocado 4y ago

Definition of a domestic terrorist per the FBI: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. I feel a lot of arguments on “that’s not terrorism” come in when it doesn’t affect the western countries. Just because an organization hasn’t committed any recent acts doesn’t mean they’re not terror organizations.

honkler 4y ago
[flagged]
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Didn’t BBC suspend it’s reporter for going against the UK govt? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6776069 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6776069 Hardly a neutral source.
  - srean 4y ago
    And why would UK govt be the purported neutral source ? They have a political interest in India and consequently interest in not ruffling the political class in power in India. Neutrality, bias etc matter less than truth.
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  So you just accused another person of being a Hindutva Fascist just because I presented facts? Hardly meets the standard of discussion on HN.
  - honkler 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - truthsayer123 4y ago
      [flagged]
- truthsayer123 4y ago
  [flagged]
- programmer_dude 4y ago
  He did no such thing. Where is your evidence?
  - srean 4y ago
    Precisely. Out of no malice at all, the bodies ended up incinerated, the incriminating evidence, files, phone call records some how managed to get lost, police staff working on the case transferred, whistle blower minister pursuing the issue died out of not at all mysterious circumstances [0]. All in all it set a new standard on how pogroms are to be run. But the bottom-line lies in the fact that it had implicit support of the majority, and the party had a keen ear for that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riot...
    - truthsayer123 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - srean 4y ago
        No. All I am saying is that multiple strange coincidences happens all the time, just a collection of many many coincidences, and bodies missing or charred beyond recognition, whistle blower deaths [0]. Move along, nothing to see here. Coincidences like speeches getting cut out at the parliament when a opposition party member was speaking, no malice at all, just a well timed 'technical error'[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riot... [1] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/amid-uproar-in-parliament-congresss-audio-muted-charge-against-bjp-3869020 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/amid-uproar-in-parliament-co... In a land where COVID deaths gets recorded on certificates as anything but COVID, you call for evidence ? That is so ... 90s pre-truth.
- ummonk 4y ago
  This is even more ridiculous than calling Amritpal Singh a terrorist. The pogroms / religious riots in 2002 weren't genocide, and Modi did not perpetrate them, though he should bear responsibility for allowing them to happen on his watch either out of malice or incompetence. This has been well established by court inquiries.
anigbrowl 4y ago
You provided no argument for your claim of terrorism, and a definition is not a factual claim. Perhaps you should start over with this argument.
ekam 4y ago
Based off this definition George Washington would have been a terrorist
- thunkshift1 4y ago
  And judging by the response of the then administration (the brits) that would be correct?
ummonk 4y ago
The FBI uses an expansive definition of "terrorism" for obvious self-serving reasons. In reality, violent criminal acts to further ideological goals aren't terrorism unless done to actually spread terror.
- ratg13 4y ago
  Can you give an example of a violent criminal act done to further ideological goals where the goal is not to spread terror?
  - ummonk 4y ago
    If the violence is directly in service of their goals without relying on the spread of terror, e.g. environmentalists blocking loggers, labor strikers shutting down a factory, or separatists setting up checkpoints and attacking government soldiers to create their own statelet.