I said I'll refrain from replying in this post anymore (apologies dang) but I'll just close it with this at the risk doxxing myself as I may have mentioned the

I said I'll refrain from replying in this post anymore (apologies dang) but I'll just close it with this at the risk doxxing myself as I may have mentioned the following in another forum. > But India would never recognize any form of separatism (peaceful or violent) from the Kashmir anyways, and will label it as terrorism anyways regardless It was never limited to within kashmir. Other parts of India were also attacked over the years. > But still, I hope you realize that what India sees as terrorism in this case (which means Kashmiri separatism, which again I agree is mostly a Pakistani funded thing) is very tied to Indian nationalism. > since terror is defined as anything that goes against national unity. I don't care or subscribe to how Indian or western media defines terrorism. If you see yourselves as freedom-fighter deal with the supposed occupying military force not its citizens. For me terrorism is just any deliberate attack aimed to harm innocent civilians. I've missed becoming a victim of terror attack that killed atleast 40 people because I was late by mere 15 mins. It took long time to recover from that "What If". No citizen should fear stepping out in their own country. That is what terrorism is for me.