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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.