Hacker News Reader

Comment by ummonk | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Based off this definition George Washington would have been a terrorist

And judging by the response of the then administration (the brits) that would be correct?

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.

Can you give an example of a violent criminal act done to further ideological goals where the goal is not to 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com