Source?
The article says “Pannun angered Indian officials this month by issuing a video in which he warned Sikhs not to fly on Air India because it would be ‘life threatening’ and that “he told the FT he was not making a violent threat against the airline.
Given the context of Sikhs being murdered overseas by New Delhi, that statement seems to have multiple reasonable interpretations.
Not really? Threats require specificity and credibility. Using simply ethnicity or even cause as the sole qualifier for credibility isn’t something most people do.
This is a person with a history of provocations making an indirect threat. I’m not saying he deserves punishment, but I can see why the Indian government would take his threat very seriously.
It’s sort of like an Iranian student group saying American Airlines isn’t safe to fly anymore. Like, okay? Not nice. But not quite a threat. (Certainly not a credible one.)
If this is the best source available, we’re probably best without it.