161–170 of 282 posts
To those saying "But Bill C-18" - it's not the Canadian government taking things down. It's the Indian government, taking down articles and posts that accuse them of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. C-18 is a problem. We need to deal with it. That's not relevant to the issue at hand. And to those saying "Well he was a terrorist..." we, in Canada, have something called the Rule of Law. You have to pr…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> suppression of separatists If true, this was a stupid move. They’ve martyred a separatist while bringing him and his cause international sympathy and attention. The assassins have carried out an action resembling an attack on a founding member of NATO and close ally of America’s. In North America. This is a line even the Soviets and Chinese respected. Not out of fear, but rational self interest. If true, New Delhi’…
> In North America. This is a line even the Soviets and Chinese respected When it comes to assassination, maybe. But China conducts extra-judicial operations in Canada, and even deport citizens (send back to China), with little respect for Canada's sovereignty. * Search for china+secret+police+canada and make your own mind. Obviously the CCP denies it and the Canadian government is mute. So you only have the mainstre…
So there are 2 differences here: - targeting their own citizens rather than the host nations - not killing them
Those are pretty big differences for international relations purposes.
To those saying "But Bill C-18" - it's not the Canadian government taking things down. It's the Indian government, taking down articles and posts that accuse them of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. C-18 is a problem. We need to deal with it. That's not relevant to the issue at hand. And to those saying "Well he was a terrorist..." we, in Canada, have something called the Rule of Law. You have to pr…
> Murdering someone without trial because you don't like their political speech- why, I think there's a word for that. Oh yeah? What's the word for accusing someone for murdering without an iota of proof?
A murder accusation. What's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bomb in an Air India plane done by Sikh can hardly be called a terrorist attack in Canada.
The bomb was planted on the plane in Canada, the attack was planned in Canada, the terrorists were Sikh Canadians, and the attack killed 268 Canadian citizens...
To those saying "But Bill C-18" - it's not the Canadian government taking things down. It's the Indian government, taking down articles and posts that accuse them of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. C-18 is a problem. We need to deal with it. That's not relevant to the issue at hand. And to those saying "Well he was a terrorist..." we, in Canada, have something called the Rule of Law. You have to pr…
The word for it is "extrajudicial killing."
India has 25x the population of Canada, Facebook has no reason to side with Canada over any political dispute. More so after the stupidity of demanding that Facebook pay Bell for linking to 'Bell's' content.
Play stupid games (Canadian government bill C-18 [1]), win stupid prizes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_News_Act
"Canadian Sikh Facebook users posting about the assassination of a Sikh community leader are seeing posts disappear and accounts suspended in response to legal demands by the Indian government."
What does that have to do with C-18?
Nothing? Less then nothing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Murdering someone without trial because you don't like their political speech- why, I think there's a word for that. Oh yeah? What's the word for accusing someone for murdering without an iota of proof?
The prime minister put his credibility that of the government on the line. They obviously have evidence and are convinced of this being factual as the price to pay for being wrong will be very steep. By the way, the word you are looking for would be the same for someone accusing of lying or deception without an iota of proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem with generalization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sikh_terrorism
There are bad people in every group. I’m going to go with: what’s your point? I stand by my statement until shown statistical evidence to the contrary. This link is insufficient.
What about Tibetan Buddhists? They have been highly persecuted. Yet only thing they set fire to is their own body.