231–240 of 282 posts
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.
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a study, or serious statistics proving your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Russia is paying for it in weapons from UK to Ukraine. Also remember the killing in Turk soil by Saudi Arabia
> And Russia is paying for it in weapons from UK to Ukraine. By all accounts that was caused by the Ukraine invasion rather than the assassination. >Also remember the killing in Turk soil by Saudi Arabia What end up happening to them? Seems like they got off pretty light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi#U.S._response
It's not either/or, it's both.
The counter example is USA (I'm american). USA had such a "good guy" track record post WWII that we invaded numerous countries and fucked around all over the world and we didn't get coalition'ed against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Pompeo wanted to whack snowden. The asymmetry is west shelters much more foreign dissidents/criminals, and has more opportunities to weaponize them for foreign policy. Frequently it's deliberate, sometimes it's just happenstance of high immigration. But ultimately, west won't be able to stay clean of diasphora foreign policy drama, especially ones they actively cultivate or fail to suppress. Old legal excuse of,…
> Pompeo wanted to whack snowden There wouldn’t be an issue if New Delhi had stuck to wanting to whack a Canadian.
India’s government is apparently confidently enough in India’s global influence to be putting pressure on Canada and Facebook. Just thinking out loud, if some parts of India started breaking away from India, that could start a chain reaction. India has incredibly diverse sets of citizens, each with their own set of cultural identities and historical grievances. Maintaining national unity has been a struggle since Ind…
> 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’…
The heyday of the Khalistan movement was decades ago. It has petered out and lingers only at a minor, ineffectual level similar to how left-wing militants or Basque separatist violence still simmered for a while in Europe but achieved nothing. Plus, Western audiences are still poorly informed about ethnic and sectarian differences within India, there’s nothing here easy for them to grab on to. I wouldn’t expect this event to bring any new impetus to the Sikh separatist cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they have options to enforce that other than blocking access to the service in question?
If there is a single Facebook employee on Indian soil, that Facebook cares about, then obviously, yes they can enforce it, simply by being mean to those Facebook employee(s). It seems like India's stance is: If you want to do business in India, you have to have employees you care about on our soil, so we can be mean to them if you do something we don't like. Facebook's stance appears to be: We like your money enough…
Nor a facebook user.
For those wondering this isn't because of their boneheaded law the official justification is > Your page has been unpublished,” reads a notice sent to BC Sikhs that was reviewed by PressProgress. “This is because BC Sikhs goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations. I for one am so glad that we agreed it was a good idea for social media to censor dangerous people and opinions, espe…
> BC Sikhs goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations. This is hilarious to anyone who knows any Sikhs. They’re some of the most peace loving people on planet earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American law absolutely applies globally when it is applied to American citizens. People who don't realize this routinely end up in jail. Stuff like the drinking age (a state law) doesn't apply, but federal laws do apply, which is why American citizens who go abroad to commit gang-related crimes (and more stupidly, break fishing and hunting restrictions) are still arrested when they return despite the fact that no as…
Please don’t misunderstand. Most countries (all that I am aware of) apply their laws to all people within their territory and to their citizens globally. The Indian Law in question applies to non-Indian citizens outside India. That is a big difference.
Which is why I love X - no censorship.
Bad news. There’s more censorship since he took over. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/economy/2023/5/2/twitter-fulfi...
Free speech allows for a diversity of voices, some of which may express views not aligned with the government's perspective, whereas its absence leads to fewer government takedown requests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India (among other countries) have passed so called "hostage-taking laws" that require large social media companies to have in-country employees that can be strong-armed from ways small to large (threats of being convicted of treason and executed). This is a specific policy to allow them to enforce their censorship laws in other countries.
Do they have options to enforce that other than blocking access to the service in question?