plamba said:
Please elaborate. In my view, a credible eye-witness is the most valuable asset for either the prosecution or the defense.
Like I've stated...there are also "witnesses" that claim Bhindranwale is stil alive as they saw him leave the Golden Temple Complex unharmed.
In my mind, the difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that although both commit criminal (illegal) acts, a criminal has only a *personal* agenda whereas a terrorist subscribes to a publicly declared *political* agenda.
I would reckon that Nihangs who carry unlicensed guns and/or use guns for purposes other than legitimate self-defense are criminals since they don't have a publicly declared political agenda other than a lifelong commitment to lawlessness and anarchy. In all likelihood, even if there were to be an independent Sikh state (Khalistan), Nihangs would choose to remain outside the confines of the law of the land.
What does that make the Indian Government? Who had a political agenda during 1984, and committed brutal *criminal* acts? Innocents were killed, if you believe otherwise, than thats just ridiculous. Every government can be considered terroristic under your broad definition.
There is a clear difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A Terrorist targets innocents and does not target his actual enemy. A Freedom fighter targets only his actual enemy and goes for them.
As you have acknowledged, Bhindranwale committed criminal acts. So, he was at least a criminal. However, since he was committing criminal acts in support of a publicly declared political agenda (namely the full implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution), he was also a terrorist.
The Indian Government committed no *criminal* while they supported a political cause? Their political cause was to end the Khalistan uprising...many innocents were taken away and killed during that time. So, under your definition the Indian Gov't should also be labelled terrorists.
I am just stating this to make the claim that BOTH sides of the battle were flawed. Bhindranwale was NOT the smartest man, and the Indian Government DID NOT AT ALL do things the right way. To consider either side a blatant terrorist is foolish, and in this case, specifically Bhindranwale.
As I noted above, you seem to be conceding that Bhindranwale was a criminal. I'm suggesting that criminal acts performed in support of a publicly declared political agenda (as was the case with Bhindranwale) qualifies as terrorism.
Incorrect, like I've stated above, Bhindranwale was not the smartest man, and there was plenty of other methods to handle the same situation, BUT he was NOT a terrorist.
Correct. Bhindranwale's declared enemy wasn't all Hindus but the Hindu-dominated government in New Delhi. However, he apparently considered innocent Hindu lives expendable in the greater interest of his cause.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
Please show me evidence of him considering killing innocent Hindu lives as an interest of his cause.
Please also take into consideration that India is a 3rd world country run by corruption...there were many sikhs, some of bhindranwales men, who did go about and kill innocents, but Bhindranwale never stated this act was good, nor did he claim it was in the greater interest of his cause.
Bin Laden...took pride in the killings of innocent americans, and publicily showed it, and claimed they helped his cause.
There is a difference. Bhindranwale was not the smartest person, and had relatively stupid sikhs with him who committed such horrendous acts.
This thread is pretty much done with.
No need for anyone to post their opinion anymore, just read through the topic and gain your knowledge and please form your own opinion.
Doubt both sides and find which one you think is more accurate and relative.
Nice discussion everyone.
-S|kH
