When a politician chooses to make incendiary comments that are then met with anger from the public, that politician has nobody to blame but herself for the negative response.
This is mentally sick.
High-profile figures are more vulnerable than average individuals and it is not in anyone's interest to make incendiary statements that expose themselves to higher security risks. Sharma should have taken this into consideration before saying what she did on national television, even though any violence against her would be unjustified.
This is your assumption. They are baying for her blood. These Islamic fanatics have already tried several attempts on her. In one case even two Pakistan trained terrorists were employed for the job. Intelligence bureau caught hold of them in time.
The speech happened in the national media by the way so there was nothing to expose, but the intention was to turn the attention of muslim lynch mobs on her.
This is literally gaslighting. They are trying to say whatever happened is her fault and not the consequence of a social media influencer framing her utterance (which is a hadith quotation btw) as blasphemy.
GP is literally scum.
That’s their tried and tested modus-operandi. You check any major terror incidents in India or abroad, Islamists use the same playbook.
If they are mocking someone’s religion it is their “freedom of speech” , if it is the opposite, Charlie Hebdo or Nupur Sharma will be done to you.
What Nupur Sharma did is like what Todd Davis, the CEO of LifeLock, did in 2010. Davis published his social security number on LifeLock's website and on billboards to promote his business, only to end up having his identity stolen 13 times. Was the identity theft justified? No. But, should Davis have known better than to do that? Yes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1358932
As a seasoned politician, Nupur Sharma chose to make incendiary comments that she knew would offend followers of another religion in a country with a volatile religious environment, and the people she targeted responded with anger. Her comments had a negative connotation that in no way resembles a "hadith quotation". Were the resulting threats of violence justified? No. But, should Sharma have known better than to do that? Yes.
In this thread, you have posted multiple comments violating the HN guidelines, including:
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The HN guidelines are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Alright.
As far as violation of guidelines goes, I disagree. I was just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. Which are nothing short of justifying killing a person because they are perceived to have said something against Islam.
You are defending yourself by saying "Uh uh I didn't say that". But when you ignore the death threats, and don't even bother to elaborate why her statements justify the threats against her, you are actually justifying the mob. You are saying "she brought it on herself". You just can't have it both ways.
That is gaslighting.
"Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse."
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
The amazing thing is that even after killings, these fanatics cry victim hood.
People like you who justify mob lynching don't belong in civilised society.