India's airline industry in chaos after 90 hoax bomb threats in a week(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
India's airline industry in chaos after 90 hoax bomb threats in a week
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/21/india-airline-industry-in-chaos-after-90-hoax-bomb-threats-in-a-week
70 comments
Yeah, I've always looked at the extreme reaction authorities have to threats of violence as a pretty significant DOS risk. I'm surprised this isn't more common.
Are the reactions extreme? You're effectively weighing convenience against fatalities. It would seem to me that the reaction is rather reasonable.
Neither judgement changes the fact that the reaction itself definitely makes DOS possible, of course.
I imagine the reason it isn't more common is that the punishment for making terroristic threats tends to be quite high (especially against airports), so you need to be very certain you won't get caught doing it.
Neither judgement changes the fact that the reaction itself definitely makes DOS possible, of course.
I imagine the reason it isn't more common is that the punishment for making terroristic threats tends to be quite high (especially against airports), so you need to be very certain you won't get caught doing it.
Bomb threat reactions are normally justified, but swatting reactions (and police reactions in general) are still too violent and ineffective. Not to mention that technology is making spoofing of threats easier and easier.
Do you have a source for that, or is this opinion?
I’m also not so worried about SWATting being possible - I want a ratio of times where the extreme response was warranted versus unwarranted.
I’m also not so worried about SWATting being possible - I want a ratio of times where the extreme response was warranted versus unwarranted.
I don't have a ratio, but certainly was an increasing problem pre pandemic.
> By 2019, there were an estimated 1,000 swatting incidents domestically each yeay
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-formed-national-dat...
> By 2019, there were an estimated 1,000 swatting incidents domestically each yeay
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-formed-national-dat...
Sources don’t change what is/isn’t opinion, and you can want that ratio but that information isn’t currently available. It is however a fact that it’s on the rise and enough of an issue that the FBI has started a database of fake SWAT calls, as linked by another reply. It is also fact that between text-to-voice MLMs, phone spoofing, and IP-masking services that it’s becoming increasingly harder to ID wrongdoers. One could say my distain of a violent pseudo-militarized force who asymmetrically apply the law depending on who’s a “blueblood” is an opinion, but I feel that is both obvious as an opinion and a well-supported stance given the rise in police-on-innocent violence.
It seems to me that that would be very difficult to determine in retrospect.
In any case, I think we can agree that militarized police breaching through a door and going in with guns drawn like they're going to assassinate Bin Laden all due to a phone call is dumb and shouldn't happen
They should send a drone to look into the window, or turn one of the dozen devices in each room into a microphone, or perform any kind of other investigation first before they do that.
In any case, I think we can agree that militarized police breaching through a door and going in with guns drawn like they're going to assassinate Bin Laden all due to a phone call is dumb and shouldn't happen
They should send a drone to look into the window, or turn one of the dozen devices in each room into a microphone, or perform any kind of other investigation first before they do that.
This is case showing us they are not.
Cool! This is only obvious after the fact, and I would much rather have my flight delayed than explode midair :)
> I'm surprised this isn't more common.
The surveillance in the US is too good and the penalties are too steep. If you try this, you'd be looking at 20 years in federal prison.
This incident also serves as a counter to the "security theater" argument some make against the TSA.
The TSA catches most bomb, knife, and gun threats and makes the risk of getting caught too large to attempt.
Hijackings used to be common in the US. Not anymore.
The surveillance in the US is too good and the penalties are too steep. If you try this, you'd be looking at 20 years in federal prison.
This incident also serves as a counter to the "security theater" argument some make against the TSA.
The TSA catches most bomb, knife, and gun threats and makes the risk of getting caught too large to attempt.
Hijackings used to be common in the US. Not anymore.
Finding vulnerabilities is exactly what red teams should be doing.
The data speaks for itself: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240246/aircraft-hijacki...
For paywall purposes: https://imgur.com/a/4txjjyF
Seems effective to me.
The data speaks for itself: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240246/aircraft-hijacki...
For paywall purposes: https://imgur.com/a/4txjjyF
Seems effective to me.
I mean, if the phone company can figure out who to bill for that bomb threat I'm pretty sure they can hand over whomever made the call.
They might not do that for you and I but I think at the state level they have more tools. Of course the person might be in a foreign country but then it's really don't let far away foreigners call in bomb threats.
They might not do that for you and I but I think at the state level they have more tools. Of course the person might be in a foreign country but then it's really don't let far away foreigners call in bomb threats.
I was at a major airport going home, and it was absolute chaos. Turned out they had received a bomb threat, and so security was super stringent.
Well, I've never been so scared before.
The massive security queue meant the entry hall was packed with people, and anyone could walk into there straight from the parking lot with 5-6 huge, heavy suitcases on a trolley without raising any suspicion.
Well, I've never been so scared before.
The massive security queue meant the entry hall was packed with people, and anyone could walk into there straight from the parking lot with 5-6 huge, heavy suitcases on a trolley without raising any suspicion.
Good example of how security is counterintuitive. Another one from real life is how bank robbers often create misleading or blocking maneuvers such as setting a truck on fire, blocking road access to helicopter pads etc. But the epitome of “security paranoia paradox” must surely be military dictatorships, where powers you create to protect you can eventually overpower you.
As a tangent, it feels like there are close analogies to computer security for these cases.
As a tangent, it feels like there are close analogies to computer security for these cases.
You got any news reports on those bank robberies, they sound pretty wild!
In the most famous robbery[1] here in Norway they did exactly that, had a truck block the ramp of the city's primary police station parking lot, located in the basement of the station, and then set it on fire. They also threw tear gas canisters at the main entrance.
This significantly hampered the police response to the robbery.
They made a film about the robbery[2], which was quite well received.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOKAS_robbery
[2]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337366/
This significantly hampered the police response to the robbery.
They made a film about the robbery[2], which was quite well received.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOKAS_robbery
[2]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337366/
When I was in Bangalore in 2018 they wouldn't even allow anyone into the entry hall without a boarding pass and passport. Security was more tight back then compared to how you describe it now.
Huh, considering the thorough checking that CRPF guy did for my backpack to finally take out a plumber's tape and throwaway. Is government/ airlines security not confident about their security procedures.
edit: CRPF -> CISF
Thanks to @db1234 for pointing it out.
edit: CRPF -> CISF
Thanks to @db1234 for pointing it out.
Hate flying through India. They make TSA look like nice guys. Apparently, you can't carry vapes in carry-on and you can't check them in either due to batteries. So you can't take vapes at all, cigarettes are fine though. I have a two piece vape, so I put the liquid bit in check-in and the bottom battery in carry on. And he still confiscated it. Got into an argument of how it's just a battery and that why stop there; after-all everything can be used to make a bomb. He got mad that I said the b word. I let him have the battery as I didn't want to miss the flight.
Vape batteries tend to be low quality and are notorious for having thermal runaway incidents.
https://tobaccoreporter.com/2024/09/10/vapes-major-culprit-i...
https://tobaccoreporter.com/2024/09/10/vapes-major-culprit-i...
In the USA, the TSA fails to detect threats 95% of the time. "Not confident" is an understatement: we know that these procedures do not work.
Note in terms of sources for this number, lots of articles around 2015 discussing the 95% failure rate. This article is from 2 years later, 2017, and the failure rate was still abysmal: https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...
This is the stupidest thing about the TSA though:
On one hand, it's security theater. A real threat does not find it intimidating.
However, if someone were to abolish the TSA for being security theater, do you have confidence that people wouldn't immediately start bringing knives?
It's security theater that simultaneously fulfills a deterrence purpose; and any politician that dares get rid of it, will be blamed for anything and everything thereafter.
On one hand, it's security theater. A real threat does not find it intimidating.
However, if someone were to abolish the TSA for being security theater, do you have confidence that people wouldn't immediately start bringing knives?
It's security theater that simultaneously fulfills a deterrence purpose; and any politician that dares get rid of it, will be blamed for anything and everything thereafter.
However, if someone were to abolish the TSA for being security theater, do you have confidence that people wouldn't immediately start bringing knives?
Your point is well-taken, but before 9/11 I probably carried a pocket knife on nearly every flight I took. ‘cuz people carry pocket knives, at least in the Midwest. Throw the little 2.5” blade in the bin before going through the metal detector, pick it up on the way out.
Obviously I don’t do that anymore.
Additionally, you used to get a real steak knife in first class, bigger than the knife I carried. George Carlin even did a bit about that decades ago.
Your point is well-taken, but before 9/11 I probably carried a pocket knife on nearly every flight I took. ‘cuz people carry pocket knives, at least in the Midwest. Throw the little 2.5” blade in the bin before going through the metal detector, pick it up on the way out.
Obviously I don’t do that anymore.
Additionally, you used to get a real steak knife in first class, bigger than the knife I carried. George Carlin even did a bit about that decades ago.
And not just flights, all government offices that have any security prohibit any knives. I used to have a swiss knife at most times on me, and I went to the social security office to get a card (one of the first gov. offices I visited in the US). They wouldn't allow it, but also wouldn't hold it for you. I had to go out and hide it in the bushes like an idiot.
(Separate comment, due to being controversial)
I think the moral of the above story, although we are loath to admit it because it's so stupid, is that cheap theatrical security measures actually work surprisingly well. Whether it be $5 Master Locks, the deadbolt on your door, easily guessed passwords, or even DRM. No strength against a determined attacker, but they do mostly "work." Even a stupid password like "p@ssw0rd" prevents 98%+ of attacks compared to just a hypothetical password-free "Log in as Jake" button. If it stops 98% of casual attacks, it can be simultaneously stupid and yet valuable.
I think the moral of the above story, although we are loath to admit it because it's so stupid, is that cheap theatrical security measures actually work surprisingly well. Whether it be $5 Master Locks, the deadbolt on your door, easily guessed passwords, or even DRM. No strength against a determined attacker, but they do mostly "work." Even a stupid password like "p@ssw0rd" prevents 98%+ of attacks compared to just a hypothetical password-free "Log in as Jake" button. If it stops 98% of casual attacks, it can be simultaneously stupid and yet valuable.
This sounds strange to me given the number of guns they confiscate. Go ahead and try to sneak a firearm or an explosive through. Pretty sure they’ll catch you more than 5% of the time. In fact I’m pretty sure they’ll catch a gun every time. And the surface explosive detectors probably are contractually tested and if their failure rates go too high they lose the contract. What acceptable failure rates would you write into that contract? Don’t answer that you’re clearly not a reliable interlocutor. For myself I’d target single digit failure rates. I’d guess the contract says greater than 95% accuracy.
In conclusion: bullshit.
Maybe most of the guns they confiscate were not brought there intentionally.
I’ll leave aside for the moment who accidentally brings a on through an airport security check. Heck I don’t even keep a mini-multitool in any bag I might casually bring on as carry-on, somewhat to my annoyance. But if you do happen to have an oops firearm in your carryon I’m not sure I care if it was a mistake or on purpose.
I'm not saying those guns shouldn't be confiscated. I'm just saying that how much they confiscate says nothing about their capability to confiscate gun brought with malicious intent. There's way more stupid people with guns than malicious ones.
No single entity can know what is compromised. Passengers aren't the only thing getting on a plane.
So security checking is for passengers and their luggage. Others can just walk directly in to the plane?
Passenger aircraft carry cargo.
<https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/air-cargo>
Cargo is being weaponised:
"Russia suspected of planting device on plane that caused UK warehouse fire" (2024-10-16)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/16/russia-suspe...>
(That's a story about a cargo-only transport mode, but weaponised cargo might also be carried aboard a commercial passenger flight.)
<https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/air-cargo>
Cargo is being weaponised:
"Russia suspected of planting device on plane that caused UK warehouse fire" (2024-10-16)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/16/russia-suspe...>
(That's a story about a cargo-only transport mode, but weaponised cargo might also be carried aboard a commercial passenger flight.)
nit; Indian airport security is handled by CISF and not CRPF.
Absolutely right. My mistake. CRPF is riots and all.
Don't say that to a CISF guy. They get really mad. I once interned at a national lab and there was a snafu due to which I couldn't get in. So I had to call my advisor from the main entrance, and I told him that the watchman isn't letting me in. The security guy overheard it and threw a fit about how he isn't a watchman but a central gov. employee.
Absolutely. In Indian hierarchy one can blast watchmen for not doing their work properly and CISF can blast a passenger for not doing their work properly. So they are indeed powerful. One can see that in their swagger. They are there to serve government not the passengers.
Meanwhile, a terrorist on US soil has openly threatened [1] to blow up Air India flights again [1] with specific dates. That doesn't qualify under free speech protections, does it?
He's a US and Canadian dual citizen, the US government has been trying to protect him by giving him intelligence about threats against him, in Canada the CBC has been interviewing him and he said he's in regular touch with Trudeau.
Very strange just like the 1984 bombing of Air India that took off from Canada by the same Khalistan terrorists, killing 350 people of Indian origin including about 80 children. The investigation in Canada was completely botched and let the terrorists go free.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/khalistani-terrorist-gu...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hk_L3rqYCw
He's a US and Canadian dual citizen, the US government has been trying to protect him by giving him intelligence about threats against him, in Canada the CBC has been interviewing him and he said he's in regular touch with Trudeau.
Very strange just like the 1984 bombing of Air India that took off from Canada by the same Khalistan terrorists, killing 350 people of Indian origin including about 80 children. The investigation in Canada was completely botched and let the terrorists go free.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/khalistani-terrorist-gu...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hk_L3rqYCw
The current test for freedom of speech in the U.S. is "Imminent Lawless Action," which is a refinement of the previous "Clear and Present Danger" standard.
The threats do not qualify under the current test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
The threats do not qualify under the current test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
[deleted]
Good that guy is not in India, Otherwise he would be put behind bars for decades or just executed/hanged or encountered without any consequence whatsoever. No burden of proof on government ever.
It seems to me this government is watching too many Akshay Kumar movies and thinking they can get away with eliminating "threats" on foreign soil and be called heroes for doing this.
It seems to me this government is watching too many Akshay Kumar movies and thinking they can get away with eliminating "threats" on foreign soil and be called heroes for doing this.
This is fake news with fake videos in the linked articles. This person has not threatened anyone. Instead he's been a vocal figure about the political crimes committed against a minority by the Indian government. The Indian government tried to assassinate him but got caught red handed. And now their media is trying to convince everyone that this guy is a terrorist.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/22/...
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/22/...
Sikh retribution?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/19/india-sikh-act...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/19/india-sikh-act...
There's some prior history, see India Air Flight 182 (1985 bombing, 329 fatalities, Canada's largest mass terrorism event):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182>
I flew to Delhi on the 17th of October from Paris.
Naturally, the airline forgot my luggage. They said don't worry, we'll send it on the next flight. Still haven't received it(I'm in Bangalore now) due to flight cancellations. At least I'm getting a lot of new clothes at the airlines expense.
Also, if you are planning a trip to India, make sure you have room in your luggage for clothing. You get some good quality stuff here for a quarter(or less) of the price you pay in Europe.
Naturally, the airline forgot my luggage. They said don't worry, we'll send it on the next flight. Still haven't received it(I'm in Bangalore now) due to flight cancellations. At least I'm getting a lot of new clothes at the airlines expense.
Also, if you are planning a trip to India, make sure you have room in your luggage for clothing. You get some good quality stuff here for a quarter(or less) of the price you pay in Europe.
I don't understand why authorities even respond to bomb threats at all. If your security procedures are sufficient to keep people from bombing planes, bomb threats are irrelevant. If someone intends to bomb a plane, they don't announce it, making bomb threats doubly irrelevant. An institution getting a bomb threat is about as consequential as someone threatening to kill you in a Youtube comment.
> If someone intends to bomb a plane, they don't announce it
In the heyday of IRA terrorism, they would regularly phone in threats shortly before a bomb went off.
It's much easier to claim responsibility for a bombing if one does so before the bomb goes off. And when one's aim is political pressure, one might prefer to target military/ police/ infrastructure/ politicians/ whatever with fewer civilian casualties.
Of course there were also plenty of bombings without phone threats, so make of that what you will. And in one of the most deadly bombings - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing - the warning didn't specify the location of the bomb, and people 'evacuated' towards the bomb.
In the heyday of IRA terrorism, they would regularly phone in threats shortly before a bomb went off.
It's much easier to claim responsibility for a bombing if one does so before the bomb goes off. And when one's aim is political pressure, one might prefer to target military/ police/ infrastructure/ politicians/ whatever with fewer civilian casualties.
Of course there were also plenty of bombings without phone threats, so make of that what you will. And in one of the most deadly bombings - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing - the warning didn't specify the location of the bomb, and people 'evacuated' towards the bomb.
It's an opportunity to flex. Public wants it, public loves it.
Citations needed, specifically the claim that bombers act exclusively or primarily in silence.
I couldn't find any examples of airline bombings that were preceded by threats.
Famously:
D. B. Cooper, also known as Dan Cooper, was an unidentified man who hijacked Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305, a Boeing 727 aircraft, in United States airspace on November 24, 1971. During the flight from Portland, Oregon, to Seattle, Washington, Cooper told a flight attendant he had a bomb, demanded $200,000 in ransom (equivalent to approximately $1,500,000 in 2024) and four parachutes upon landing in Seattle.
Cooper showed a device which by all appearances may have been a bomb, though its ultimate capabilities were never conclusively determined:
[Cooper] opened his briefcase, and she saw two rows of four red cylinders, which she assumed were dynamite. Attached to the cylinders were a wire and a large, cylindrical battery, which resembled a bomb.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper>
Regardless, there was an actual terrorist threat and hijacking, so the threat itself wasn't merely "phoned in".
The incident inspired numerous copycats:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper_copycat_hijacking...>
There's a longer list of aircraft-involved terrorism incidents which might yield other forewarning instances:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_incidents_inv...>
D. B. Cooper, also known as Dan Cooper, was an unidentified man who hijacked Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305, a Boeing 727 aircraft, in United States airspace on November 24, 1971. During the flight from Portland, Oregon, to Seattle, Washington, Cooper told a flight attendant he had a bomb, demanded $200,000 in ransom (equivalent to approximately $1,500,000 in 2024) and four parachutes upon landing in Seattle.
Cooper showed a device which by all appearances may have been a bomb, though its ultimate capabilities were never conclusively determined:
[Cooper] opened his briefcase, and she saw two rows of four red cylinders, which she assumed were dynamite. Attached to the cylinders were a wire and a large, cylindrical battery, which resembled a bomb.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper>
Regardless, there was an actual terrorist threat and hijacking, so the threat itself wasn't merely "phoned in".
The incident inspired numerous copycats:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper_copycat_hijacking...>
There's a longer list of aircraft-involved terrorism incidents which might yield other forewarning instances:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_incidents_inv...>
Those are not airline bombings so I don't know why you think they're relevant. People do not call airlines, say they're going to blow up a plane, and then blow up a plane. Ever.
The Cooper and copycat actions involved in some cases actual or plausible explosives, and at least the threat to blow up a plane.
The longer list of airline-terrorism incidents may (I haven't combed through it thoroughly), and I'd posted that for you or another reader to dig through should there be an interest.
I do acknowledge your general observation that most cases of phoned-in airline bomb threats don't appear to involve actual (or even dummy) explosives, the threat itself is sufficiently disruptive. And that for those intent on actually blowing up an aircraft, it's the act and not the mere threat which is sufficient. That said, I'm not convinced that that's always the case, and at the very least the Cooper and related instances seem to offer reasonably near-instance exceptions.
My aim really isn't nit-picking, pedantry, or belligerence, but an aim for accuracy. And again, your larger point certainly seems to cover most instances. If we can shake out some exceptions that would be interesting.
Thanks for your information and observations, BTW.
The longer list of airline-terrorism incidents may (I haven't combed through it thoroughly), and I'd posted that for you or another reader to dig through should there be an interest.
I do acknowledge your general observation that most cases of phoned-in airline bomb threats don't appear to involve actual (or even dummy) explosives, the threat itself is sufficiently disruptive. And that for those intent on actually blowing up an aircraft, it's the act and not the mere threat which is sufficient. That said, I'm not convinced that that's always the case, and at the very least the Cooper and related instances seem to offer reasonably near-instance exceptions.
My aim really isn't nit-picking, pedantry, or belligerence, but an aim for accuracy. And again, your larger point certainly seems to cover most instances. If we can shake out some exceptions that would be interesting.
Thanks for your information and observations, BTW.
the threat itself is sufficiently disruptive
Exactly. My point is that it shouldn't be, because there's about as much actual danger as a twelve year old cursing at you on Xbox Live.
Exactly. My point is that it shouldn't be, because there's about as much actual danger as a twelve year old cursing at you on Xbox Live.
> If your security procedures are sufficient
that's the problem isn't it?
airport security is pretty much the definition of "security theater"
and deep down the authorities (hopefully) realise this
that's the problem isn't it?
airport security is pretty much the definition of "security theater"
and deep down the authorities (hopefully) realise this
TFA says that the motive is unclear, but that's not particularly true, is it? I mean, there are several, very predictable results from this, among which surely must be the objective(s). This leaves a pretty narrow trail to follow for whatever intelligence services must be looking at it now. Not knowing the lay of the land over there, I can't even guess, but someone here must be able to intuit what's going on.
They need way harsher penalties than simply putting people on a no-fly list. Also how do you not catch 90 people using social media to make threats?
Isn't that already a go-to-jail offence?
I assume US social networks not co-operating much?
My guess is our government isn’t cooperating. I’m sure they can figure out who’s doing this but have been dragging their feet and antagonizing India instead. Not the smartest way to build a partnership to contain China geopolitically or economically.
Makes sense. A three letter US agency can very well identify the people making these calls when they can spy on Indian diplomats. I hope a request through Interpol is made.
Yes, this.
Are the airline stocks losing value? Could be a scheme to profit with pur options
Funny - I always wanted to visit Iqualit.
Although probably not in cold weather...
Although probably not in cold weather...
The airlines have to follow a protocol to report threats to the ground, even if they’re likely fake. That’s why there are repeated incidents of fighter jets being scrambled to accompany the affected plane until they’re given clearance to land. It is disruptive, expensive, and clearly terroristic. The governments involved (primarily Canada, but also the US and India) need to restore rule of law and crack down on this.
I think I recall reading that these hoax threats are being done by supporters of a fringe Sikh separatist movement that aims to break up India, so they can form a Sikh religious ethnostate they call Khalistan. As I recall this group assassinated the prime minister of India at one point. But after that they also blew up an Air India flight with hundreds of Canadians and others on board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182). When India cracked down on the terrorists, many fled to Canada, and so there are many supporters of that movement there (if you’re in BC you know).
Unfortunately Canada has done little to crack down on this movement even though they have a record of terrorism and pose a threat to a key trade partner and important ally in the Asian Pacific region. I’m also not sure governments can fully stop anonymous online threats or coordination. Look at other disruptions like BLM groups blocking highways, or Palestine groups blocking airports, or whatever. These types of events are difficult to stop ahead of time.
I think I recall reading that these hoax threats are being done by supporters of a fringe Sikh separatist movement that aims to break up India, so they can form a Sikh religious ethnostate they call Khalistan. As I recall this group assassinated the prime minister of India at one point. But after that they also blew up an Air India flight with hundreds of Canadians and others on board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182). When India cracked down on the terrorists, many fled to Canada, and so there are many supporters of that movement there (if you’re in BC you know).
Unfortunately Canada has done little to crack down on this movement even though they have a record of terrorism and pose a threat to a key trade partner and important ally in the Asian Pacific region. I’m also not sure governments can fully stop anonymous online threats or coordination. Look at other disruptions like BLM groups blocking highways, or Palestine groups blocking airports, or whatever. These types of events are difficult to stop ahead of time.
Both Canada and the US have freedom of expression and freedom of association -- it would be both illegal and immoral for them to support India's extrajudicial, extraterratorial executions of people of Sikh faith who seek a homeland free of India's Hindu religious ethnostate.
At the moment, it seems India is refusing to cooperate with Canada's probe of terroristic assassination plots apparently orchestrated by the Indian government, instead sequestering the suspects back in India and attacking Canada with righteous indignation for bringing it up. Respect for the rule of law, IMO, would mean giving information to the Canadian government as requested, and making the assassination plot suspects available for interview and possible prosecution.
At the moment, it seems India is refusing to cooperate with Canada's probe of terroristic assassination plots apparently orchestrated by the Indian government, instead sequestering the suspects back in India and attacking Canada with righteous indignation for bringing it up. Respect for the rule of law, IMO, would mean giving information to the Canadian government as requested, and making the assassination plot suspects available for interview and possible prosecution.
Ground flights, people hate you. Let the planes fly and a real explosive materializes, lose your job/jailed for negligence.