Did Amritsar experience an attack? Check what officials have advised so far
As tensions rise between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor, a wave of panic has spread online with viral posts claiming that Amritsar is under immediate threat. These reports, largely unverified, allege missile sightings and possible air activity in the region. In another latest report, the Amritsar district administration has initiated a citywide blackout as a precautionary measure. What sparked the concern?
On Wednesday night, social media erupted with posts from users claiming to have seen missiles flying over Amritsar, while others reported partial blackouts and unusual air activity. A video showing what appeared to be fast-moving projectiles in the sky was widely circulated, with some users suggesting surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were possibly launched from or near Amritsar Airport.
These fears were compounded by earlier reports of sirens heard in Sialkot, a Pakistani city just across the international border from Jammu, triggering speculation of potential cross-border hostilities. DPRO confirms blackout in Amritsar
In an official statement, the Amritsar District Public Relations Office (DPRO) confirmed that a blackout had been ordered as a precautionary measure:
'Taking utmost caution, Amritsar district administration has again started the blackout process. Please stay at home, do not panic and do not gather outside your houses; keep the outside lights switched off.'
The move follows an earlier mock drill at the Golden Temple (Sri Harmandir Sahib) as part of nationwide civil defence exercises prompted by heightened tensions post-Operation Sindoor. What locals are saying
Local residents posted on social media about the lights going out in parts of the city, describing the atmosphere as tense but calm. While some acknowledged seeing or hearing unusual activity, no consistent or verified footage has emerged to confirm any missile strike or aerial engagement in the region. Fact-check: Is Amritsar really under threat?
Despite the circulating videos and speculative claims, there has been no official confirmation from the Indian Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, or Punjab Police regarding any attack on Amritsar. Fact-checkers and journalists have already debunked some of the viral visuals — including a video claimed to be from Sialkot — as old footage from Gaza, not related to the current situation. What else is happening?
In light of the situation, the government has also enforced airspace restrictions across northern and western India, suspending operations at 13 airports, including Amritsar, Jammu, Srinagar, Leh, and Chandigarh, until 5:29 a.m. on May 10. Major airlines like Air India and IndiGo have cancelled flights to these destinations and issued travel waivers and refund options.
While tensions remain high, there is no verified threat or attack on Amritsar as of now. The blackout is a precautionary step, not confirmation of an active military event. Citizens are advised to remain calm, follow official advisories, and avoid spreading unverified information online.
Note: Stay tuned to government announcements and reliable news sources for accurate updates. Do not panic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
Axios
7 hours ago
- Axios
The dam breaks on Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's age question
D.C.'s "warrior on the Hill," Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, turns 88 on Friday. Her brutal birthday present: Well-wishers prodding her to retire. Why it matters: A dam is breaking on Norton, the second-oldest member in Congress — while Democrats nurse their hangover from the Joe Biden experience. Driving the news: Four D.C. Council members expressed concern about Norton running for re-election, in a recent Washington Post article that describes episodes of her looking feeble in public and diminished in private. Under fire from Republican intervention, "I just feel like the past few months, we've been behind," Council member Christina Henderson told the Post. Norton's response:"I'm gonna run," she told NBC News on Tuesday. "I don't know why anybody would even ask me." Hours later, Norton's office walked that back. "She wants to run again, but she's in conversations with her family, friends and closest advisers to decide what's best," her spokesperson, Sharon Nichols, told Axios. In response to Axios' interview request, Norton's office released a lengthy statement: "I've delivered better results than the vast majority of federal lawmakers — despite not having a vote on the House floor and without partners in the Senate who are accountable to D.C. residents." But the pressure is growing. "It's time for a change," Bill Lightfoot, a former council member and ally of Mayor Muriel Bowser, told Axios. Norton would win on name recognition, he acknowledges, but "not because she would run a good campaign, not because she's good on the issues, not because she can give a good stump speech. She can't do any of those things anymore." Behind the scenes: While always praising Norton's legendary legacy, insiders have wondered for several years about her ability to continue serving. Norton's public appearances have declined, and she often avoids media interviews. Well-timed floor speeches and daily press releases kept scrutiny at bay — until recently. Some blame Norton for not stopping the House from approving a bill that nukes D.C.'s local budget by $1.1 billion. It's a costly " error," still unfixed. The intrigue: What set off a firecracker in city hall was Bowser's senior adviser, Beverly Perry, telling Washingtonian she thinks Norton is "declining in health." "It's hard for her to navigate the political waters as she has in the past," Perry said. In the post-Biden era, Council member Brooke Pinto said she was moved to speak out publicly after reading " Original Sin," by Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson. "We need to speak up," Pinto told the Post. "That never happens," Norton told me on the phone. "People who retire don't go to training someone else."
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks
The National Labor Relations Board is seeking reinstatement and back pay for former Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez, who was fired in 2022 after attacking colleagues and fiercely criticizing the paper on social media. Sonmez was terminated for insubordination after she continued condemning other Post reporters online despite multiple memos issued by then-executive editor Sally Buzbee calling for civility. The Washington-Baltimore News Guild filed an unfair labor practice charge over Sonmez's firing. The NLRB, Guild and Washington Post each filed briefs on Friday. "To put it bluntly, Respondent just got sick of Sonmez's Twitter activity criticizing the Post's and its policies, as well as its implementation—or lack thereof—of those policies. In response, Respondent decided to bypass its progressive discipline system and fire her because of those criticisms," NLRB prosecutors said. Wapo's Felicia Sonmez Torches 'White' Colleagues For 'Downplaying' Workplace Drama With 'Synchronized Tweets' When asking for the complaint to be dismissed, the Post argued that allowing Sonmez to return to the company "would cause unmanageable and unacceptable disruption," and referred to the actions that resulted in her dismissal as a "seven-day tirade." "Because Sonmez lacks the 'journalistic integrity' necessary to work in the Post's newsroom, she should not be reinstated," the Post argued. Read On The Fox News App The Guild believes the Post violated her rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The saga began in June 2022 when Sonmez went after then-colleague Dave Weigel for retweeting a joke: "Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it's polar or sexual." Sonmez was not amused and publicly criticized her colleague, also attacking her workplace by reacting, "Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!" Sonmez then launched a days-long public tirade against the Post and many of her colleagues. Washington Post Torn To Shreds For Suspending Reporter Dave Weigel For A Retweet: 'Completely Insane' Weigel was placed on a one-month unpaid suspension despite having removed the retweet and issuing an apology. He left the Post to join the start-up site Semafor later that year. However, Sonmez's tweetstorms berating co-workers continued, and she began receiving public pushback from Post colleagues, who Sonmez then attacked publicly. She repeatedly ripped the paper's social media policy throughout the ordeal. Sonmez even took aim at "White" reporters who expressed solidarity with the paper amid infighting. "I don't know who the colleagues anonymously disparaging me in media reports are. But I do know that the reporters who issued synchronized tweets this week downplaying the Post's workplace issues have a few things in common with each other," Sonmez wrote during a lengthy Twitter thread, saying they "are all White." Washington Post Reporters Continue Airing Their Grievances With One Another On Twitter Despite Buzbee urging staffers to treat each other respectfully, following a week of constant viral warfare between Post colleagues, Sonmez was terminated. The Washington Post unveiled an updated social media policy after the ordeal. NLRB prosecutors are seeking reinstatement and back pay for Sonmez, who now works for Blue Ridge Public Radio. Sonmez declined comment. "The decision is now up to the judge," Sonmez wrote on X. The Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. Fox News Digital's Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report. Original article source: Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks
