Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/20/2018 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Imo and iv said it before sikhi can spread in India but by creating a sikh country it will limit sikhi. Sort the messed up police in punjab first most of them are from sikh families and look at how they treat other sikhs. Look at our leaders what have they done for sikhs? The alcohol obsession hiring slutty stage dancers at wedding receptions change that mentality first. Why limit sikhi to one region of South Asia when you can invite so many more people to it. There is so much hera pheri in the minds of Punjabi people everything they do is with hera pheri. Everything they gain is through tricks and plotting. you have brothers killing each other over land. You have sons who get their illiterate parents to stamp property/land papers with their thumbs and then throw them out. If your sons raped someone just pay the police and he will be out! To run a sikh country you need to people to behave and think like sikhs first.
  2. 5 points
    Thank you. A separate Sikh country is a terrible idea and limits the scope of the religion.
  3. 5 points
    So maybe Punjabi Muslims shouldn't have claimed land which was as equal to Sikhs/Hindus as "Muslim land" in the first place. Do you people know how logic works?
  4. 5 points
    That it was precisely what the Muslims did. Imagine if 42 million Pakistani's were killed tomorrow (=20% of the population massacred). Yes it's a terrifying thought. But that's the scale of the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs in 1947. By all means you can point out deficiencies in individual who might claim to be Sikh but fail to follow the injunctions in their scripture that discrimination is anti-human. On the other hand Islam and the Quran actively promote anti-humane concepts such as slavery and the rape of female sex slaves. So the objection to your points is on the basis of your trying to claim that Sikhi (as a faith) is "just as bad" as Islam which openly promotes rape, genocide, slavery, terrorism all is practised by the Prophet Muhammad himself and detailed in the Quran and Hadith. Nobody dispute that are certain pseudo Sikhs who have been infected by the Hindu and Muslim concepts of class discrimination. The difference is that Sikhi wholeheartedly opposes discrimination of all forms whereas Hinduism promotes the caste system and Islam goes a step further with the Quran making excuses for Prophet Muhammad's immoral and inhumane capture, sale and profiteering off the misery of innocent black African slaves. Even the example you cite of discrimination is over 100 years old when the British Empire controlled Gurdwara's via their Mahants who were NOT Sikh. Again, nobody will deny that there are false Sikhs who are simply nominal Sikhs that discriminate. There are 15,000 Gurdwara's in east Punjab so it is inevitable that one may be used by Hindutva allies (fake Sikhs) in order to besmirch the equality that Sikhi unequivocally stands for forever. The difference is your deliberate moral equivocation of Sikhi and Islam as two religions which are "equally bad". Islam openly supports genocide, terrorism, rape, slavery, sexual slavery. Sikhi condemns all of those practises and condemns caste discrimination in the harshest terms. Furthermore, whilst a Pakistani will never control Islam from Mecca, Mazhabi Sikhs have led the Sikh Fauj, Mazhabi Sikhs have been Chief Minister of Punjab (in contrast to your Brahmin Muslim leader Shahbaz Sharif), most Granthi's (mullahs) in Punjab are of Mazhabi background and Guru Sahib themselves said that those that the Hindu's amd Muslims despised as low were Guru Sahib's own sons. Yes 13 innocent Sikhs were killed by the Nirankari's on Indira Gandhi's orders Yes that Pakistan initiated the Genocide is unquestioned. However, the reality that you are not aware of is that Sikhs were a minority in east Punjab districts of Majha, Doaba and Malwa (present day east Punjab) and it was the Muslim aim of annexation of these districts into Pakistan by starting attacks on Sikhs which in turn caused a belated Sikh fightback to save the Sikh community from total extermination at the hands of Muslims
  5. 5 points
    Oh yes, now you'll play the Pakistan card. Aren't Indian Muslims still Muslims? Where is the unity at now? What about the Ummah yo? Lmao Pakistanis are hypocrites. Why are you guys cashing off of China, who treat Uyghur Muslims like <banned word filter activated>, protect the Ummah yo.
  6. 5 points
    Quote them here and then you can actually claim something. Until then, what you say is false. Okay good. If you don't like what you hear here, you are free to leave. And what the Hindus say is true. Arabs treat Pakistanis as inferior. It would be pretty heartbreaking if when all is over, and you realize that Islam was just a tool meant to propagate Arabic culture, that you had to put up with such treatment from them. Other South Asians aren't treated any better, but atleast they don't worship Arab gods, in Arabic towards Arab landmarks. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/03/07/caught-web/treatment-pakistanis-saudi-criminal-justice-system
  7. 5 points
    Go ahead man. I'd actually be thankful for highlighting discrimination in my community so I can better those around me to stop it, unlike you people who love to shove their issues under the carpet. On a Muslim religious forum? I doubt that. Please link the forum where Sikhs are actively taking part in Muslims discussions and pushing their false narratives and agendas on the forum. Another user brought that in. Not me. And what's wrong with it anyway? Does the forum rules on here prohibit the discussion of other religions, absolutely not. So I don't need a Muslim on a Sikh forum to explain to me what I can and can't do. Thank you but no thank you, we don't need Islamic policing on this forum. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think Sikhs have gone on to convert Africans en masse through conquest. Whoever has converted to Sikhi, has done so out of their own choice and not in any kind of compulsion.
  8. 5 points
    Islam is Arabic culture. I still stand on that. You guys also propagate Persian culture. Heck, from the names of your children/villages to the Pakistani national anthem, there are so many Farsi loanwords that its almost hilarious. The script you write in is based off of the Perso-Arabic script as well.
  9. 5 points
    What lol? If anything, those events show that Muslims have always been the aggressors. If Sikhs wanted to take revenge, they would have individually dealt with the Mughal and Afghans - and they already did to some extent. Your confounded reasoning makes no sense. All you are attempting to do is push your narrative of Muslims being the victims in the partition. That isn't the case. Your people wanted a seperate Muslim land, your people started killings in Rawalpindi, your people started large-scale killings in West Punjab. Your people started it and your people were the aggressors. I didn't make it sound like that, you wrongly interpreted it as such because it seems to me that you fail to understand the difference between the Rawalpindi killings and large-scale killings in West Punjab. And I'm not saying anything, this is all Ishtiaq Ahmed's research based on primary sources of that time. They are just regular people. Not scholars.
  10. 5 points
    I usee to be one of those teenagers who had no clue about sikhi but would go around bashing Hindus and saying we need khalistan, but when i got a little older and understood sikhi more and started going punjab I just looked at the state of punjab and thought to myself that no way does this look like a sikh homeland there is very little sikhi there. They were all killed off back in the 70s 80s and 90s a whole generation was systematically murdered what was left behind is the current mess
  11. 4 points
    LoL nice try YoYo but what you are let down by is a lack of truth. There were hardly any Hindu land lords in Punjab as the majority 72% of the farmlands in present day West Punjab and present day east Punjab were held by Muslim Punjabi's. Muslim Jats, Muslim Rajputs, Muslim Saini's (Arains in Pakistan), Muslim Kamboh's (Arains or Kamboh's in Pakistan), Muslim Gujjars as well as Pathans, Awans (Kiyani Rajputs), Syeds (Qureshi's), Mughals, Baloch's along with Muslim Brahmins (Butts and Hussaini's), Sheikhs (Muslim Khatri's) etc, etc have always held their own land as opposed to being tenants. This is why so-called higher caste Muslims always referred to Sikhs as a "chooreh-chamaarah di Qaum" when Giani Ditt Singh Ji would expose the discrimination within the Quran and defeat the Muslims in debates - as Sikhi is THE religion for the oppressed to shelter within. Furthermore, most Jats happen to be Muslims and every one is aware of famous Pakistani Jats like Prime Ministers and leaders of the Muslim League like Liaquat Ali Khan and Chaudhury Muhammad Zafarullah Khan and Chaudhury Naseer Ahmed Malhi. And in the case of Saini's and Kamboh's (who are known as Arains in Pakistan) again it is only a small minority of them who are even Sikh with the Muslim ones far more powerful politically as we see in the case of General Zia (Arain caste). Brahmin Muslims have only come to political prominence recently with the Sharif family. No wonder most lower caste Muslims turned to Christianity with the so-called higher caste Muslims often preventing their entry into Mosques.
  12. 4 points
    And did that hurt your feelings lol? Our discussion was relevant to what we were discussing, your post just sounds like you're butthurt. We don't need you to come on here and state the obvious for us every time we talk about Muslims.
  13. 4 points
    @YOYO29 I've accepted my own community's failings long back. But that doesn't mean I should stop criticizing the holier-than-thou Muslims? I don't get your purpose here. Every time the forums is having a discussion on here that criticizes or even mentions Muslims, you seem to pop up defending your people. You're not here to learn about Sikhism, you're just here to block any just criticism of Islam.
  14. 4 points
    Why do they fight ISIS? Is it because ISIS is bringing dishonor to their religion by attacking non-Muslims and keeping their women as sex slaves? Where is the moral outrage against ISIS among Muslims? The fight against Islamic State comes from a number of disparate groups. One are the Shias who have religious differences with ISIS. The other are the Kurds who have political and social differences with ISIS. The Sunni that fight ISIS do so for political reasons. None is fighting ISIS because ISIS is attacking non-Muslims and keeping their women as sex slaves. What greater power could there be to galvanize the Muslim world and unite it to fight ISIS than to point out that their attacks on non-Muslims and keeping sex slaves is totally contrary to the teachings of Mohammed. BUT the problem is that ISIS are doing exactly what Mohammed did.
  15. 3 points
    and they can back off about sikhs not supporting dalit sikhs when we are fighting for the rights of the sikhs in Shillong; building homes, gurdwara sanitation and water source for sikhligar sikhs who have nothing getting education and training for their children and people . Fact Sarbat Khalsa of 2016 denounced caste violence and caste segrated/named gurdwaras and passed a mandate for the panth to move to a single universal gurdwara model which is all-inclusive as Guru Sahiban had intended . It is the bad influence of hindu caste system that drags humanity backwards into darkness and despair , Sikhs are distancing themselves for these blind discriminations a second time . Guru Gobind Singh ji embraced a rangreta (social outcast ) as his beloved SON because he brought his father's head for cremation with honour , another Lakhi shah Vanjara cremated Guru Teg Bahadur ji's body by setting his home on fire ...we love all if we are true sikhs
  16. 2 points
    What actions of ISIS are anti-Islamic? So your Muslims friends are liberals like you, I doubt they even know that ISIS emulate Mohammed to the core.
  17. 2 points
    IT's not 'sikh punjabi' it is just sikh culture to have a name selected in the sikh manner , to do prayers in the sikh way and to live in the sikh manner.Fact is, you have been generalising majorly about a situation you were not alive for . Pakistani bias will come into your world view and you will try to accuse others without admitting the fault of the violence on muslim part that is hardly open and honest dialogue . Anyway , people who are known to be lionising Aurangzeb don't need to teach me history of my ancestors , ta.
  18. 2 points
    Nice. Have fun propagating Arab culture for Arabs while being ridiculed by them. South Asian Islam is basically Persian Islam. From the Sufi shrines to the prayer practices, it's all been taken from Persia.
  19. 2 points
    Not really. We criticize Hindus and Muslims for their rituals. Yes, we are casteless by scripture, but of course there are issues in practice. With more education that will improve. Rituals ordained in scripture cannot though. Oh, marriages like those have happened. Multiple times. The same can't be said for Muslims. Dude, you're the one initiating this conversation, you are the one that started throwing stones, but I'm not surprised. Well, you learn something new everyday.
  20. 2 points
    Yes, here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=Q-F07ALiguEC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=separate+mosque+for+dalits&source=bl&ots=V0F1aQZXaA&sig=FIYfVj0W3BAlgoLEO8IixLo0lTo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYn5jd7qvcAhVY1IMKHfaqCJcQ6AEIiwEwDg#v=onepage&q=separate mosque for dalits&f=false You guys are even worse that you discriminate amongst the dead: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/06bihar.htm
  21. 2 points
    South Asian Islam is just Persian Islam haha. It's still not your own culture. I don't need to do a survey of all Arabs, when I can just look at their current traditions. Arabs are a very proud people unlike South Asian Muslims, they hate appropriating other people's cultures to the extent that they refuse to wear things such as jeans and collared shirts in their lands. They believe in blood purity and view themselves as the progenitors of Islam. If you go through my post history, you'll realize I don't talk much about Muslims, and the only reason I'm even having this discussion is because you, a Muslim, is arguing away with misinformation on a Sikh forum. I don't even understand what a Muslim is doing on a Sikh forum in the first place lol! You should be worried about Islamic extremism, killing of non-Muslims in Pakistan, discrimination of low caste Muslims in South Asia than be worried about Sikhs. Sikhs and Sikh issues should be the least of your worries as well, so adiós .
  22. 2 points
    Remember the Chota Ghallughara? Remember the Vadda Ghallughara? Remember the desecration of the Golden Temple by Massa Ranghar? Remember the demolition of the Golden Temple by the Muslim Durranis? Remember the Nankana massacre? The above is a history of Muslims persecuting Sikhs for centuries. I'm not talking about a single year like 1947, but literally hundreds of years of constant persecution of Sikhs by Muslims. But you people love playing victim. Muslims have always been the aggressors. Whether you want to accept that or not is up to you, but that is the truth. Muslim Punjabi vastly outnumbered Sikh and Hindu Punjabi put together, what makes you think the Sikhs, who historically have never been the aggressors, all of sudden would have unnecessarily wanted to instigate such a large community in the first place? They didn't. And the Sikh retaliation was not due to the Rawalpindi massacre. It was the large scale killings that Muslims started in West Punjab during August 1947, something Ishtiaq Ahmed also states. It was then that Sikh/Hindus started large scale killings in return. The history is clear, Muslims started the killing, they started religious cleansing for a "Muslim homeland". It wasn't the other way around. The Muslim League proposed a country on the basis of religion first, not the Sikhs or Hindus. These are all your own assumptions based on your own prejudices. Sikhs do not think like Muslims. We do not go on cleansing regions in the name of religion. Sikhs are able to co-exist without labeling people as momins and kaffirs. No the more that is said, the more light is shed on the true nature of Pakistanis. You are an inhumane people to anyone that is non-Muslim.
  23. 1 point
    As said in the title, Hazur Sahib Senchi is missing the first Savaiya from 33 Savaiye? Why? This is big beadbi.
  24. 1 point
    Another What If's scenario here that takes place in a parallel universe. This is all dependent on a new Sikh leader ship not mental midgets like Tara Singh , the stooge of Congress. Here we have Nihang leaders who agreed with Dr.Ambelkeder plan to convert 30 million Dalits to Khalsa, so this atleast gives Sikhs some good numbers. Sikhs get - United Panjab - Uttarkhand - North Rajistan - Kashmir - Sindh [ for ocean ports ] - KPK - Peshwar - Chunks of West Tibet [ during the Communist / Nationalist Civil war in China , Sikhs take advantage and with Superior size and genetics take west tibet easily, so this is later down the line , not during 1947]. Sikhs also had the best military jathas during these times vs the muslims . So if the muslims refused to leave , these specialized jathas with WW2 weapons and experience in WW2 would have an edge on the Muslim league goons. Like they removed the muslim majorities in East Punjab, they could've done the same in West Punjab and Kashmir against the tribal Afgans]. Muslims get - United Bengal - Balochistan I think for the most part they've would've been satisfied, Balochistan and united Bengal are decent chunks of land. Hindus get - Rest of India - Burma [ Yes Burma got independence but I think in this time line , they would've been a part of India. - Nepal - It was not under the british but India could annex it if they wanted Few Decades down the line ........ 1970s , Soviets invade Afganistan, this time they succeed as the Sikhs help them and in turn Sikhs get East Afganistan and Soviets get West Afgan. Now If we had technology to go to parallel universes, who wouldn't here leave this timeline for the one with Sikh Rule.
  25. 1 point
    I will next time I see HER. But whether she can tell me or not does it really matter? The fact is that Pakistan politically is in the hands of the feudals, whether it would be 6 families in Gujrat or 60 in Sindh. It has been since 1947. Read from pg 8 onwards: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9581/2e330ca2b8862e9834316c325fe52f1f788d.pdf "The motivation on the part of the planners of partition riots on our side of Punjab may very well have included the landed and other properties. This point may go some distance to explain why the scale of Partition massacres in other areas of the present Pakistan, for instance Sindh, did not match what happened in Punjab. " from https://tribune.com.pk/story/413855/victims-and-beneficiaries-of-partition/ " Landowners have run the country since it was born. They monopolise its agriculture, sit in its parliament and feed on its resources. They are hereditary princes without pedigree, barons without class, capitalists without enterprise..." from https://tribune.com.pk/story/376904/breaking-the-feudal-lords/ Its very simple. ML used these same feudals to create Pakistan. Now they cannot discard them. Ask yourself how could the ML allow Sikh feudals to be part of this system to shape the future of a Muslim country. The answer simple is that it couldn't. Even that francis mudie said as much in his letter to jinnah. The Zamindar openly called for Sikhs to be driven out of Pakistan. No it is not the same. The nirankaris like others have living gurus, but has the Ahmadi founder ever put his feet on the Quran, called it lies, and said that the prophets of islams were false and liars? If he did, then you have a point.
  26. 1 point
    The Dhirmalias had their own Gurus so they were like the Sant Nirankaris of modern times. So this demolishes your argument.
  27. 1 point
    No but there were other hetrodox as well as anti-Sikh groups such as Dhirmalias etc. The Sikhs can socially boycott them but there has never been a call to kill them for being who they are and what they believe in. Rather than try and project the murderous tendency of your religion onto Sikhism why don't you be honest and accept that Islam kills and Muslims are the worst victims of Islam.
  28. 1 point
    So it is a strong secular government stopping Sikhs killing other Sikhs. That has to one of the dumbest responses ever. Sikhs held power between the 1770s to 1849. Was there any case of intra-Sikh violence based on religious differences? Between 1986 - 1992 the govt was very weak in Punjab and Kharkoos has a free run in many areas of Punjab. So how Kukas were killed? I am referencing the Kukas because they a akin to a Sikh sect in the sense that unlike the Sant Nirankaris they follow many of the beliefs of Sikhism and do not disrespect the Guru Granth Sahib. The Sant Nirankaris cannot be classed as a Sikh sect because they have no respect for the Guru Granth Sahib. So being a book of Allah it's destruction by a Muslim is not a big deal and your response almost looks like that you think it is acceptable that Muslims from one sect will bomb another sect and destroy the Quran in the process. It's almost a norm. You can try and rationalize that is the difference between the status of these two religious scriptures but it is actually the differing levels of spirituality that each religious scripture creates in its believers that lead one believer to actually commit suicide and in the process destroy the very religious scripture that he claims to adhere to and another believer who would RATHER commit suicide than bring any harm to his religious scripture. There you have the difference between Sikhi and Islam. The one which creates a better human being who does not discriminate against those who do not believe as he does and the other who is allowed free rein to kill even those who believe as he does. Your clutching at straws to bring Sikhi down to the level of your religion is quite sad because you come across as an intelligent human being albeit encumbered by the noose of the religion in which you were born. You live in Pakistan so I am sure that you cannot but see daily how non-Muslims are forced to live as third class citizens and this is not because of political, social or economic reasons it is solely because of the religion you follow. Any positive atributes you possess are inspite of Islam and not because of Islam.
  29. 1 point
    I have the version by Baba Teja singh mehron wale and it does have the first “jagat jot” svaiya
  30. 1 point
    It is interesting how YoYo is projecting the misdeeds of his co-religionists on to us. He complains about Sikhs discriminating in not allowing Dalit Sikhs into their Gurdwaras and yet in his Sohna Pakistan one sect of Muslim will happily bomb the mosque of another sect of Muslims. Imagine that, a Muslims will blow up qurans and other religious literature and yet if a Quran is 'disrespected' by being placed in a shelf below another book in a library this would likely cause a riot. Can you imagine if even a fake sect like the jhootha sadh kept the Guru Granth Sahib in his dera the Sikhs would not bomb it but resolve to remove the Guru Granth Sahib to a Gurdwara. That's the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh. Imagine if a group of Sikhs were say attacking non-Sikhs and enslaving their women and raping them using some justification from the Guru Granth Sahib. wouldn't the whole Sikh community be up in arms against them? Yet look at what ISIS has done to the Yazidis and the whole Muslim world just sits there bitching about how bad is is for Muslims around the world!
  31. 1 point
    There would have been no violence from Sikhs had there been no Rawalpindi violence. The Rawalpindi violence started in the city where Sikhs and Hindus were equal in number to Muslims and were well armed. Being unable to massacre the Sikhs and Hindus in Rawalpindi the cowardly Muslim mobs moved to attack the smaller Sikh population in the villages. Sikhs remember the Muslim atrocities of the 18th century so a six month period is nothing. Even some Muslim politicians were worried that the Rawalpindi violence would lead to Sikh retaliation at some stage. You are right that the Sikhs did not retaliate straightway but that was because there still some chance of Pakistan being stopped. When it became clear that Pakistan would become a reality and that Sikhs in Pakistan would be sitting ducks and face a daily Rawalpindi, then a decision was made In light of the Muslim violence in west Punjab that Sikhs needed to clear East Punjab of Muslims. The Sikh leadership would have been grossly negligent if they did not take any action to provide space for the Sikhs fleeing Pakistan. After Rawalpindi thousands of Sikhs had fled to East Punjab mainly Patiala state. So in effect the Muslims had ethnically cleansed the Sikhs out of Rawalpindi so it is natural that given the stories that these refugee Sikhs would have retold to Sikhs in Patiala state then the anti-Muslim violence was worst in Patiala after partition. The Sikh decision to clear the Muslims was in response to the Muslim ethnic cleansing of Sikhs six months before partition. If you think that the much wealthier and economically active Sikhs and Hindus would have been allowed to retain their position in Pakistan then you are fooling no one. Pakistan was sold to the Muslim masses as a place where the most downtrodden Muslim would suddenly became a nawab and would lord over the Hindu industrialists and the Sikh landlords. The Sikh leadership understood what Pakistan meant for the minorities especially them so they saw to it that they enacted a greater Rawalpindi in East Punjab then had been visited on them six months before. What the East Punjab violence shows is how the Muslim elites created a Pakistan for their interests and having enacted a massacre of Sikhs were then unable to prepare the East Punjab Muslims for the revenge that the Sikhs were sure to enact. This shows the failure of Muslim leadership and how little they cared for the East Punjab Muslims. The East Punjab Muslims who in many places attempted to attack Sikhs and Hindus in areas where the Muslims were in a majority only made the decision to evict them all the more urgent. The Sikhs and Hindus of Lahore had also been ethnically cleansed in July so it was natural that the East Punjab Muslims would also be evicted. You can see what a shythole Pakistan is for the minorities and where the cult of Islam not only kills others but also kills its own at regular intervals. The Sikhs made the correct decision not to have anything to do with Pakistan. It is impossible for non-Muslims to live a life of respect in a Muslim country. Even you have admitted that different sects of Muslims are not safe in a Muslim state. The only mistake the Sikh leadership made was that they didn't use their manpower in term of military experience and the base of the Sikh states to carve out Khalistan.
  32. 1 point
    That is where Jinnah deserves credit. Despite being the architect of the Rawalpindi Sikh massacres along with his Muslim Jat (Liaquat Ali) and Muslim Brahmin friends (Iqbal) etc he did not get his hands dirty with pronouncements to that effect. The Genocide was planned in Muslim League secret meetings and the level of Genocide inflicted upon kaffirs clearly exposes what Pakistan's intent was. The ISI doesn't need to say what it is doing in order for bombs to explode and kill innocents.
  33. 1 point
    you are liable for the share of any work done on communal areas every year , you do not own the land ever so basically it is a constant hit on the wallet which never reflects in your property value. If you live alone or are elderly I could see the appeal of closer neighbours and a concierge manned lobby
  34. 1 point
    I think @TaksalDaSingh9771 also has Hazur Sahib senchis, maybe he can also check
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Interesting question and one which not much has been written about or discussed even in Khalistan circles. I suppose the ideal system would be a combination of capitalism and socialism. Socialism because the Sikh ideal is that everyone should be looked after and their needs provided for. So in a Khalsa Raj the government would need to have a welfare state. Utilities such as gas, electricity, water etc would need to be under state control. The Khalsa state would need to have a capitalist system to be aligned with the world economy and because Sikhi lays great stress on the individual being able to work productively and from his earnings give back to the society. The Khalsa state will trade with other countries and it should utilise the 2 million Sikhs in the west to provide a market for its agricultural products in the west.
  37. 1 point
    I don't understand what wrong with living in a flat! many people, especially older generation look down at it
  38. 1 point
    you can see it the for sale notices are staying up much longer , people can't afford the overinflated prices

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use