Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by genie

  1. 4 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

    A Sikh raaj that all but collapsed as soon as Ranjit Singh drew his last breath due to incompetence, greed and unintelligence of Sikhs. A Sikh raaj that was more concerned about inclusivity of Musleh and Hindus than prioritising Sikh interests and Sikh personnel. Rather than investing in disloyal non-Sikh mercenaries, where was the drive to recruit Sikh individuals who could be moulded using the Sikh identity as a binding force? Talk about low Sikh numbers, then where was the parchaar? Why build mosques and mandirs? Weree there not any in the rest of India? Muslims and Hindus had their empires, yet when we finally fought and won ours, we were more concerned with virtue signalling and placating these hyenas pretending to be our friends.

    Treachery and deception played its part, but even those issues could've been mitigated by a ruthless and Sikh-prioritising leadership. The Dogras and the Sikh spies reporting to the British were not a great mystery even at the time. A Night of Long Kirpans (Google it but replace Kirpan with Knives) might have meant a Sikh empire that was still around today.

    Blame the British and the rest, quite rightly at times, but the burden of the betrayal falls on us. 

    I don't think your getting the point. Yes all that went on and the Sikh raj wasnt perfect had many faults and many traitorous opportunistic people were waiting to weaken and collapse it. But for us Sikhs it was ours, we were not enslaved by invaders and outsiders we were not suffering from problems that the panth is suffering today. We were on a upwards trajectory by spreading Sikh rule on lands that hadnt seen non-muslim rule for hundreds of years. And why did it collapse? Because of the greed people who we see similarly in charge of punjab and the panth today. The so called leaders are the very ones who are living comfortably who aided the british to come in impose their rule install their anglo-saxon christo-judaic software to control our lands and people.

    It is greed and money that is root of all evil, the people betrayed their own faith and people for their own self interests. Sikhi was started not just a philosophical faith to combat social ills of society but also the financial inequality and racism/castism people were suffering under the people with power. We similarly saw how emperor's of the past ruthlessly massacred people who stood in their way or opposed their injustice and today similarly the same mentality exists in people with power. if you oppose their unjust rule, even peacefully protest you get gunned down and genocided eventually.

    If i was a sikh ruler and I wanted to implement a society based on Sikhi I would have to do away with all legacy british empire made laws and change the economy of the nation that actually worked for the benefit of the people. This is why so many people flocked to Sikhi under the guru's than stay trapped under the rule of hindu hill raja kingdoms or muslim invaders.

    Today It's the anglo-saxon judicial legacy capitalist international banking system that is enemies of peoples of oppressed people everywhere. Those guardians of that system come in many form including our own so called Sikhs who uphold that system instead of upholding Sikh centric system.


  2. 7 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

    That's one leap in logic I'm struggling to comprehend. What are the Sikh contributions that are currently making society a fairer place? How are we any different to any other in demographic in practice as opposed to theory? Facts, please, not emotionally driven rhetoric.

    Logic being that when we had our Sikh raj society was much fairer no one went hungry when maharajah ranjit singh passed poor people it is said he gave away something to keep the people looked after. Sikh raj where all people was treated equally no religious community got to oppress the other, and there was equality of opportunity in his government and army too. Look at the capitalist societies today there is incredible wealth at the top 1% and incredible poverty at the bottom 99% of the pyramid.

    When we had muslims ruled over punjab we saw non-muslims were treated as 3rd class citizens and brutally oppressed same as christian british rule they racially oppressed the natives.

    And what do we have in present day punjab? its the elites all banding together keeping their chairs safe against the interests of the people they claim to represent. So we have the badals and captain amrinder singhs who are related by marriages. They pretend to be Sikhs, they appear to be sikhs but wWhat have they done for Sikhs and Sikhi? zero contribution really.......they have let the british and indian establishment drain the wealth of punjab dry. Why do they allow it? because they are leaders and puppets of the same corrupt regimes thats responsible for oppression sikhs and sikhi.

    The British establishment covers for the genocidal crimes of the indian establishment. Why? because the "elites" of these establishments have hoarded away the wealth stolen from our nations and communities so naturally like a den of thieves they look out for each other against the people they stole off from.

  3. 2 hours ago, akaaliKhalsa1699 said:

    sgpc isnt good. they r weaking sikhi. we are supposed to be keeping modern weapons, and they dont even let singhs wear kirpans???? 

    SGPC was supposedly created to manage sikh religious affairs especially taking care of gurdwara sahibs and giving out sikhi parchar. However what it has become is controlled opposite to the desires and wishes of the Sikh kaum and protocols.

    The sri akal takht is the religious spiritual Sikh parliament where Sikhs come together during a convention where the community's panthic committee then collectively elects an akal takht jathedar to be the spokesman and leader of the panth. And now since the 90s  sgpc has been electing its own unknown akal takht jathedhar's against Sikhi protocols and wishes of the community. It's obviously been under the control of the indian state because every-time Sikhs elect their own religious leader there's conflict as delhi is unwilling to concede to the political aspirations of the Sikhs since 1947.

    So until SGPC isnt disbanded, reformed or something else created in its place as rival and competition to be the authentic voice of the community then this situation will not change.

  4. They are frustrated and hoped the Sikhs would have forgotten 1984 and the whole period 36 years ago already by now. What the indian establishment  miscalculated by taking on the Sikhs is that we never forget we add it to our Sikh history as a way to inspire future generations to overcome the enemy who oppressed, attacked and brutalised our people.

    The more the hindu extremists and indian media talks about Sikhs in anti-sikh manor and degrades our martyrs as terrorists the more we will celebrate them and fight against their sikhphobia and anti-sikh narrative. If they kept their mouths shut let Sikhs commemorate their dead and celebrate their lives then eventually the wounds of 80s would have healed already. But these low IQ dumb hindians dont seem to understand the more they pour fuel of hatred to the embers the more the fire eventually reignites the memories of oppression and passions of the Sikhs

  5. So when you see the likes of badals, captain amrinder singh, sgpc, indian establishment, british estaliblishment, abrahamic missionaries, international financiers, bankers, vatican church, royal families, cooperation tycoons, military intelligence agencies, terrorist group leaders. All connected and covering up for each other and helping each other in their wicked schemes it ultimately comes down to money.

    All racial, economic, social inequality stems from the loot these people amassed and the riches of other peoples labour and other nations they stole off and now hoarded and hidden away in bank vaults. They have the wealth they have the weapons they have the power to dictate how society is to run and this is why racism and discrimination exists in society it's not in their interests to change the status quo they don't want to share the wealth like Sikhi says, they dont want to see people united like sikhi says they want people divided and conquered.

    This is why they want Sikhs and Sikhi oppressed as it will make societies a more fairer place and free people out of mental, physical and financial slavery

    Here's a little insight below how the elites of the former british empire cover up their international crimes and indulge in off shore tax evasion.


  6. 35 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

    The treasonous amongst our community is the "enemy within", they need to be exposed and flushed out.

    yup check this. BKI strangely had founder leaders (like sarjan singh gill) who were actually canadian intelligence agent asset and probably a R&AW agent the same probably goes for and other strange "sikh" militant groups whose founder members either worked for R&AW or other foreign intelligence agencies like pakistani ISI. The book soft target names talwinder parmer as a R&AW agent working with surinder malik of the indian embassy in canada in the 80s.

    Hence why there is no trust any more with these suspicious groups with very suspect acts.


  7. 24 minutes ago, puzzled said:

    Not sure how accurate this is 


    Not sure if thats accurate it went into figures of 2020 in the future predictions.

    Punjab seems to have a quite high population of muslims which is quite surprising if you take the number of Sikhs in all of pakistan is just 10,000 to 20,000 Sikhs. Judging by that video number of registered muslims is around 600,000 in indian punjab alone.

  8. 34 minutes ago, puzzled said:

    Your average sikh in punjab probably has hardly had much contact with a muslim tbh  muslims make only around 1% of punjabs population.  The Sikhs that witnessed the partition are now really old or dead. So sikhs in pubjab have no ide what it is like living with muslims when their population is large.

    Your average sikh in punjab has probably just spoken to kashmiri carpet sellers and gujjars and that's it.

    Hindus on the other hand in places like UP  know what it's like living with a sizable muslim population, the hindus in Bengal know, delhi, etc   same with the Buddhist in Myanmar and us sikhs in the west, basically anyone anywhere in the world where there is a large muslim population knows what it's like! 

    Whenever sikhs in punjab see acts of violence against muslims in other states they get all defensive of the muslims because they have no idea what it is like living with a large muslim population.  That's why sikhs in Malerkotla were protesting against the caa

    Once the population of muslims is a big minority in punjab only then will they know what it's like.

    Until then there really is not much you can do  Other than wait for them to experience it themselves. 

    your right about that we can also see that with whites and sikhs who live in america, canada and well off spacey well to do parts of the UK where they have very little interaction with muslim ghettos in large numbers. These people tend have quite favorable views of islam and muslims but the whites and Sikhs who actually live in parts dominated by muslims know the score. They see how muslims subjudgate and look down upon non-muslims and its those Sikhs who show us the glimpse of the future of minorities once muslims take over areas and lands.

  9. 20 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

    It seems to me that whoever really runs India is not only anti-Sikh but anti-Hindu too.

    It looks like there is coordinated plan by the Islamic, Christians and Marxists  to carve up the subcontinent between themselves before they turn on each other.

    The dharmics will need to fight back. If we do, we will win.

    It is only our mental state that is preventing us, we lack the ruthlessness. The Abrahamics expect us to be dharmic. For dharma to prevail, one has to sometimes be adharmic.

    We can defeat them but what will happen is they will revert back to taqqiya and hudabaiya tactics, that will be the time to be even more ruthless.


    I dont think the are abrahamics are ones who run india i think the ones who really rule are adharmic atheists types who use religions to suit their needs.

    and your right about the need to be adharmic and last time that happened Sikhs were able to get rule. Sad reality of this world and existence in order to get political power or stop being genocided yourself you have to be ruthless and adharmi at times too to stop your own people getting exterminated.

    From my analysis the only thing preventing Sikhs from reacting violently at the moment is betrayal from fellow Sikhs. We learn't from 1984 that the Sikhs themselves were indian agents working part of the indian establishments agenda. Theres cases going through indian courts right now where akali dali members of punjab Parliament were convicted of killing innocent civilians who they later blamed on sant bhindranwale and gave the indian state justification to attack darbar sahib. But some how these same people survived all the state violence and eventually got selected by akali dali for political power?

    This is why no one trusts akali dal and any jathabandi any more because we dont know whose working for who. But what we do know is anyone killing innocent civilians is defo not working for the interests of the sikh community and defo some governments agents.

  10. 3 minutes ago, proactive said:

    His wife was Payal Nath who was a Hindu. Apparently he is now having any affair with Nidhi Razdan, the NDTV anchor who is a Hindu Kashmiri. 

    In most of the articles I read it says her father is sikh and she was Sikh just because her dad and she may have hindu names doesn't mean shes hindu. Either way there's been quite a few cases where Sikh girls been harassed and groomed and even forced to convert to islam by muslims in kashmir.

  11. 1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

    The goal seems to be to drive the Sikhs out of the valley so it is just muslims left?

    However, what does this mean?

    It could be that GOI is cutting it's losses and consolidating?

    Or it emboldens the Jihadis to attack Jammu and Ladakh?

    It could mean Hindutva have now isolated the muslims and there is no kafir collateral damage?

    The goal seems to be drive the non-muslims out thats pretty clear therefore its an islamist/pakistani isi agenda because the Sikhs are not rising to the bait and hitting back at the moment. If we saw Sikhs hitting back and regularly we can say pro-india agent provocateurs or Sikhs are being funded by some agencies but there is no movement at the moment. The islamists did the same to hindu's of kashmir and india didnt help arm the hindu's to defend themselves. We can see the condition of afghan Sikhs and pakistani sikhs.

    Imagine if it was the indian govt behind it all and all the non-muslims were genocided and ethnically cleansed from afghanistan, pakistan and kashmir as the trends has been since 1947. what is it they would have to gain? only if Sikhs had reacted after chattisinghpora we could say the indian govt is behind it but now its been quite a few attacks and no reactions except the covert slow migration of afghan,  pakistani and kashmiri sikhs to india.

    Do we really think they are behind it when if non-muslims are gone from those lands that suddenly the islamists will just stop there? what objective will india have achieved? or will the islamists start then going into indian punjab? particularly border area's where jammu and kashmir meets punjab as has been the case with attacks on indian airbase in pathankot.

    On balance of big probability I can safely conclude it was the islamists.



  12. 5 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

    That's very bad on our part. We should not form any alliance with muslims even if it is just to spite the Hindus. Muslims are very dangerous to our community. They will kidnap our girls if they can get away with it.

    They already have chief of the groomers and kidnappers was the chief minister of kashmir omar abdullah who married a sikh woman converted her to islam and had kids with her.

    Some of these Sikhs are so low IQ its embarrassing, they actually offering their daughters and sisters to the islamists with fake one way brotherhood. Not having the balls to tell non-sikh hostile communities to do one.

  13. There might be a 10% chance it could be the work of some military intelligence of a country (be it pakistani ISI, IB/R&AW of india, Mi6 of britian, FSB of Russia, Mossad of Israel or CIA of America).

    But all these governments having put anti-hate, anti-violence, anti- terror and anti-weapons legislation all over the place if they hoping for a big clash between two communities known for militancy then its unlikely to happen. As people these days are far more politically correct, tame and are far more cautious than they used to be in calling for open violence back in the days.

    90% of evidence and balance of probability of all these attacks on Sikhs points towards the kufrphobic sikhphobic islamist's.

  14. 14 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

    It is because it is rooted in our sense of egalitarianism.

    We as Sikhs are very much for the underdog  (it is inherently part of our nature) or what we perceive to be the underdog.

    However,  the egalitarianism amongst us is one-sided as we have to deprecate ourselves to feel that we have done justice for others.

    Selflessness is important for us but we have taken it to the extreme.

    You maybe right.

    The extreme's of being too liberal and supportive of even those who wish us harm and then on other end of the spectrum of being extreme that you start hating all muslims and others for the actions of a few.

    The key for our people is maintaining balance and neutrality to everything in life don't go overboard jumping on a bandwagon like a clownish fudhu. Be supportive only to those other groups who are genuinely in the oppressed minority and can not stand up for themselves and eventually will support you too

  15. When it comes to sikhphobia these kinda sikhs are very quite there slience speaks volumes they don't post anything on social media . When islamists attack and genocide Sikhs in afghanistan, pakistan, kashmir these fake sikhs stay quite.

    When blacks are being racist to non-blacks they are quite.  As soon as a non-black says anything or does anything out of the wood work the dhimmi whites, dhimmi Sikhs and dhimmi south asians come out to jump on the bandwagon.

    Can someone explain who are these people and what brainwashed them to be self hating and anti-their own people?

    The black community is very strong very vocal and do not tolerate injustices they know how to defend themselves. They do not need our support or help, they are not enslaved and oppressed like they used to be pre-1960s. The amount of black celebs/film actors/sports stars/music stars and promotion of white women with black men all over popular media is testimony they are far better off place than other most non-white minority groups. Huge black population in non-indigenous black lands like north and south america, in europe proves this that they are a community on the rise and not being genocided by muslim arabs or white europeans any more like they was in africa and slavery days. Yes there's isolated cases of discrimination by the white state authorities but on the whole the black community is not oppressed like they used to be back in days.

    The muslim community is very strong very vocal ,do riot do know how to defend themselves they do not need our support. They are 1.8 billion strong 50 countries to their name.

    No muslim or black group or people stand up for us when Sikhs are attacked only a handful of sympathetic whites here and there and some token muslims who do not openly and loudly condemn their fellow muslims for attack on Sikhs rather they say all religious places should be safe.


  16. 47 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

    Now I am wondering who's actually behind this attack ? muslims, or someone who wants sikhs to hate muslims ?!!

    So it seems like the seeds for conflict are being planted.

    Sikhs need to keep an open mind who or which groups are trying to provoke a clash. Though these type of attacks do fit into the pattern of behavior by global jihad islamist groups and radicalised muslim extremists. There's plenty of videos on youtube which show their mindset in seeing all non-muslims as enemies of islam. So its not too difficult for them to hate on innocent Sikhs over kashmir they dont really need an excuse to do what they do.

  17. 4 hours ago, kuldipk123 said:

    @Sat1 Throughout my life as a Guru ka Khalsa, I have been arguing and fighting off so many characters that have a proclivity to misrepresent or misinterpret Sikhism! Even though, I am not that old yet!! It all started at school at first.  It’s just so outrageous if not scandalous to see how they have the courage to override everything in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, to suit their personal leanings or agendas! Nowadays, I avoid any possible encounters with suchlike people. Call me a failure or a defeatist ?, although we are not supposed to be! 

    @kangwI have a question for you. Would muslims allow their converts to ever misrepresent their religion without certain  penalty, pecuniary or otherwise? If your answer is ‘no’ then I applaud Islam and their Prophet. Thank goodness, the world has such a religion that forbids others from expressing anything negative towards it and demands accurate interpretations from everyone,  convert or non-convert! It demands decorum or else!  Have you ever encountered any converts to their religion strutting or parading around like some drama kings or queens straight from a Shakespeare theatre? Why present Sikhism as a big joke? As far as I have noticed, an average, ordinary  convert of Islam looks very serious, very pure, very devoted, and very pious. Everyone I speak to thinks the same! The new converts are shown by example to conform to their religion in a very respectful manner and not  make a circus out iit! By this, I mean the average, ordinary convert and not the extremists that are causing havoc all over the world!  No one in their right minds can approve of these morons!  In conclusion, I have to admit that I am not surprised so many sikhs are becoming muslim converts by marrying them, for their spirituality. They have  fine interpretations of their faith with loads of piety and more. Good luck to them.  They have everything under control. 

    Vast majority of converts to Islam end up leaving the faith within 2-5years. Also the muslims have alot of secterian and schools of thoughts differences so it causes alot of confusion and mayhem within islam especially with the minds of new converts to islam. Alot of white people who convert to islam usually do so cos of having emotional blackmail from their muslim partner to convert. They dont really want to follow islam and carry on with their pork eating beer drinking antics long after marrying into islam and even their muslim partner ends up leaving islam on the sly that way.

    So what you see on the outside of islam being one clear cut faith that all muslims know how to follow without any disagreements is actually not the case when you look deeper in muslim communities. Alot of them are cloest apostates, and hypocrite (mushriks) who pretend to follow the faith yet are having wild parties, drinking alcohol on the sly, not fasting on the sly when they are ment to, etc,etc

    Every faith has its oddballs and its extremes be it far left liberal end or the far right extreme if you peer inside the religions you think have got their act together you will be suprised at whats really going on.

  18. 5 hours ago, Khaaik said:

    Apologies for pulling this back and bringing a spiritual angle to this political discussion, but I would appreciate a word from sikhsangat... Thanks

    Guru Ji tells us no one is bad no one is good basically meaning everyone has goodness and badness inside them as per the human condition. Even those without faith can be good people better than religious people and religious people can be better than non-religious people. But also if someone follows extreme nationalism or some extreme religious doctrine that can take them into the realms of being bad because of their actions and behaviour based on what they are taught. So in the case of abrahamics if they are taught to "kill the un-believing kufr" so naturally they will respond to that teaching. If they are taught other things that take away from the violence they will behave differently.


    2 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

    The muslims got their cake and ate it during partition. 1/3 of their population was in Pakistan, 1/3 in Bangladesh and they still left 1/3 in India.

    The Hindus made a massive blunder letting them stay behind in such massive numbers.

    Muslims benefited the most out of partition the Sikhs lost the most, hindus though they lost part of india to muslims in the form of pakistan they however gained a majority population rule for the first time in 900years. The Sikhs only managed to get Sikh majority rule of punjab in 1960s after punjabi suba movement was started and ended in the splitting up of pepsu punjab region into 3 states (punjab, haryana and himachal pardesh).

    The hindu's, the ones who had hindu nationalist mindset, weren't part of gandhi/nehru's congress party shambles of partition of india. Various hindu nationalists of the arya samaj , hindu mahasaba, VHP and RSS were out there killing muslims and forcing them to migrate to newly curved out pakistan. And we got to remember that it was a hindu militant of the VHP who ended up killing M.K gandhi in 1948 because the hindus were so enraged by the political games the congress had played. After the well off land and property owning hindus and sikhs were massacred and the remaining forced out of west punjab alot of these refugee's settled in delhi. When nehru went to visit them in refuge camps they stoned and rioted against him because it was him and his congress who had caused the disaster of partition.

    The congress basically let a large potion of indian muslims stay in india for political vote bank reasons. They knew in a democracy you need numbers and if you can get a loyal community to vote for you then you will be guaranteed political power time to time. They could not compete against the hindu nationalists because the congress atheist communist secular type of people were not on the hindutva agenda they wanted a more irreligious society ruled by the elites of former princely kingdoms.

    A large portion of indian muslims congress party loyalists also took part in the anti-sikh genocide of 1984 across india. If you look at the list of names of those the police caught many of them have muslim names.

  19. 1 hour ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

    Why should we support it ?


    Exactly, and in present circumstances the ignorant people crying for khalistan 2020 are delusional fooling themselves aswell as others. They should ask themselves why do we need to support it? What is it that they would get in a huge independent khalistan free from india that they are not getting right now? is it just political power they want?

    If they talking about a small khalistan vatican city state within the indian union then i'm all for it as its a workable solution and its peaceful.

    if they talking about a huge country then its simply not viable we don't have the demographics, we dont have the regional and distant global power allies. We dont have the armed resources. We dont have the leadership to take on the role of governance,etc,etc

    It's a non starter in present circumstances.

  20. 6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

    I was reading about this recently. The Serbia vs Kosovo conflict was said to be a warm-up / practice for the post-9/11 invasion of Iraq (if you believe it was a pre-planned pretence to enter the Middle East under the guise of "restoring democracy). Clinton and Blair aided the Muslim Albanians in slaughtering Christian Serbians. There was nothing honourable about what happened. The only reason the press, at the time, didn't make a big deal of Western intervention, is because the people being aided were Muslims.

    So, even when the Western powers do decide to grace others with their benevolence, it usually has some form of vested interest. In this case, as I mentioned, it was a dry run for what they were hoping to kick-off in Afghanistan and Iraq (and, if the theories are to be believed, Syria and Iran, paving the way for the prophesied Greater Israel to re-emerge in that part of the world).

    It seems the west has a morbid fascination with supporting aiding funding and supporting muslims for their geo-political strageic interests. First they fund the jihadi islamic terrorists via the gulf arab puppet regiemes then they unleash these terrorists on their geo-political enemies or even on their own nations to bring forth anti-freedom legislation.

    The pattern of behaviour by the white and zionist western elites in their establishment is there for all to see. Since the end of their empires they have been waging colonialist wars covertly using jihadi's as reasons to invade and occupy lands they want to steal resources from.

    During the balkans conflict I was very young and all that I read or saw on TV was very santised and it was painted as if there was a civil war just break out of no where because white people wanted their own countries out of yugosalvia. What i learnt now after watching many video clips and documentaries was that there was a jihad called where jihadis from across the muslim world flocked to the balkans and committed massacres on the serbian white christian inhabitants the serbs in their part also committed genocide and massacres on the white bosnian muslims. But we on TV were never shown the jihadi's never shown the antics they got up to like cutting serbian peoples hearts out, beheading whole families, raping christian women and torturing and murdering them on mass. These things they selectively never showed because the serbs and serbia are allys of russia an enemy of the west. Then on top of that NATO got involved and bombed the serbs which lead them to withdraw and bosnian got their independance.

    Many UK muslims of pakistani heritage went to the balkans to partake in the so called jihad. They even urged others to join them under the groups of al-mahajaroun (founded by sheikh omar bakri muhammad and anjem choudhary) and hibz-ut-tahir. During the early mid 90s i noticed how muslim school friends i had sudden became fundamentalist and separatist in outlook often looking down on all things non-muslim. At the same time street fights were kicking off between Sikhs and muslim aggressors in schools, colleges and uni. It only ended after in 1997 after Sikh youths drove in 50 car convey and rioted and nearly destroyed a muslim dominated area called chalvey in slough. So it is all linked and it effects all of us when we tolerate muslim aggression and extremism without a reply.

  21. 6 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

    Yes the only way is if an even bigger power helps the militant group but India is not the same nation it was back in the 80s. Nukes change things big time. No country will do this against India.

    Economically India is doing ok so it isn't going to collapse like the USSR.

    Yup india is pretty safe at the moment. It can crush the afghan taliban easily if they tried it on hence why they admitted they wont interfere in indian affairs. Modi's india is embolden at the moment and can even take on china and pakistan at the same time if it was a conventional war. If it came down to nukes then no ones gonna win in that only be loosers everywhere. So i think all the worldly powers have abandoned any support to separatists groups knowing theres not much chance of them seceding from a pretty stable and rising hindu nationalist india union.

    From Sikhs perspective we should keep out of any hinduisation thats going on effecting kashmir or indian muslims because the goal of islam is to convert and wipe non-muslims including sikhs out eventually. Whereas the goal of hindu nationalists isnt really one of wiping Sikhs and Sikhism or Buddhists and buddhism out they are pretty tolerant of dharmic faiths they just want to be top dogs in the native area they been living for past thousands of years.

  22. 40 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

    I think only Muslims are capable of turning peaceful Buddhist monks towards violence as we saw in Burma. 

    While I don't condone what has happened to the Rohingya, but not too long ago I read on a website which listed each and every violent crime the Rohingya did towards the Buddhists. These crimes included murder, rape, looting, violent crimes which resulted in Buddhists moving out of Muslim areas. It went on for years with no reaction from the Buddhists until finally a Buddhist monk decided enough is enough. 

    Although the Rohingya started it but seeing the videos of there suffering, you can't help but be moved and feel bad for them. The Burmese went a little too far in their retaliation. I mean there are videos of the rohingya being burnt alive, their women have been gang raped by the Burmese soldiers. Rohingya are basically Bangalis who migrated there in the last century or so. But Bangladesh refuses to take them in.

    You know if the present day buddhists were around in afghanistan before they lost it to islamic arab invaders i dont think the jihadis would have stood a chance. The buddhists of today are far more militant and extreme they have a crazy nationalist mindset same with Sinhalese buddhists of sri lanka when they fought with the sri lankan  hindu tamils both were as vicious as each other.

    This idea that we have of the peaceful buddhist is probably misplaced even their docile monks are quite militant. We just need to look at our own history during khalsa raj when the Sikh army researched ladkh and wanted to take tibet they faced quite strong opposition from the buddhist Tibetan troops. Both sides eventually called a truce and signed a treaty i believe respecting each others boundaries and borders. Which to this day that treaty is used by china to lay claim to various parts of tibet and india as inheritors of that land. ( sources: The Sino-Indian Border Disputes, by Alfred P. Rubin, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Jan. 1960), pp. 96–125.



  23. 12 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

    Militant groups just have no chance against bigger powers. At best they can be a nuisance like the IRA but they can never achieve their end goal.

    I would agree in todays world they don't have a chance. However if we were in the 80s and 90s the IRA had real chance of defeating the british army because you gotta remember gaddafi was funding them, the arab league members were funding them covertly like saddams iraq. The USA ex-pat irish community nord was funding them.

    The only way militant groups will succeed in todays world in todays political scene is if a super power aids them or smashed into another world power to release trapped nations of the bigger nations out. So when we look at the case of USSR after its fall because of the west's thousand cuts policy then all those former soviet countries broke free because there wasnt the manpower to fight any armed uprising by cash strapped soviet govt in moscow. However russia has regrouped and was able to aid pro-russian seperatist militants in ukraine establish their own rule and in abzakia from georgian territory.

    If we look at serbia and its clash in kosovo that was part of its land after it had taken it during the balkan wars. The west aided the jihadi KLA militant group to cause clashes with serbian forces when serbia retaliated then nato got involved and salved albanian muslim asses just as they did in balkan wars. So kosovo seperatists declared independence from serbia thanks to NATO western military help.

    So it is still possible for militant groups of independance wanting groups to reach objectives militaerily but only if alot of world powers or a super power aids and recognizes their legitimacy. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use