Ranjeet01

I walked to the park (fresh air, excercise, Vitamin D). Went to the jungle jim. Did some dips, pull ups, push ups, bulgarian splits, pistol squats. Then I ran around the park (1 lap), then walked back home. Now I am going to do cool down stretching and some yoga.

Yet if you ask a Pakistani about what they got after partition, they always say a "moth-ridden" Pakistan. Like they got the bum end of the deal. They got the best fertile land, a good river system and they still made a right hash of it.

Mucho Libre never ruled for half millenia. They were even more conquered and colonised than the kafirs All they did was switch sides

They need to be given a consistent beating to keep them under control because the moment you show leniency they go back to the old routine. That is why it is important to go after their clerics, you have to demoralise, show them that allah is not on their side. Get them to leave the political doctrine. But simultaneously their needs to be punishment for the enemy within, who will try to facilitate your demise. There has never been any punishment from treachery, an example needs to be made treachery will not be tolerated.

This seems to be the usual routine for any non-muslim group that retaliates against muslims. That is only reacting after much provocation. The western media likes to pick up in the aftermath. They deliberately turn a blind eye. They are like those WWE wrestling referees that disqualify the good guy after seeing him hit the bad guy with the chair but completely miss what is happening before. Usually non-muslims tend to be reactive. Maybe it is time to be pro-active. We know muslims are not a net benefit for any community as a whole. The more there are, the more problematic they are. I think we understand their nature. What we need are steps to counter them. For instance Rohingyas should be given a choice to convert to Buddhism (probably was their religion before they converted) or else. Then find out the clerics and the people who stir up the problems. One of the things I notice is that whenever the muslim mob goes on the rampage, there tends to be a cleric in the background that gets away scot free. Their communities are mullah-Centric. Take out their clerics, their mobs will collapse. Their population growth needs to be countered. They love to breed exponentially as a way to take over an area. If a muslim family has more than say two kids, their kids should be taken from them and converted to Buddhism. The other problem is the bleeding heart non muslims who will object to this (though understandeable) but inadvertently cause their own demise.

I think it is a myth that Buddhists are docile. That is the perception the west always has.

That might explain a lot.

This is in the public eye. The fact that there is outrage and the rest of the family are probably aware. When he passes and is cremated and there is ardaas and path, all shahadaat is a pile of cr*p. He was born a Sikh, lived as a Sikh and leaves this world as one too.

I suspect that Kashmiri Sikhs were largely left alone due to Khalistan situation. Though the Kashmiri muslims are fools. If they every get sovereignty, Pakistan will invade with tanks and swarm the valley with Pakistanis. The Kashmiri muslims will become a minority and lose any autonomy and any rights they gave being part of India (like all the subsidies they get at the moment). If that happens, serves them right!

The consensus seems to be that they are mainly ethnic Kashmiri. It is interesting that Kashmiri Pandits were almost completely ethnically cleansed since 1989 but Kashmiri Sikh were not. The whole Kashmir issue is not an issue of "Kashmiriyat " but one of Islam.

There are nearly 50 000 Sikhs living in the Kashmir Valley. I never knew there were that many. Are these ethnic Kashmiri Sikhs or descendants of Punjabi Sikhs? Maybe the realisation here is that perhaps the Kashmiri muslim is not that innocent after all. Maybe they aren't as oppressed as they make out to be.

I hear what you are saying. It seems that Delhi Sikh men are soft and Delhi Sikh women don't value them. So much do they not value Delhi Sikh men that they prefer hindu men. There is a whole load of inter-sexual dynamics at play. This is my take (this is just my opinion) I think 1984 has had an impact in the eyes of Delhi Sikh women that they cannot see Delhi Sikh men in the same way. Delhi Sikh men could not protect them and they see Delhi Sikh men as weak. Women can show great disloyalty and will side with who they think is stronger. That is what I think. I may not be completely correct but I reckon there is probably some truth in what I am saying.

When you see things like this. My anger isn't towards the muslims it is towards fellow Sikhs.

It is a tiny minority of Sikhs that do this. The majority of us do not. But they over-represent and they speak over the rest of us and they do not. It is up to us Sikhs to sort out these miscreants. We have overwhelm them and dominate them. It is Sikh-on-Sikh so no other community will bother.

That is what they scares them, further retribution. But again we are placing our ideals and values on other communities. We think because as Sikhs we would have taken matters on our hands that the others would do the same. The realisation for me that Indira Gandhi was taken out but we are scared to take out the Congress goons who instigated what happened in Delhi. We knew who the culprits were and they should have been taken out. The message that would have sent across to all the other goons that they were not safe.

Well the Delhi Sikhs are more traders and shopkeepers and UP Sikhs tend to be large landowners (a lot of them come from what is now Pakistan) They probably feel they have more to lose. They are thinking that if they do doing iftar they are creating goodwill so then the next time there is Muslim/Hindu clash they will be left alone. The big difference between UP/Delhi Sikhs is they were attacked by Hindus /Muslims and in Punjab post-84 it has been largely Sikh-on-Sikh. The problem we have is that we place our ideals and values on other communities and think they will act in the same manner we do. If someone outside Sikhi does something nice for our Sangat, we are very grateful to them. For example Malerkotla. That area was not touched during partition. However, do you think the same thing would be replicated the other way around? Their values are not the same as ours.

In regards to Delhi Sikhs, it is like the discussion with one of the Delhi Sikhs that posts on here in regards of Sikh women marrying Hindu men in Delhi. I think with 1984 riots, Delhi Sikhs have been brutalised in a way the Punjab Sikhs have not and it has impacted their psyche. The ankh is gone and they have been seriously demoralised. The closest analogy I can probably find is what happened to the psyche of the Japanese people after having two atomic bombs dropped on them, where many of Japs have lost their warrior/samurai spirit. They still have honour in their society but they are lacking something that they lost 75 years ago.

I am not sure what is wrong with our people. There are boundaries one does not cross. This appeasement is where you hope you get eaten last. This comes from when one feels completely powerless and you are trying to survive.

That is true. There is overt authority and covert authority. Ultimately all responsibility falls on the father. The husband needs to have frame and have the wife's buy in. I think as men, we are always the last to know about things happening in the family and usually the wife hides a lot of things from her husband.

Their fathers are weak. A lot of bad things are said about patriarchy but having a strong father is very important to a woman. Muslimas definitely have stronger fathers though with black women I cannot answer for.

I don't think there is more reasons that Harjot's parents may disapprove other than the fact that she is white and the usual cultural factors. First red flag is all those tattoos on her. Second red flag is the her boyish haircut. Third red flag is that she is three years older than him.

There is pecking order with the Abrahamics. If the west (the powers not the holloi polloi) has a choice between the heathens and a fellow abrahamic, they will pick the abrahamic over the heathens.

There are serious problems with church attendance in a lot of parts of Europe. They lay largely empty. Europe is now largely a post-Christian society.

There is more to masculinity than hitting the gym and working out (though it does help) You can have all the muscles in the world, but if your body language, posture, confidence and your aura come off contradictory to the muscles and getting in shape, girls will pick up on it. Girls are the masters of sub-communication. There a lot of Sikh men with kesh that have no problem getting women. You cannot be a sheep in wolf's clothing, you got to be wolf in wolf's clothing

There is a left leaning communist loving Sikh on this forum who loves the sexy Muslim woman. He probably goes all googley for "Ayesha" or "Shanaz" or "Rukshana" especially when they spout all those sexy persian words ???