Sukhvirk76

8 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I hope your never in a position where you have to protect anyone, (may Vaheguru keep everyone safe, but especially pepple like this). The only reason I would be able to confidently say this good guy mentality of hoping for the best is because a good friend of mine, (non-Sikh), taught me the actual way to protect one's self if need be. 

He's lost it, he's been arguing pointlessly on just about everything.

its not arguing.. it commenting on the soundness of the proposition.. shame you see everything in that polarised way.. you clearly only want to speak with sycophants rather have a open discussion

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think he is just saying not fighting some ruthless, determined enemy like a lulloo with their hands tied behind their backs. Things like sabotage, subversion, disinformation - the very common and accepted strategies of warfare.

You can't win unless you are aware of an enemies ability to employ these tactics, and able to deploy them yourselves as required. 

No one is talking about mass raping women and exterminating innocent people and all that crap. Keep up mate...

I'm keeping up bro 

3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

sukh try reading history and understand that  giving codes for weapons foods, people  etc is part of our tactics as was guerilla warfare whilst we were outnumbered . That might be considered subterfuge and the deceit is only in using the withholding information: actual mission , routes numbers and whatever but that is standard in warfare any time period . Unless you think we should send a statement of intent with our full strategy to the enemy.

for example  1 tyaar bar tyaar sikh was referred to as sava lakh fauj  , was it a deceit maybe but also a little gallows humour. Beseiged and starving and yet eating Mitte Parshadey i.e. stale roti   anyone overhearing from the opposing camp would be disheartening that the sikhs were doing mauja

You presume you have read more than me. . I said dirty. . And I agree subterfuge was probably not the right word

3 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

meaning not expecting the others will fight in a chivalrous manner so up the game to deal with that. A main problem has been the enemy being informed well in advance by ghadars or plain loose tongues ...what with all that lalkar mentality . Need to fight smart and in a adaptable way , i.e. multiple skills , methods latest tools .and not buy from the usual suspect as they will sell us out just like that to gain confidence of India.(lull them)

Others may well fight dirty and not be chivalrous but deceit and subterfuge is not what the rahit of sikhi.. fighting for truth and righteousness is undermined by deceit.  Doesn't mean not being smart. 

On 12/03/2017 at 7:46 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

If you haven't learned to fight dirty then how would you be able to fight in an actual dangerous situation. When a group is smaller in number it's smart to not always play by some old-school rules, we got too much of a hero mentality in my personal idea to be able to protect ourselves from actual danger, (examples include letting your opponent get the first move, only use weapons equal to your opponents, and finally the worst of them all is if your outnumbered to just not use some strategy and still fight like your 1vs1).

Fight dirty? 

Not sure how that fits with the ethics of sikhi