Clinton: India Responsible For Chithisinghpora Massacre

[buddasingh]

i have yet to see the word "hindu terrorist" in my lifetime. A country of over 800 million hindus has never prodfuced one hindu terrorist. After all the hindu mobs that killed sikhs and muslims and destroyed babri masjid, akaal takhat sahib, etc, never have i seen any any newspaper the word hindu terrorist.

that is what you call censorship. That country can do whatever it wants, kill 35 here, 1000 there, 10,000 over there, nothing is done. A sikh talks about jsutice and 50 "sikh terrorists" are rounded up from amritsar district in one night.

Not suprising to me at all. Just like how sikh community like to think- there is no sikh terrorist ever existed in this planet just like that hindu community also like to think there is no hindu terrorist ever existed in this planet.

They are both miserably wrong, denial is very common nature in Humans.

So stop making into another hindu vs Sikhs threads.

Get another hobby for change.

MKLQ statements above challenge state terrorism.

You are opposing MKLQs statements.

State terrorists and their supporters oppose those who challenge state terrorism.

Draw your own conclusions as to whether I'm admitting there are sikh terrorists or sikh supporters of terrorists.

[sikh supreme]

The leader of Indian Independance (Mahatma gandhi) was murdered by Hindu terrorist of the VHP. It doesnt come as any suprise. They have many undercover operatives working all around the world.

[Harmeet Singh]

As I read form the website, there is nowhere Clinton has said that India is responsible for Sikh killings in Chattisinghpora. He only mentions Hindu Militants

[Guest militant singh]

i will be the firrt to say that we have sikh terrorists. KPS Gill, Brar, Badal, etc etc are terrorists. This is no hindu vs sikh comment. What is up with you, did the word hindu terrorist upset you that much, maybe that's why we never hear it.

I agree wid koum layee qurban

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

This leads to me another question regarding sikhs dream of khalistan,

Wow. I am talking about something that is happening right now and has happened for decades and your talking about a hypothetical scenario involving a nation which doesn't even exist. You remind me of typical Hindustani people, whenever someone challenges the Hindustani democratic system, they are automatically khalistanis, separatists etc. This is fascism my friend.

Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

"often a policy of belligerent nationalism" Sounds familiar doesn't it? You'll see this is the foundation of india as a nation. It can be seen in people's posts who deny India's shortcomings.

[N30S1NGH]

This leads to me another question regarding sikhs dream of khalistan,

Wow. I am talking about something that is happening right now and has happened for decades and your talking about a hypothetical scenario involving a nation which doesn't even exist. You remind me of typical Hindustani people, whenever someone challenges the Hindustani democratic system, they are automatically khalistanis, separatists etc. This is fascism my friend.

Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

"often a policy of belligerent nationalism" Sounds familiar doesn't it? You'll see this is the foundation of india as a nation. It can be seen in people's posts who deny India's shortcomings.

and you remind me of typical fanatic, who cannot stand other sikhs not in favor of khalistan. Read Sri Akaal Ustat (Sri Dasam Granth) to open your horizons on khalsa raj belongs to the world, not a peace of land. Buddhism does not have buddhistan yet apparentely they are successful, their ideology is known everywhere in this world.

Even if khalistan is made, i don't think soo called khalistanis who live abroad will go live in khalistan , spent all their life making country instead they will just sit up their arses in western countries taking everything for granted It's easy just talk but rare are those who walk the talk.

Zihadis on this forum should get a fresh air, get off from this forum if they are serious about khalistan and go to india, start from where it's needed.. make it by peaceful and justified force means..instead of just spent most of their time on the internet- discussing things, cussing hindus, making websites about it.

Khalistanis these days are joke, not even close to khalistanis back in the 1975-1984. Atleast they die for what they beelived in without killing innocent, without having any kinda of hate against other dharam, or irakho towards who didn't beleive in their concept. They walked the talk, these days every tom, <admin-profanity filter activated>, harry is vadda wanna be sorma filled with hatred, animosity towards others atleast khalistani back in the day had a spiritual jeevan to draw line between peaceful protest, justified force to take out enemy and blinded with hatred.

You guys bring shame to Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Sri Guru Tegh Bahaduar shaheedi and shaheeds of 1984.

[Guest Narinder Singh]

This leads to me another question regarding sikhs dream of khalistan,

Wow. I am talking about something that is happening right now and has happened for decades and your talking about a hypothetical scenario involving a nation which doesn't even exist. You remind me of typical Hindustani people, whenever someone challenges the Hindustani democratic system, they are automatically khalistanis, separatists etc. This is fascism my friend.

Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

"often a policy of belligerent nationalism" Sounds familiar doesn't it? You'll see this is the foundation of india as a nation. It can be seen in people's posts who deny India's shortcomings.

and you remind me of typical fanatic, who cannot stand other sikhs not in favor of khalistan. Read Sri Akaal Ustat (Sri Dasam Granth) to open your horizons on khalsa raj belongs to the world, not a peace of land. Buddhism does not have buddhistan yet apparentely they are successful, their ideology is known everywhere in this world.

Even if khalistan is made, i don't think soo called khalistanis who live abroad will go live in khalistan , spent all their life making country instead they will just sit up their arses in western countries taking everything for granted It's easy just talk but rare are those who walk the talk.

Zihadis on this forum should get a fresh air, get off from this forum if they are serious about khalistan and go to india, start from where it's needed.. make it by peaceful and justified force means..instead of just spent most of their time on the internet- discussing things, cussing hindus, making websites about it.

Khalistanis these days are joke, not even close to khalistanis back in the 1975-1984. Atleast they die for what they beelived in without killing innocent, without having any kinda of hate against other dharam, or irakho towards who didn't beleive in their concept. They walked the talk, these days every tom, <admin-profanity filter activated>, harry is vadda wanna be sorma filled with hatred, animosity towards others atleast khalistani back in the day had a spiritual jeevan to draw line between peaceful protest, justified force to take out enemy and blinded with hatred.

You guys bring shame to Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Sri Guru Tegh Bahaduar shaheedi and shaheeds of 1984.

It'll be Sikhs like u who who'll jump on the Khalistan bandwagon once we get it

[Guest Narinder Singh]

"and you remind me of typical fanatic, who cannot stand other sikhs not in favor of khalistan."

If a Sikh is not in favor of Khalistan he or she is going directly against Sri Akal Takht Sahib where Khalistan was declared in 1986 by the Sarbat Khalsa, period!

I find it funny that even Sikhs call other Sikhs who question the Indian system fanatics, fundementalists, seperatists and terrorists. And why are Sikhs constantly told to clarify their positions? Read Sikh history, we dont need to justify or explain anything to anyone, first justify the killing of thousands and thousands of INNOCENT people by the Indian govt.

And honestly, u sound like someone who turns everything into a Hindu vs Sikh issue, if someone even mentions the possibility of being discriminated because they're not Hindu or Brahmin, its automatically turned into a Hindu vs Sikh battle. How dare u even talk about Khalistani Sikhs badmouthing Hindus? Sri Akal Takht Sahib was completely destroyed, thousands of innocent Sikhs perished in the conflict, how many innocent Hindus where killed throught out Punjab by Khalistanis? How many innocent Hindus were killed after the Delhi riots in Punjab? Oh wait, 20,000 Sikhs were slaughtered by HINDU mobs after ONE witch was rightfully sent to hell by two true Singhs of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, yet u have the balls to sit here and talk about Sikh fanatics, terrorists and extremists? Sorry but i must be blunt, dont take it to heart, but im disgusted by ur attitude.

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

and you remind me of typical fanatic, who cannot stand other sikhs not in favor of khalistan.

wow. There is no place ever that I have ever promoted violence against any faith nor have I ever promoted hatred against hindus. You obviously have preconceived notions about people who support sikh issues in India. Your credibility in my book is shot. After reading many of your other posts on other threads I thought you were a deep man into gurbaani but I can see you are just a hate filled person. For aperson who hates fanatics you sound like a complete fanatic yourself. You turned a debate about why Indian media has nevr labelled any hindus as terrorsists to a debate about why khalistanis are fanatics. Seriously, next time you talk abou gurbaani, I'll know your just a phony.

People are fanatics who take people off of buses and shoot them for being hindu or whatever. People who question repressive and discriminatory behavior are not fanatics, in normal democracies anyways. Your logic is what got the likes of Jaswant singh khalsra shaheed. He questioned why the gov't illegally cremated thousands of unclaimed bodies i Amritsar district alone, and he was made to disappear like a common terrorist. He was a human rights worker. Seriously, it is the attitude of people like you that has lead to the downfall of india.

YOu have a belligerant nationalism which is burying human rights deep deep into the ground.

You want to see a fanatic, look in the mirror. There is no point in debating with such a hate filled person.

peace.

[N30S1NGH]

Simple questions for you mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan,

Once again:

1. Can you stand other sikhs who are not in favor of khalistan yet they have respect for shaheds in 1984 operation blue star? Yes or No.

2. Do you consider who are not in favor of khalistan as "Sikhs of Sri Guru Gobind Singh"?

Just simple yes or no.

Will go from there.