Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It seems some you won't be happy with a muslim until he stops breathing. Even when he stops breathing I get the impression you'll say he stopped breathing on purpose as part of some sinister plan.

Hahaha... that made me laugh. Some muslims are ok not all are bad. But they do seem to think 9/11 and 7/7 was an inside job, which is wrong on all the victims who were killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goreh (mostly the working classes I guess) are getting really peed off with what they perceive as them being threatened and pushed around in their own country. I wouldn't be surprised if some extreme elements decided to fight back. Put it this way: If as Sikhs we were made to feel that way by a minority in a Sikh homeland, would our lot just sit by and twiddle their thumbs hoping this minority behave themselves? Of course, planting bombs and taking out innocent people is NEVER the right thing to do. Have street battles, tear-ups, etc., but don't start bombing places of worship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems some you won't be happy with a muslim until he stops breathing. Even when he stops breathing I get the impression you'll say he stopped breathing on purpose as part of some sinister plan.

Legal Singh Veerji i know you were saying this tongue in cheek but just in case some uninformed neutrals take your joke seriously, let's remind them that:

Despite 1984, Sikhs have never attacked Mandirs or any innocent Hindu's despite being a majority in Punjab.

In the area where Muslims did not attack Sikhs first (in 1947) ... Malerkotla ... that town still remains a Muslim majority town with not a single innocent Muslim hurt.

Whilst Hindu's and Muslims prayed In England during the English Riots the Sikhs protected them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14472484

Just because Sikhs oppose slavery+pedophilia like Prophet Muhammad's sex with a 9year old child called Aisha + his sale of innocent human beings into slavery and Muhammad ordering Muslims to freely rape slaves + other forms of Islamic Genocide against Sikhs ... no Sikh has anything against innocents of any background.

The truth is that all the multiple Genocides against Sikhs prove that our enemies won't be happy until they think they have exterminated all Sikhs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen that movie 'Four Lions'? Lol the white Moslem kept wanting to stage an ATt on their own temple to wind up the Muslims to a revolution. The guy was nuts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen that movie 'Four Lions'? Lol the white Moslem kept wanting to stage an ATt on their own temple to wind up the Muslims to a revolution. The guy was nuts

Veerji it's kind of like a copy of Indira Gandhi's method of getting her own forces like Azhar Muhammad Alam's Black Cats to kill innocent Hindu's.

And when people point out that Sant Ji was not a terrorist but Indira Gandhi was, the throwback reply is it's Hindophobia and that Sikhs won't be happy until ...

There is no faith community in the World that has had 35 of its main holy places desecrated and yet still did not react negatively against innocent Hindu's or Muslims.

If the boot was on the other foot I've no doubt the Sikh Panth would have been exterminated worse than Justice Khalra detailed.

And obviously 25% of the Sikh population was killed in the Genocide of Sikhs in Pakistan in 1947 which even KP Gill could never get close to in his dreams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen that movie 'Four Lions'? Lol the white Moslem kept wanting to stage an ATt on their own temple to wind up the Muslims to a revolution. The guy was nuts

Rubber dinghy rapids...

That movie was too funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think you've been unable to read between the lines and grasp the subtext of the article. It's a clear attempt at pitting Sikhs against some nebulous form of Islam, by equating medieval Mughal expansionism with its various contemporary terror-related forms. British-penned propaganda or a general West vs Islam perspective, it's doing exactly what you constantly highlight on this forum about us being "recruited" by outsiders as fodder.  The playful and almost throwaway tone of the article and its vernacular is also cringeworthy. Am I suggesting we leap into bed with Islam and its adherents? No. But I don't like attempts by outsiders trying to mine our painful and blood-soaked history to manipulate us into following whatever current strand of policy they've devised against one of the existential dangers facing them. Equally, intention counts for a lot. If the guy's aim was to flatter Sikhs and shed light on a quaint and once-proud warrior race, then fair enough. But I don't take things like this on face value. There's always a purpose behind it however faint. Your cheap little attempts at psycho-analysing and shaming me into conforming to your worldview isn't working and it never will. EDIT: Having just flicked through the website from which the article originates my suspicions were correct. It's a moderately right-leaning Spectator-esque online zine.
    • No, I just think you constantly over analyse the wrong stuff. This is just some simple bod 'boosted' interpretation of Sikh history from a purely physical perspective (as opposed to spiritual). What it seems to be trying to do is amplify Sikh bravery and independence in a very simplistic manner.  It's not dissimilar to what I've heard Sikh street guys talking just prior to going out to kick off with another group.  I don't think you can read very well, compared to a lot of stuff, at least this piece somewhat underscores a perspective that doesn't co-opt Sikhs to other causes. And if a brit white guy wrote this (below), he'd be being more honest than the vast majority of the rest of his people (even though the guy is obviously ignorant of the modern nature of the Sikh army under Sikh raj with his swords against canons comment). If he was a proper brit he'd be telling us about how grateful our lot were to be subjugated and used and abused by the colonialists: The Sikhs were better fighters than the Moghuls, when the numbers and the guns were anything like equal, and by the time the Brits arrived, they’d carved out their own state in the Punjab. They fought the Brits twice, swords against cannon, and were slaughtered, then flattered, then coopted—the classic Imperial method of dealing with brave but dumb cannon fodder, as in “Our dear Highlanders,” cannon fodder in cute kilts. 
    • So why would you want to keep dragging them back here, then?
    • If it was confirmed that a British white guy wrote that piece, you'd be all over it, castigating it as establishment propaganda designed to get us to fight under the banners of ex-imperial powers for their modern colonial escapades. You're very selective with what you choose to object to: it's not the actual substance of the message that annoys you but the vessel in which the message is delivered, yes?
    • I just think it's a simplified narrative designed to inspire a bit of fearlessness in Sikhs. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  There will always be some people who will misinterpret and maybe fly off the handle due to their own personality traits, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such accounts.  I tend to see these things as stepping stones or entry points for people to explore the ithihaas/culture in more depth.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use