Muslim Friend Wants To Become A Sikh But She Has Questions

[dallysingh101]

There are too many competing forces - individually and collectively - in opposition to each other for any concerted action to have a positive affect.

That's too pessimistic. Open yourself up to possibilities.

[Quantavius]

Make a quick buck out of fools like me a century after he'd already died [ the memoirs were first published in 1968)? Haha boy you are stupid. You're consumed by your cynicism LOL. This source has plenty of veracity. Quit refusing to believe it just because you're worried it will ruin your whitey wet dreams.

Besides that, I also never said it was East India Company policy, yet another one of your baseless inferences. It was just something some psycho soldiers did from time to time. We wouldn't know half the things we do about the history of the Sikh Empire if not for British accounts and reports, Sikhs were very bad at recording events.

Dear dufus,

Do you think that that the proceeds of the sales of that memoir is going to charity? Are you really this big a 'low iq pendu' ? I hope you realize that someone is making money and they're making it out of fools like you. Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber...LOL!!!

You didn't said it was East India Company's policy but you did say 'soldiers' which is in the plural. What did you mean by that if it was not an attack on the British? Again, no proof, no evidence, just outright lies and denial. Disgraceful behavior for a Sikh.

There are several historical accounts in existence, penned by the white troops of the East India Company, which inform us that British soldiers had a twisted fondness forscalping dead Sikhs in order to make black helmet plumes out of their sacred kes. That's not respect Quantavius. It was nothing less than the ultimate expression of contempt for our people and our faith by British Imperialists. They wore Sikh remains as f4ck1ng trophies for God's sake.

And I bet, should you choose to reply to this, that you'll mount an impassioned defence of this humiliating subjugation of our forefathers! I've never encountered such an angrezi chamcha in all my life, LOL

[Quantavius]

He was predicted to win Iowa yet still lost, you're not very intelligent I presume.

Do you feel stupid now that he (Trump) has won NH, SC and NV? And that too with 45% Latino voters in NV! So much for Dems having a lock on Latino voters.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Do you feel stupid now that he (Trump) has won NH, SC and NV? And that too with 45% Latino voters in NV! So much for Dems having a lock on Latino voters.

He only won by a plurality. If it was one-on-one he would clearly lose, (something you really can't comprehend).

[Quantavius]

He only won by a plurality. If it was one-on-one he would clearly lose, (something you really can't comprehend).

It is irrelevant how he won. You were wrong earlier. Stop making a fool out of yourself already or does it come naturally. LOL!

[Guest Jacfsing2]

It is irrelevant how he won. You were wrong earlier. Stop making a fool out of yourself already or does it come naturally. LOL!

Do you not know anything about American politics? The Republican primary, (if Trump doesn't win the MAJORITY will go to a brokered convention). If Bernie Sanders doesn't beat Clinton by a landslide, the Democrats will decide through SuperDelegates. The only one making a fool here is you, if neither Sanders or Trump win big, it will be Clinton v.s. Rubio v.s Bloomberg!

[Quantavius]

Do you not know anything about American politics? The Republican primary, (if Trump doesn't win the MAJORITY will go to a brokered convention). If Bernie Sanders doesn't beat Clinton by a landslide, the Democrats will decide through SuperDelegates. The only one making a fool here is you, if neither Sanders or Trump win big, it will be Clinton v.s. Rubio v.s Bloomberg!

I already know that silly fool. You earlier claimed since he lost Iowa and he will be on his way out. But instead he won NH, SC and NV. So in effect, you were wrong.

Your words from page 6 of this thread

Trump would be ok to an extent; however, he has no real chance of getting elected, (the man lost to Ted Cruz in a very religious state), also he's too old. (We need someone young like Ted Cruz).

You were WRONG.

BTW, why are you talking about brokered convention when the caucus has only begun in 4 states? Stick to the topic at hand.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

I already know that silly fool. You earlier claimed since he lost Iowa and he will be on his way out. But instead he won NH, SC and NV. So in effect, you were wrong.

Your words from page 6 of this thread

Trump would be ok to an extent; however, he has no real chance of getting elected, (the man lost to Ted Cruz in a very religious state), also he's too old. (We need someone young like Ted Cruz).

You were WRONG.

BTW, why are you talking about brokered convention when the caucus has only begun in 4 states? Stick to the topic at hand.

Is all you can do is insult people?

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

I honestly believe Saddam Hussein had to be taken down; however, I do feel that the western nations should've left as soon as Saddam Hussein was prosecuted and executed. Also I don't believe in your last paragraph at all, but something to note is if Iraq didn't have oil nobody would bother taking down their tyrannical government, (it's why North Korea still exists).

I honestly believe Bush and admin staff expected to be out of there asap. But the Coalition Provisional Authority they had was very, well basically dumb, and they made mistake after mistake. De-baathififation being one of those mistakes. Iraq got more and more chaotic and they got drawn into a long war.

As for the Oil theory, perhaps it escapes my understanding, but the biggest benefactors of Iraqi oil were Russian and Chinese companies, after the removal of Saddam. It can also be shown that US imports of Iraqi oil didnt increase. So while I dont believe US wanted to steal Iraqi oil, Im sure there could be other oil related reasons.

[JagsawSingh]

I honestly believe Bush and admin staff expected to be out of there asap. But the Coalition Provisional Authority they had was very, well basically dumb, and they made mistake after mistake. De-baathififation being one of those mistakes. Iraq got more and more chaotic and they got drawn into a long war.

All our governments are dumb too and they're still making "mistake after mistake". I mean lets just look at the way they went after President Assad in Syria. He's an Alawaite so obviously not a real Muslim and so, if our govts had any sense, they would have realised that ths anti-islamic fundamentalist leader is actually on our side. But Isreal calls the shots. Isreal shapes the UK / US foreign policy

Just as they would have, if they had aany sense, realised that Saaddam Hussain, as a baathist, was anti-Muslim fundamentalist. But Isreal calls the shots. Isreal shapes the UK / US foreign policy

Just as they should right now, realise that the Islamic terrorists hate Shia Iran more than it does anyone else and has been killing them more than anyone else and so Iran is 100% anti-Muslim fundamentalist. But isreal calls the shots. Isreal shapes the UK / US foreign policy

Just as in the 70's, 80's and 90's our govts, if they had any sense, would have realised that yasser arafat's PLO was 50% christian arab and 50% hard drinking fun loving muslims and so very anti-Muslim fundamentalist and so on our side. But Isreal calls the shots. Isreal shapes the UK / US foreign policy.

A child learns from his or her mistakes. Our governments never do. They go from committing one mistake to committing the same mistake all over again somewhere else. But, the govt is elected by the people and the people get the type of government they deserve. We are all idiots. We're getting the type of governments our idiocy deserves.