Jump to content

Muslim upset Sikh cabbies giving free rides to Manchester victims?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Further proof that the western liberal media are no friends of Sikhs: Cosmo knowingly and deliberately removed reference to the fact that the taxi driver offering free lifts was a Sikh, in o

Sikh24 reported that Gurdwaras were opening their doors to Manchester jihadi attack victims, and also Sikh cabbies were giving free rides to victims. No biggie, right? Wrong. It seems that at least so

Liked. Amazing how "journalists" feel free to just brazenly lie about people who they don't happen to favor.

Btw, Miss ShazU_91 is upset that Katie Hopkins' kids don't want to die in a bomb blast:

Shaz  🥀Retweeted Katie Hopkins

Maybe you need to let your kids be kids then. Horse face c*nt

Shaz  🥀added,

Katie HopkinsVerified account @KTHopkins
My children say they would rather be shot than die slowly by nail bomb. This is the UK today. #ManchesterArena
0 replies1 retweet4 likes
 
 
May I point out that most people would prefer a quick death to bleeding out slowly and painfully? ShazU is upset that somebody wouldn't want to be the recipient of one of her radical Islamist brothers' nail bombs.
 
Amazing how hard-core non-practicing Muslims can be. It seems to me that most of our non-practicing Sikh girls would never stand up for Sikh issues like Miss ShazU_91. Can anyone explain this?
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful of the likes of Alex Jones and his mates. They're into loopy conspiracy theories. Whilst there might be an unimaginable, all-encompassing conspiracy at play behind the scenes, unfortunately the average man and woman can only operate in an environment that deals with provable facts, even if those facts have been compromised. I'm not suggesting the likes of Jones don't present nuggets of truth here and there, but Sikhs should always seek the uncomfortable, unfiltered truth regardless of affiliations and biases, and not the Chinese Whispers version of the truth from parties with vested interests. Be confident in yourselves as individuals and thinking entities, so that you don't feel to compelled to hitch your wagon to a cause or a particular side that presents elements of reality and truth in amongst a whole host of falsehoods. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Do you have any Youtube links for this? Or keywords or journalist names?

I think it's quite tough getting Canadian media personalities on our side just because of the whole Air India tragedy. Of course, it's difficult to know the truth because the CSIS destroyed the evidence. Very convenient.

Not all Rebel Media personalities are anti-Sikh. For example, here's Gavin McInnes being interviewed by talkshow host Alex Jones:

Gavin McInnes says Sikhs are people who fought against Islam. Against oppression.
Their raison d'etre is helping the oppressed. Totally compatible with the West. Host Alex Jones then agrees and says yes, we don't care if you have brown skin.

There was a story on a drunk Sikh driver who used an excuse about this turban in court and the jewish owned rebel media really attacked him in a way that gave me the impression they attacking the Sikh identity and Canadian Sikhs as a whole.

https://www.therebel.media/sikh_drunk_driver_let_off_because_his_feelings_were_hurt

But yes the indian government arranged and conducted 1985 air india tragedy plays a huge part in the anti-sikh narrative in Canada its still paying dividends 30+years on even thought both the complicit deep state canadian/indian governments know they helped do it. Alot of evil indian nationalist right wing hindus comment in the youtube link about defaming Sikhs, killing Sikhs and saying deport Sikhs,etc. When rebel media created negative stories about Hindus the hindu commentor's didnt like it and started to bash the canadians.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, genie said:

Most muslims even if they are not pracitising or seem quite liberal and westernised are very defensive of Islam and muslims even if they know their fellow muslims are in the wrong be it muslim pedo grooming gangs or muslim terrorists attacking innocent civilians. Because they have been brought up in a strong muslim culture which they are fond of and brainwashed to believe that the ummah the muslim community is one body and to speak against another muslim in favor of a non-muslim is a huge crime and sin in islam, they are taught to conceal the sin rather than expose it to others and the world. So It's an unspoken taboo and so you see this kinda behaviour from even seemingly secular liberal westernised muslims.

I wish we could have such pro-Panthic feeling amongst all of Sikhs, even the ones less strong in Rehit.

What  some Sikhs say when the question of girls falling for Muslims comes up is that we Sikhs yell at our daughters too much and don't put them at an equal level with boys, restrict our girls, and let boys do anything. Uhmm, just one question: Don't Muslims do the same exact thing? So how can you say our girls are weak because we restrict them too much?!

  • Like 2
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