Terror attack in Sri Lanka

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

On 4/25/2019 at 2:31 AM, MisterrSingh said:

Muslims behave when there's a boot on their neck. They fear and respect strength. Nothing else. Their faith is the only thing that matters. Your kindness, understanding, and tolerance will be reciprocated insofar as much as it serves a purpose for the Muslim and doesn't encroach on their beliefs. If there's a choice to be made between the non-Muslim and his religion, there is NO choice! You can be on cordial terms with a Muslim, perhaps even friends, but it's a precarious and conditional relationship. We could live another 1000 years, and fundamentally the Muslim would never change his approach to life. 

There's a devious ploy to differentiate between the moderate Muslim and the extremist, but again it's wilful delusion at best. The moderate Muslim will inwardly rejoice at the same acts that his extremist brethren openly celebrates. The only difference is the former wishes to maintain a facade of cordiality until the final moment, whereas the latter hasn't the patience or the desire to self regulate.

I fear this is brutally honesty. I wish you were wrong , but I know you're perhaps right to a considerable degree in your assessment 

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

On 4/26/2019 at 12:23 AM, dallysingh101 said:

What confuses me is that the original attack on the mosque in NZ was done by someone who was clearly flying the white supremacist flag, but these people (if initial reports of this being a retaliation for the NZ attacks are true)  - attacked a bunch of mainly brown Christians in response?!?!?

 I guess the truth Is that extremists of this type aren't too fussy about who they kill in retaliation. 

 

I kinda think the NZ attack revenge is somewhat credible. And the attack on Sri Lanka might be because they're not a rich or influential country and are lesser likely to retaliate . 

The NZ attack was seen as "done by christians" , hence they felt it appropriate to pay it back to christians . Disgusting and vile mentality. SHocking is most muslims are silent on the attack which says a lot ! 

[BhForce]

On 4/24/2019 at 2:49 PM, Big_Tera said:

It is strange why Sri Lanka would be targeted. Isis usually always refer to the western crusaders. Ie the west america and its allies. 

What I want to know is how the Abrahamics got to Sri Lanka.

Was proselytization quite active during the British rule of Sri Lanka? 

[Ranjeet01]

1 hour ago, BhForce said:

What I want to know is how the Abrahamics got to Sri Lanka.

Was proselytization quite active during the British rule of Sri Lanka? 

Try googling or use Wikipedia 

[BhForce]

15 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Try googling or use Wikipedia 

Seriously, bro? If that's the answer, we might as well just shut this forum down.

[dallysingh101]

On 5/1/2019 at 9:27 AM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I kinda think the NZ attack revenge is somewhat credible. And the attack on Sri Lanka might be because they're not a rich or influential country and are lesser likely to retaliate . 

The NZ attack was seen as "done by christians" , hence they felt it appropriate to pay it back to christians . Disgusting and vile mentality. SHocking is most muslims are silent on the attack which says a lot ! 

Obviously the west is more prepared and has long standing intelligence agencies on the case against the Islamic fundamentalists (not withstanding how they've quietly tolerated them and even probably covertly supported them since the 80s in the UK at least). So I guess it makes strategic sense for the fundos to strike where they are least expected and where the perceived enemy is least prepared. 

Again, to me, it says a lot that such people have chosen a poor, non-white country that (as far as I'm aware) haven't been involved in trying raid arabic countries for their oil to strike back at in retaliation for what a European descended white supremacist did. 

[Ranjeet01]

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

Seriously, bro? If that's the answer, we might as well just shut this forum down.

If you are looking for others to do the basics.

This is a discussion forum.

[puzzled]

On 5/1/2019 at 3:18 AM, proactive said:

Although the news report doesn't mention it, these people are our old friends the Ahmediya Muslims and are refugees from Pakistan. You know the ones who supported the creation of Pakistan and one of whom was the advocate before the Radcliffe commission who wanted the Punjab up to the Satluj to be a part of Pakistan. These obviously don't understand the irony that their people supported the creation of a 'pure' Muslim state where they would be no influence from the non-Muslims 'kafirs' and here they are shamelessly looking for refuge from the same 'kafirs' that they leaders wanted to kick out of Pakistan! I wouldn't shed too many tears over their fate. These people are the main purveyors of the falsehood that Islam is a religion of peace and karma being the <banned word filter activated> it is they find themselves fleeing from their lives from the religion of 'peace' 

Yeah I saw in another video that they are ahmediya.  You know I never understand why some sikhs see them as friends and attend their events and all that stuff. 

These same people claim that guru nanak dev ji was a muslim prophet or something like that, there are videos of it online. I think they believe that the other gurus came and corrupted guru nanaks teachings and made a separate faith. 

These people are snakes.

I once even saw a video of some sikh/Ahmediya event held at a gurdwara somewhere in north America I think, and the ahmdiya man started reciting verses from the quran in the presence of guru granth sahib ji in front of the sangat!  What can be a bigger insult than that! Reading verses from another scripture in guru jis darbar.

And the halfwit sikhs standing there didn't interupt him.

Why do some sikhs bend over for members of certain other faiths like that ?  

I read how in surrey, Canada nagar kirtan the ahmediya had eve set up a stall. 

 

I'm not aware of the ahmediya role in partition, I thought it was mainly the elite muslim families of UP and other northern states that created Pakistan. 

I know that the village qadiyan were their prophet was born is in Amrtisar right next to the border. 

 

[Ranjeet01]

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

Yeah I saw in another video that they are ahmediya.  You know I never understand why some sikhs see them as friends and attend their events and all that stuff. 

These same people claim that guru nanak dev ji was a muslim prophet or something like that, there are videos of it online. I think they believe that the other gurus came and corrupted guru nanaks teachings and made a separate faith. 

These people are snakes.

I once even saw a video of some sikh/Ahmediya event held at a gurdwara somewhere in north America I think, and the ahmdiya man started reciting verses from the quran in the presence of guru granth sahib ji in front of the sangat!  What can be a bigger insult than that! Reading verses from another scripture in guru jis darbar.

And the halfwit sikhs standing there didn't interupt him.

Why do some sikhs bend over for members of certain other faiths like that ?  

I read how in surrey, Canada nagar kirtan the ahmediya had eve set up a stall. 

 

I'm not aware of the ahmediya role in partition, I thought it was mainly the elite muslim families of UP and other northern states that created Pakistan. 

I know that the village qadiyan were their prophet was born is in Amrtisar right next to the border. 

 

Village qadiyan is in Gurdaspur .

Part of the problem is that we Sikhs are in love with idea of Punjabiyat compared to the HPs and the PMs. 

The other 2 communities not so much.

We are the original happy clappy inclusive types which is what you hear about from on the left of centre media.