Jump to content
Sikhi4Ever

Satpal singh of nanak naam - Another wacko LGBTQ liberal freak

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

I have noticed homosexuals and Jews have been on this forum a  red herring here since sometime now

Never mind the Christians changing demography in Punjab and converting sikhs to xianity. 

Again, that's you seeing phenomena that isn't mentioned or even alluded to. Why are you stifling debate and discussion on these issues? How is a Mumbai dweller in such an insular part of the world so clued-up and concerned with issues such as European nationalism and the descent into degeneracy in Western lands? Christianity's attack on Dharmic traditions and Eastern mystical paths (including Sikhi) should be your area of expertise, or at least a subject that you should be bringing to our attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
53 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

There does seem to be an agenda:

First accept homosexuality. 

Then accept transgenders. 

Now it seems paedophilia is being promoted by certain sections of the media.

This'll upset most of us on here, but it's an uncomfortable truth: the first one was, "Accept immigrants." To borrow a brilliant phrase that you coined a few years ago, we were the canaries down the mine, or at least our elders were when the West opened its doors to the Commonwealth nations for assistance in rebuilding Europe after the devastation of WW2. We were step one of the plan.

Again, it's a truth that might be cognitively devastating for some to accept -- it is slightly dehumanising in a way, and the last thing any advanced sentient being wants to acknowledge is they might be viewed as less (by others) than the image they hold of themselves in their own consciousness -- but it's one that must be acknowledged if we're to be honest and proceed with some brand of plan. Guess who campaigned and lobbied for third-world immigrants to be allowed into the White man's hallowed abode, lol? Guess who owned most of the sea-faring ships that brought over most of the Commonwealth workforce who eventually ended up settling here? They won't teach you any of this in schools or write articles about it on the BBC, lol.

We're as much pawns in this game as the homosexuals and other minority interest groups. We don't REALLY matter. We're just buffers, ultimately, and when there's a struggle or a battle, it's the buffers who are the first to feel the onslaught. 

If all we ever see is what's at the end of our collective nose, and the thought of what lays beyond is considered to be too terrifying a prospect to broach, then we'll continue going around in circles, afraid to confront those terrifying and taboo truths that we've deluded ourselves in believing don't exist or at least don't apply to us. Once we allow our thought processes and our conscience to be censored and controlled by someone, I truly believe there is no point to that person's humanity. That's a living death right there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

This'll upset most of us on here, but it's an uncomfortable truth: the first one was, "Accept immigrants." To borrow a brilliant phrase that you coined a few years ago, we were the canaries down the mine, or at least our elders were when the West opened its doors to the Commonwealth nations for assistance in rebuilding Europe after the devastation of WW2. We were step one of the plan.

Again, it's a truth that might be cognitively devastating for some to accept -- it is slightly dehumanising in a way, and the last thing any advanced sentient being wants to acknowledge is they might be viewed as less (by others) than the image they hold of themselves in their own consciousness -- but it's one that must be acknowledged if we're to be honest and proceed with some brand of plan. Guess who campaigned and lobbied for third-world immigrants to be allowed into the White man's hallowed abode, lol? Guess who owned most of the sea-faring ships that brought over most of the Commonwealth workforce who eventually ended up settling here? They won't teach you any of this in schools or write articles about it on the BBC, lol.

We're as much pawns in this game as the homosexuals and other minority interest groups. We don't REALLY matter. We're just buffers, ultimately, and when there's a struggle or a battle, it's the buffers who are the first to feel the onslaught. 

If all we ever see is what's at the end of our collective nose, and the thought of what lays beyond is considered to be too terrifying a prospect to broach, then we'll continue going around in circles, afraid to confront those terrifying and taboo truths that we've deluded ourselves in believing don't exist or at least don't apply to us. Once we allow our thought processes and our conscience to be censored and controlled by someone, I truly believe there is no point to that person's humanity. That's a living death right there.

It's very sad to be manipulated like that, used as a guinea pig for a social experiment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

It's very sad to be manipulated like that, used as a guinea pig for a social experiment. 

The Decline and the Fall of the Roman Empire is a great multi volume work to read in order to understand what we're going through and what's yet to come. It's one of the classic works they teach to the posh kids at private school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look don't get it twisted, we are not supposed to stop anyone following Sikhi, remember Guru Nanak Ji,  helped murders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Redoptics said:

Look don't get it twisted, we are not supposed to stop anyone following Sikhi, remember Guru Nanak Ji,  helped murders. 

।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ। ।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ।

I think you meant Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaaj helped murderers like Sajan Thag.

।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ। ।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ।

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Redoptics said:

Look don't get it twisted, we are not supposed to stop anyone following Sikhi, remember Guru Nanak Ji,  helped murders. 

But dasmesh pita also gave authority to the panth to regulate itself. I think we should definitely drawn the line with paedos and rapists. 

These types of people are also usually sociopaths and psychopaths. They are innately driven to exploit all situations to their advantage and are unable to live by any codes (and they are very devious with it too, they'll portray whatever image required to get in - like RC priests and BBC children programme presenters of the 70s/80s). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2019 at 6:43 PM, dallysingh101 said:

 

Wow. Such sensible views. Its so sad that sensible views are so rare and seem so groundbreaking and intelligent in todays world. 

My favorite quote is Liberal ideas eat themselves. 

But liberals will say children need to know about LGBTQ etc. Because they wont know what they are going through and suffer alone...But schools should not be helping shape the kids political nor moral views. Only morals as far as societal function. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

This'll upset most of us on here, but it's an uncomfortable truth: the first one was, "Accept immigrants." To borrow a brilliant phrase that you coined a few years ago, we were the canaries down the mine, or at least our elders were when the West opened its doors to the Commonwealth nations for assistance in rebuilding Europe after the devastation of WW2. We were step one of the plan.

 

If all we ever see is what's at the end of our collective nose, and the thought of what lays beyond is considered to be too terrifying a prospect to broach, then we'll continue going around in circles, afraid to confront those terrifying and taboo truths that we've deluded ourselves in believing don't exist or at least don't apply to us. Once we allow our thought processes and our conscience to be censored and controlled by someone, I truly believe there is no point to that person's humanity. That's a living death right there.

You are right. But so far, i have only seen our ppl, even the intellectuals and the religious (like satpal singh) echo what is said in wider society. 

Even on this forum, we have the ppl who have the alt-right views like hating feminism, the Jew Question, Racial supremacy, worrying abt birth rates and interracial marriages. 

Or the other end sjw liberals. Who are for gay rights, islam, and open borders. And think sikhi has no racial identity.

Obviously, the righteous path is the middle path which is the most difficult to articulate and get behind. Honestly tho, the alt-right has the most reality based standpoints. And as more and more ppl start following them, we better be ready.

The smartest thing to do would be to use our western advantages and begin relocating to punjab. Atleast have a viable career option and own some land. But dont let land just be empty. And if our migration here was wrong, lets start fixing it before its forced on us. And while we have the option to take advantage. 

The race realism theory, that different races have different IQs is gaining ground. And more ppl seem to be supporting ethnostates. So far its a fringe movement, but with the refugee crisis, more ppl are waking up. 

I really want to see if there is a way for us to thrive without the West. I want to show the world, that sanitation, democracy or at least justice and egalitarianism and scientific advancement are not only white constructs. I think we should move back and #MakePunjabGreatAgain.  

Ofc this is farfetched. But i dont see any other solution. Unless we join in the anti Muslim anti immigrants policies in our current countries. But this has the danger of backlashing onto usAnd toadying up to racists is degrading.  And really hard to get support of all the liberal sikhs.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 12:07 AM, AjeetSingh2019 said:

It is highly irresponsible and ignorant to equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

The former is based on consent, the latter is not and is equivalent to rape.

 

I was listening to a debate with a homosexual. And he admited that pedophilia or at least grooming youngsters is a large part of homosexuality. That older homosexuals initiate younger ones into the lifestyle. And that person themselves was groomed.at age 16 by a  30 yr old catholic priest. He saw nothing wrong with it. Until years later, he had a stepchild who was 16 and realized how young that was and how gross.

And I do commend ur views that religion and homosexuality dont really belong. And  applaud that you chose to live a normal grihsti life. 

If God forbid,  ur child turns out to be gay. What would you recommend that child, what would u do differently. What do u think a just and fair society would for gays look like? And do u think its possible to cure gays, do u think is a mental issue or a choice?

Sorry if anything i said was offensive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2019 at 6:02 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Look, I don't condone throwing gay people off buildings or whatever. I've met plenty of gay/bisexual guys over the years who seem to be decent blokes compared to a helluva lot of hetrosexuals. So it's not about hating gays at all (I don't), it's just trying to have clear moorings for Sikh society.

I actually have empathy with regard to them being born that way. .  

But I do point a judgemental finger at some parents though,  who I believe should have picked up things about their son's sexuality earlier on, and maybe not push them to be so 

Spot on. There are 2 young sikh guys in our gurudwara who fit this criteria. 1 always hangs out with women, is in the kitchen  and does all the baking, acts like a women, laughs girly and everything. . And other sikhs make fun of him and exclude him. All our dastardhari. And i do feel sorry for him. He is more giggly and smily then most girls. And he is supposed to represent the warrior-khalsa image? 

So i think ur point that its on the parents not to push kids too much is right. But then we have to rewire some misconceptions that have come up. Now taking Amrit is seen as taking on a Guru. Which SGGS talks about is important. However, I think in the past we had sehajdharis and the khalsa. And the sehajdharis were just as spiritual. 

However, even if we reinstate the sehajdhari concept. Lots of problems remain. 

1. Will we allow sehajdharis to then be openly homosexual?

2. Most ppl will want to take the sehajdhari, easy way out and amritdharis will decrease if we say spiritually they r equal. (It happened to nuns, when pope declared nuns were no more special or closer to God then normal catholics, nun became obsolete almost)....we can counter that with the cool warrior image ofc

3. There is no structure to sehajdhari lifestyle. It has been lost. We dont know how to dharan a guru, without amrit sinchaar. If this ever existed. 

Or another way to solve this problem. Without bringing up the sehajdhari controversy is to have an age limit or age of consent of amrit sinchaar. It doesnt have to be law, or amendment in rehit maryade, as there will be exceptions. Like spiritual roohs who have taken birth jist to get amrit. We can just make it a cultural taboo. Like no taking amrit before age 15 or 20 or until u r married. I think most ppl in the past used to take amrit right before their anand karaj. Or make it a requirement that u must have studied this or done this amount of paath. Or just have intelligent panj pyare who judge on each case. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Wow. Such sensible views. Its so sad that sensible views are so rare and seem so groundbreaking and intelligent in todays world. 

My favorite quote is Liberal ideas eat themselves. 

But liberals will say children need to know about LGBTQ etc. Because they wont know what they are going through and suffer alone...But schools should not be helping shape the kids political nor moral views. Only morals as far as societal function. 

This liberal word is a container word.

If anything these "liberals" aren't really liberal, they are authoritarian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Ofc this is farfetched. But i dont see any other solution. Unless we join in the anti Muslim anti immigrants policies in our current countries. But this has the danger of backlashing onto usAnd toadying up to racists is degrading.  And really hard to get support of all the liberal sikhs.

 

Lots of great points but this in particular I feel is valid. There needs to be a middle path that acknowledges the myriad dangers ahead if we are to align ourselves with suicidal social and political policies spearheaded by the ruling classes. The answer is not in aligning ourselves with the racists, the homophobes, or whatever else. The answer also doesn't reside on the side of those who wish to structure society according to their deluded worldview of so-called tolerance of the intolerable (whereby the definitions of what's "good" seems to shift further and further beyond the realms of acceptability).

But Sikhs in the West are mentally weak. The susceptibility to what's popular and pleading to one's biases (which are ironically a result of social programming from childhood) and what happens to be the prevailing mood of like-minded people, will always win out over the difficult path of striking out on a fresh path that rejects the current status quo of both sides. Sikhs are incapable of overcoming their herd programming which is further confounded by the emotion based indoctrination of our host countries. Our "follower" mentality will prove to be our downfall in these foreign lands. Thankfully, those of us with nothing to lose are the ones most likely to stumble across that third path. The rest are tied down by so many material and non-material binds that realisation and subsequent escape is a mental and physical impossibility. Adherence to religion of itself without a constant conscious driving desire of external discovery and self realisation is a hollow pursuit. Simply believing in something isn't enough. One must also exist in pursuit of constantly actualising those tenets in practical ways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

But dasmesh pita also gave authority to the panth to regulate itself. I think we should definitely drawn the line with paedos and rapists. 

These types of people are also usually sociopaths and psychopaths. They are innately driven to exploit all situations to their advantage and are unable to live by any codes (and they are very devious with it too, they'll portray whatever image required to get in - like RC priests and BBC children programme presenters of the 70s/80s). 

 

I think the point is anyone can reform,  however that means leaving you past and move forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Redoptics said:

I think the point is anyone can reform,  however that means leaving you past and move forward. 

Let's make a practical example of it:  Would you personally be okay with someone who has been convicted of grooming and paedophilia say 15 years previously - who claims he is now no longer thus inclined - being around children in your own family? 

And I'm not being some closeted puppoo neither. I grew up in an area in a time where lots of guys around me went to prison (for violent offences or other hustling type money making), so it's not like I'm in some lala land about life. I've seen some of these become family men in later life (not all), but there is something about sexual predators that seems hardwired. They are heavily opportunistic and devious like I said previously.  

I think, given all the rampant grooming and stuff that has been going on, we need to be extra careful to protect our community or we fail in our basic obligations as men. Forgiveness is a good thing, but there are limits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The US are only the in Syria region because they had their arms twisted to get rid of ISIS. The reason? Because Russia was there doing that job. Russia was good buddies with Asad's regime and they are allied with Iran. USA are not on good terms with Iranian regime and wants to get rid of them. Asad is Druze (they are a Shia sect) and this minority rules Syria which has a Sunni majority as well as your regular Shias and Christians. There is no way that the US wants Iran to have influence in the region. Lebanon has a very large Shia  population,  that is where Hezbollah come from and they have traditionally allied with Syria regime and Iran (Shia boys united). Hezbollah rule South Lebanon and have given Israel loads of grief in the past. Saudi cannot stand Iran and they don't like Syria. They want to play a part in dismantling Iran's influence. ISIS has had a lot of their insurgents from Saudi, they want to get rid of Asad. Iran in turn supports the Houti rebels (Shias in Yemen) and Shia majority areas in Saudi which is coincidently where Saudi's oil fields are based. Iraq which is now run by Shia's in the south and Kurds in the north. Saddam Hussain was Sunni and the Iraqi Sunni are no longer in power.  That is where a lot of ISIS support comes from as well as Saudi and as well as Turkey who also hate Syria. They think Israel is complicit in this as they all have common interests.  So you have Syrian regime + Iran + Hezbollah + Yemeni Houthis + Iraqi Shias + Russia vs Saudi+ Israel + Turkey. Turkey has been growing it's Islamic ness in the last few decades and with Erdogan are flexing their muscles, they want to be Ottomans again. The Ottoman Empire controlled large parts of the Middle East and controlled Mecca and Medina, Islam's holy sites. Iraq is controlled in the north by the Kurds. Kurds are not Arabs, they are an Iranian speaking people. It is a de-facto Kurdish republic. The pisses off the Turks because they do not want their Kurds in Turkey to get any ideas. Also there is a lot of oil in the Kurdish controlled Iraq. With instability in Syria and the Asad regime not being in total control, it means that there is a vacuum in power. It stands to reason that the Kurds in Syria will fight back against ISIS and it stands to reason that the Kurds in Iraq will support them. So you end up with two Kurdish controlled regions. One in Iraq and one in Syria. The Turks are s****** themselves. What happens if these two regions become one breakaway country? They have oil too. The Kurds in Turkey will want to breakaway. (The govt in Turkey don't like calling the Kurds Kurds, they want to call them Mountain Turks.) The only thing they don't have is the pipelines to export it. That is why Turkey was interested,  they can control that area and build oil pipelines to the Mediterranean so they can export the oil. Erdogan's family is complicit in the traffiking of the oil supplies. Turkey's Turk population is experiencing a serious decline, the Kurds have a higher birth rate therefore the Turks are scared that the Kurds may become a majority.  What I have explained so far is far too simple and it goes beyond even that.
    • Here is some history about the Ottomans. They were a turkic people like the Mughals.  Like the Mughals who bred with Rajput women, the Ottomans did the same with the locally conquered women: https://www.thoughtco.com/ottoman-sultans-were-not-very-turkish-195760
    • Thread from an Albanian friend of mine (Albania is a formerly part of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans) so he has far better understanding than I ever will.
      There are aspects that can be related to our people and the history of partition (but this guy does not like Greeks or Turks very much), but I suspect if you ask a Greek he may have different point of view:


       Okay thread.

      Topic:

      TURKEY HAS "LEGAL RIGHT" TO ETHNIC CLEANSE THE KURDS.

      Not a joke.

      1/

       During the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, ethnic groups were spread out across the empire.

      Once ethnic states started to appear with the creation of Greece by Germans in 1827, a chain reaction ensued across Ottoman Rumelia (aka Land of Romans), the mess started.

      2/
       Long story short, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey etc were created over the course of 100 years from the Roman Revolution in 1822, now known as the Greek Revolution.

      3/ During these 100 years, from 1822 to 1923, (literally 101 years), was to find a way to pinpoint all borders in order to avoid ethnic conflicts, within each new ethnic state multiple ethnicities resided, which itself had multiple religions, which was normal for the ottomans.

      4/
       There were Orthodox Greeks and Muslim Greeks, orthodox bulgarians and muslim bulgarians, orthodox serbs and muslim serbs, orthodox albanians and muslim albanians, orthodox turks and muslim turks.

      And all were spread UNEVENLY across the collapsing empire.

      5/
       In the meantime what we now call Western Europe, was going through an ethnic consolidation as well, as German elite was trying to create Unified Germany, which they achieved in 1871, excluding the Austrians, who refused to be Germans.

      6/ Long story short, by late 1870s onward, Ottoman elite was getting together with the western elite, aka Big Powers, to solve the mess.

      It started with Congress of Berlin in 1878, then Treaty of London in 1913, it ended with Lausanne Treaty in 1923.

      7/ During these years, Balkan Wars occurred and the weakest links were sacrificed to achieve some kind of managed peace in the Balkans.

      It started with Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the unified Germany declaring:

      "The Albanian nation does NOT exist".

      8/
       So, the only way to find any solution was to assert that X nation does NOT exist at all or does not exist in X area, there was no other way.

      9/
       So, that is what they did.

      What is now called Greece, it used to be a mixture of Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Vlachs (Romanians) and Turks.

      Baaaaam, nobody else exists, only Greeks. Decision made.

      10/
       The only reason that Albanians now exist, is because at last moment a Hungarian prince raised the issue with the Austro-Hungarian emperor, that if Albanians do not exist, then Serbia/Russia would have access to the Adriatic.

      The Emperor freaked out. Albanians exist he said.

      11/
       Long story short, after 101 years, all comes down to the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 between Greece and Turkey.

      12/
       In the Lausanne Treaty, it was codified the practice of deciding whether a nation exists or not.

      Venizellos and Mustafa Kemal, one orthodox greek and the other muslim greek (Ataturk spoke greek fluently), simply decided that any orthodox was Greek and any muslim was Turk.

      13/
       So, within Greece, per Lausanne Treaty now codified as international treaty supported by big powers, all orthodox were forced to be hellenized, all albanians, bulgarians, vlachs and turks.

      14/
       Per the treaty as well, codified as international law, anybody inside Turkey, whether turks, greek, albanian, bulgarian, or ....KURDISH, simply did not exist, there were only Turks in Turkey.

      15/
       Hence per the treaty, anybody had to be Turkified, like in Greece anybody had to be hellenized.

      The problem here, and I understood this by reading Taleb saying "scale matters", the problem is that it takes long time to Hellenize and Turkify large populations.

      16/
       Based on past practice now codified in international law, Greece and Turkey intensified now openly what they say "population exchange", which was LEGAL MUTUAL ETHNIC CLEANSING, now codified in international law.

      17/ Greece, per the law, ethnic cleansed all muslims from Greece, except for the ones in Thrace, which was part of the treaty.
        Turkey per the law ethnic cleansed all orthodox from Turkey, except the ones in Constantinople, which was part of the treaty, they moved to Greece. 18/ These ethnic cleansing did not happen instantly, it took decades to be completed, literally decades. In 1945, Greece ethnic cleansed "muslims" from Chameria per the Lausanne Treaty, they were all Albanians. 19/ Yugoslavia, made a deal with Turkey in the 1960s to have about 400k "muslims" moved to Turkey. The offer from Ankara was 1 horse for 3 muslims (no joke, as they were all Albanians). The serbs replied: take them all for free, as long as all albanians leave. 20/ The tricky part of this one is that Turkey wanted these 400k Albanians to displace the Kurds in East Turkey. Of course Albanians refused, they settle in West Turkey. So, the plan to ethnic cleanse the Kurds by use of Albanians, failed. 21/ In 1999 Abdullah Ocalan, Kurdish fighter against Turkey was arrested in Kenya after the Greek government delivered him into the hands of the Turkish gov, fully complying with the Lausanne Treaty. 22/ So, as you see, it is Turkey's right legally, per lausanne treaty, to ethnic cleanse the Kurds. 23/ The only difference here is USA. USA does NOT recognize international treaties which come against its interest, it is in the US constitution. Hence, USA disregarded the Treaty of London of 1913 giving Kosovo to Yugoslavia, simply invaded KS away from Serbia. 24/ USA is disregarding Lausanne Treaty as well now, by organizing the Kurds together against Turkey. It takes time, but they will do it, as Turkey is now basically an enemy. 
      Give it 20-25 years, just like with Kosovo. 25/ END  
       
    • Erdogan in June 2015:

      “I’m addressing the whole world. Whatever the cost it might be, we will never allow a state established in Northern Syria”

      Why does he not want a Kurdish state in Northern Syria? I know why, does anybody know why?
    • What caste pride do I have? Only Juts have caste pride? Let's get back to the question of Kurds. Instead of looking at the situation from the filter of only British colonialism and caste, what do you actually understand about the whole situation of the Kurds in it's entirety? Do you understand the history of the Kurds, their relationship with the Ottoman Empire, their role in exterminating the Armenians from Eastern Anatolia (1915 genocide) the carving up of former Ottoman lands (sandjuks) in the picot sykes agreement. The effect of the Lausanne Treaty between Greece and Turkey. The role of the Young Turks and Ataturk. The relationships of the Kurds in the 4 countries I have mentioned with Shias/Sunni Arabs/Turks in those respective countries. The relationships and groups within those Kurdish groups, the demographic changes in Turkey. The effect of Erdogan and his family's relationship with the intention of supporting ISIS so that the gas/oil pipelines can be transmitted through Turkey. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are whole geopolitical implications here that involve Iran, Iraq, Eastern Med, Russia, parts of the caucuses, even parts of the Balkans are impacted. It is very complex and far more nuanced. Compared to that, subcontinental politics is a picnic. You'd be really shocked to see the level of hatred between these people. A real eye opener. You might make some synergies with struggles of our panth with the Kurds but that is an over-simplification.  If you want to do rajniti, you have to understand everything in it's entirety and not what suits us.      
×

Important Information

Terms of Use