Are Sikhs addicted to appeasing "others" at their own cost

[dallysingh101]

6 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Treating the injured prisoners of other forces well is the sign of any civilized people. It doesn't really return soldiers back to fight for the enemy so much as protect your forces from degrading themselves with poor behavior and secure a legacy even in the minds of your enemies what a civilized people you are. It does play well in history and help greatly with doplomacy once you're victorious. 

Genghis Khan didn't think like that and was pretty successful.  

[dallysingh101]

7 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

Soldiers felled are  meant to either be dead or prisoners nothing more or less

What about jhatka? 

[GurjantGnostic]

9 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Genghis Khan didn't think like that and was pretty successful.  

And went down in history a barbarian with no empire. 

You can't emulate him for both those reasons. 

[GurjantGnostic]

8 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

What about jhatka? 

Sometimes you gotta Jhatka. 

[dallysingh101]

I was recently reading this account of Sikh conflicts during Sikh raj, and this one fundamentalist 'Syed' who'd kept instigating jeehads against the Sikhs (in NWFP area). Anyway, he was thorn in the Sikh side and they had to continually send forces to quell his 'rebellions'. In the end they quashed him. And do you know what the Sikhs did afterwards: They located his body on the field and then burnt it.   

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

I was recently reading this account of Sikh conflicts during Sikh raj, and this one fundamentalist 'Syed' who'd kept instigating jeehads against the Sikhs (in NWFP area). Anyway, he was thorn in the Sikh side and they had to continually send forces to quell his 'rebellions'. In the end they quashed him. And do you know what the Sikhs did afterwards: They located his body on the field and then burnt it.   

yep that will send a definite message to them that sikhs will send you to jahanum if you mess with them .

[GurjantGnostic]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I was recently reading this account of Sikh conflicts during Sikh raj, and this one fundamentalist 'Syed' who'd kept instigating jeehads against the Sikhs (in NWFP area). Anyway, he was thorn in the Sikh side and they had to continually send forces to quell his 'rebellions'. In the end they quashed him. And do you know what the Sikhs did afterwards: They located his body on the field and then burnt it.   

That's what you do with trash. 

[Guest guest]

On 8/1/2021 at 9:33 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Genghis Khan didn't think like that and was pretty successful.  

we follow Guru Gobind Singh not Genghis Khan.  Who do you follow?

the mongols ended up becoming buddhists in the end.

same with with the roman empire- it fell apart while Jesus's teachings flourished, even though it was based on non-violence.

in the end Dharma alway wins.

[dallysingh101]

11 hours ago, Guest guest said:

we follow Guru Gobind Singh not Genghis Khan.  Who do you follow?

the mongols ended up becoming buddhists in the end.

same with with the roman empire- it fell apart while Jesus's teachings flourished, even though it was based on non-violence.

in the end Dharma alway wins.

I think you missed my point, it was simply regarding the universally accepted definition of 'warrior' - not who I follow. My point was that they don't always follow strict moral codes (like sant-sipahis).  

I have no idea what happened to the Mongols, I know some of their descendants converted to islam and ended up ruling india.  

Dharam needs to be upheld. 

[Premi5]

13 hours ago, Guest guest said:

 

in the end Dharma alway wins.

No it doesn't