Why our freedom movement died out?

[ChardikalaUK]

It's two completely different situations.

The USA is thousands of miles away from Afganistan, it isn't easy for their soldiers to be in such a foreign place or to get supplies. Their citizens don't really care about the war, half the soldiers probably don't either. They didn't get any support from neighbouring countries. Their nearest allies were thousands of miles away as well.

They easily defeated the taliban they just didn't want to waste any more resources. Them pulling out of Afghanistan won't have any major effect on America itself.

With us it was completely different, the Indian army and Punjab Police was fighting on home soil in a place they knew well with well established local bases and supplies. The local populace of Punjab were not all for Khalistan either. 35% of Punjab was Hindu then and probably only half or less of the Sikhs were supporting the militants.The Indian government had a lot more to lose if Khalistam would be founded. Other states would demand similar things and India would break up. Look at Kashmir, the militancy there has been going on for over 30 years but India would never let it go because it would cause chaos in the rest of the country, not to mention the bezti.

 

[MisterrSingh]

38 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

The local populace of Punjab were not all for Khalistan either. 35% of Punjab was Hindu then and probably only half or less of the Sikhs were supporting the militants. The Indian government had a lot more to lose if Khalistam would be founded.

This point continues to rear its head on numerous occasions; it does so because it's the issue that's at the heart of everything.

One would assume our leadership (through parchaar) should've spent the past 40(?) years or so convincing Sikhs In Punjab and around the world WHY we need our own country. Tangible and unambiguous aims and objectives. Maybe even a charm offensive. That should've been the number 1 priority. Get as many Sikhs on-side as humanly possible. Don't alienate anyone, don't allow yourself to fragment into sub-groups within sub-groups, and definitely don't make enemies within the panth itself. That's what a somewhat forward-thinking and smart leadership would've done.

[dallysingh101]

21 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

This point continues to rear its head on numerous occasions; it does so because it's the issue that's at the heart of everything.

One would assume our leadership (through parchaar) should've spent the past 40(?) years or so convincing Sikhs In Punjab and around the world WHY we need our own country. Tangible and unambiguous aims and objectives. Maybe even a charm offensive. That should've been the number 1 priority. Get as many Sikhs on-side as humanly possible. Don't alienate anyone, don't allow yourself to fragment into sub-groups within sub-groups, and definitely don't make enemies within the panth itself. That's what a somewhat forward-thinking and smart leadership would've done.

Why don't you put on your big boy pants and say the 'unsayable'. lol

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

Why don't you put on your big boy pants and say the 'unsayable'. lol

[dallysingh101]

13 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Did you draw that? 

[dallysingh101]

You know what else we need. I'd say a dedicated group of about 2000 men and women, armed with assault rifles, whose primary job is to make sure that every last person studies, so we don't have more blockheads. 

There is no future in us having illiterate or semi-illiterate people, and there is no excuse for it in the 21st century.

A culture of education needs to be encouraged and sustained. It's an embarrassment that we have semi-literate Sikhs in this day and age. Guru ji always encouraged literary pursuits and development. 

We should to stop making this shyte the centre of our culture.  

 

[imhosingh]

It's quite simple why the Taliban types win wars. Soldiers in conventional armies/forces don't want to die. They serve for their pay and pension. Their whole set up is for safety and zero casualties. 

The Taliban WANT to die, they have an unlimited supply of fighters (if western forces get a few casualties their recruitment numbers nose dive), their pension is the afterlife. 

The fact that the Taliban have outlasted the combined forces of the west for 20yrs tells you how much of a 'house of cards' the west's military might is. The USA alone is the most 'powerful' military force ever assembled yet it lost (then add in the forces of the UK, France, Australia, NZ etc). 

If you have no fear of death you are the most formidable opponent for any 'organised' paid for military force. That's why the media etc are so desperate to make you fear death, because then you are a good pleb who obeys 

[GurjantGnostic]

3 hours ago, imhosingh said:

It's quite simple why the Taliban types win wars. Soldiers in conventional armies/forces don't want to die. They serve for their pay and pension. Their whole set up is for safety and zero casualties. 

The Taliban WANT to die, they have an unlimited supply of fighters (if western forces get a few casualties their recruitment numbers nose dive), their pension is the afterlife. 

The fact that the Taliban have outlasted the combined forces of the west for 20yrs tells you how much of a 'house of cards' the west's military might is. The USA alone is the most 'powerful' military force ever assembled yet it lost (then add in the forces of the UK, France, Australia, NZ etc). 

If you have no fear of death you are the most formidable opponent for any 'organised' paid for military force. That's why the media etc are so desperate to make you fear death, because then you are a good pleb who obeys 

United states doesn't do so hot against committed asymetrical forces. Not since it stopped just killing everyone and taking the land permanently anyway. 

[imhosingh]

18 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

United states doesn't do so hot against committed asymetrical forces. Not since it stopped just killing everyone and taking the land permanently anyway. 

The important word you put there is 'committed'. For western soldiers (and most countries). Being a soldier is a job. With the carrot of getting out at the end. Despite all the bravado, the mind is still the most important weapon and if you have soldiers and a heirachy above them who wouldn't die for the 'cause' then they will lose in protracted conflicts.

Why have the Sikh's got shafted so much? Because we have been over generations turned into ' a rse kissers' who do petitions at most and worry more about keeping up with the Jones & Patels.

[PuzzledToo]

22 hours ago, imhosingh said:

It's quite simple why the Taliban types win wars. Soldiers in conventional armies/forces don't want to die. They serve for their pay and pension. Their whole set up is for safety and zero casualties. 

The Taliban WANT to die, they have an unlimited supply of fighters (if western forces get a few casualties their recruitment numbers nose dive), their pension is the afterlife. 

The fact that the Taliban have outlasted the combined forces of the west for 20yrs tells you how much of a 'house of cards' the west's military might is. The USA alone is the most 'powerful' military force ever assembled yet it lost (then add in the forces of the UK, France, Australia, NZ etc). 

If you have no fear of death you are the most formidable opponent for any 'organised' paid for military force. That's why the media etc are so desperate to make you fear death, because then you are a good pleb who obeys 

The "War on Terror" was never meant to be won by the US. It's to further the Globalist goals of certain cabals and for the warmongering corporations to further fleece the American taxpayer. Read 'War is a racket'. https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/butlersd-warisaracket/butlersd-warisaracket-00-h.html

Rest assured, if the US Military and the entire US National Security Apparatus seriously wanted to exterminate those goat fornicators, they would have no problems whatsoever. Their hands were tied from the get go with rigid rules of engagement.