40 Sikh lads defend themselves against Muslim sex predators?

[Captain...]

Of course there is, land is power money is power economy is power it allows you to provide for your country better and it makes you richer, we're doing it to this day blowing the war on terroists out of proportion in order to gain oil. I don't agree with it, the reward is definitley not worth the loss, but it's not completley pointless, going to war over a mythic being is completley pointless.

But nations are just arbitrary/imaginary lines in the ground, money is just numbers we associate value and power to, it is irrelevant when you consider we are all as one, nations just divide us and make us weaker.

Would you support a UK invasion of Ireland to increase its power and strength? As I said defending your own way of life from aggressors is justifiable, but their should be no reason for one country to attack another be it religion, politics or anything.

[leicsmac]

I think now that actually everyone's viewpoints on religion here are actually pretty similar, just being approached from a different angle...and the argument is now continuing for arguments sake or over semantics.

[Manwell Pablo]

But nations are just arbitrary/imaginary lines in the ground, money is just numbers we associate value and power to, it is irrelevant when you consider we are all as one, nations just divide us and make us weaker.

Would you support a UK invasion of Ireland to increase its power and strength? As I said defending your own way of life from aggressors is justifiable, but their should be no reason for one country to attack another be it religion, politics or anything.

And religion is based on a imaginary man in the sky and divides us and makes us weaker and is one the main reasons we are not all at one, making it all very relevant.

No, I quite clearly said I didn't agree with it in my orginal post.

[Manwell Pablo]

I think now that actually everyone's viewpoints on religion are actually pretty similar, just being approached from a different angle...and the argument is now continuing for arguments sake or over semantics.

No mine and yours are.

Admittidly Captain Sharpnel is now arguing for the sake of it as you can see by some of the ridiculous points he's coming out with (1500 years of burning researches no matter how plausible there theories made science stronger......yeah ok)

[leicsmac]

No mine and yours are.

Admittidly Captain Sharpnel is now arguing for the sake of it as you can see by some of the ridiculous points he's coming out with (1500 years of burning researches no matter how plausible there theories made science stronger......yeah ok)

I do agree with a fair bit of what the Cap is saying though...I totally agree with him on individuals using religion to justify atrocities, and that humanity is responsible entirely for what it does to itself. The point about religion helping science immensely was a bit OTT though, I agree. (It has helped, but hindered far more.)

[Captain...]

And religion is based on a imaginary man in the sky and divides us and makes us weaker and is one the main reasons we are not all at one, making it all very relevant.

No, I quite clearly said I didn't agree with it in my orginal post.

But it is completely pointless from a global view point, it is like burning down your neighbours house to make yours look better, but ultimately bringing down the value of the street.

There is no justification for aggressive wars and conflicts, and power and money is no more pointless a reason to invade another country or kill another man than religious beliefs.

[Captain...]

I do agree with a fair bit of what the Cap is saying though...I totally agree with him on individuals using religion to justify atrocities, and that humanity is responsible entirely for what it does to itself. The point about religion helping science immensely was a bit OTT though, I agree. (It has helped, but hindered far more.)

He said it was inarguable, so I argued it, we can't say where we would be now without religion, and saying it is inarguable was just ridiculous.

[Manwell Pablo]

He said it was inarguable, so I argued it, we can't say where we would be now without religion, and saying it is inarguable was just ridiculous.

Of course it's inarguable. If one catholic burns one protestant for being a catholic that person would not have died without organised religion.

That is inarguable.

EDIT: To avoid people being pedantic, they would of lived longer, obviously they would have died eventually, probably in a lot less discomfort than being burnt alive.

[Captain...]

Of course it's inarguable. If one catholic burns one protestant for being a catholic that person would not have died without organised religion.

That is inarguable.

Your point was that without religion we would be further along scientifically than we are now, and that that is inarguable, I argued it, religion formed communities, this is going way back, much further than Christianity, it brought people together and educated and taught people, it brought us forward out of caves and was partly responsible for creating societal rules and giving order to primitive tribes.

Without that we might not be where we are now, we might still be living in caves, my point is making an absolute comment like that is ridiculous, alternatively, science, unfettered by religion could have created abominations, much worse than we know now with the atomic bomb, created an incurable virus and wiped out the whole population of the planet or used up all of our resources much faster and destroyed the planet that way, and we would be nowhere. It is pointless arguing though as we could never hope to know, but it is not inarguable.

[Raw Dykes]

That's not really how it is. But even if it were, watching over us is very possible. You cannot prove otherwise, so science has no answer on the matter. I have created things and I watch over plenty of things, and I'm just a mere speck on a small planet. These arguements are silly and not really anything to do with religion or science.

There are plenty of things that cannot be disproved. The fact that no-one can ever disprove the existence of a god isn't in religion's favour. It's not impressive. The concept of an Abrahamic god is set up to be unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable things can be disregarded without a moment's thought. Extraordinary things require extraordinary evidence. An idea presented without any evidence can be rejected without any evidence.

You cannot disprove Thor, Vishnu, Ra, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., so what makes you think your god is any more real than any of these things?

Who told you that?

The Bible.

Religion teaches us that there are many worlds with lots of life on them. Islam, for example says that there are 18,000 or more worlds, all with lifeforms on them.

Not all of religion teaches that. That's an interesting example, though. However, it's not unlikely that the writer of the Quran realised that they could say whatever they liked about outer space without risking ever being disproved in their own lifetime. Besides, although I think it's likely to be true that there are that many inhabited planets out there, we don't yet know that for sure.

You wouldn't know where to start as you have no understanding of the matter. How many religious texts have you studied?

No. I don't know where to start, because there are far too many questions to ask about such a ludicrous idea. I will try, though.

Imagine you are an omniscient and omnipotent god, and you want to give your people a message. Why would you consider telling just a handful of Bronze Age people? There are so many flaws involved in this method, that it seems like the action of a div.

You're relying on language for one thing. The one language these specific people spoke at this one particular time. How did god expect these people to spread the message as far and wide as possible, when they can't even speak the languages of most the people on the planet? Added to that, languages evolve. They change over time as words fall out of use, new words are invented, and some words have their meaning changed.

I can't think why, but was there any good reason for not telling everyone? Surely any god worth his salt would be able to handle this easily. Instead, we're meant to believe that he tells a few, and wants them to spread the word, at a time when horseback was the quickest way to travel.

If he wanted the message to get to people of all future generations, then why only give the message a few times in the Bronze Age? Why couldn't god foresee the monumental advances we would make after he gave his lectures? Many of us now view the people of the time of the supposed prophets as very primitive simpletons. Those of us who don't really should. Why should we take their word as gospel. In a court of law, any evidence that the Abrahamic religions come up with would be thrown out as hearsay, and rightly so. They expect us to believe wildly extraordinary things, without providing any shred of evidence. There's just no good reason to accept any of it as the truth, and plenty of good reasons to reject it for what it really is - a bunch of ancient myths.

You must know what it's like to believe that a prophet was wrong, whether he was misled, insane or misunderstood. Surely you can't believe Mohammed, Jesus, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, etc. were all correct? What is it that makes you believe any one of them were telling the truth? They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

If every religious person could just apply the same critical thinking skills they use to reject every religion they reject, to the one they don't, then I think we could really make some progress as a species.

I think that you scientists are just a bit jealous of God because you have no clue how to even make a flipping tree or a sheep, let alone the millions of other complex things. All you can do is observe them and try to figure out how they were created. (yes this last sentence mat be a bit silly, but it's just as valid as some of your lots points on religion)

I'm not actually a scientist, but I thank you for the compliment all the same.

It's not possible for me to be jealous of god, as I don't believe such a thing exists.

I don't think created is a good word to use, as it implies there was a creator - something for which there is no evidence. You mentioned trees and sheep - two things that we do know the origins of. Both share a common ancestor. All life on Earth evolved from single-celled organisms. That much we do know. As for the origins of the universe itself, I have to recommend watching this fascinating lecture by Lawrence Krauss...

This might sound a bit condescending, but it's not meant to be. I can see why people jump to the idea of a creator as an explanation for the existence of life and the universe - something so incredible and incredibly difficult to explain and understand. However, the supernatural and the unfalsifiable serve no purpose in our quest to learn about it. They only throw up more questions, like where the creator came from.

Sorry for rambling. i could go on for hours about this.

[Manwell Pablo]

Your point was that without religion we would be further along scientifically than we are now, and that that is inarguable, I argued it, religion formed communities, this is going way back, much further than Christianity, it brought people together and educated and taught people, it brought us forward out of caves and was partly responsible for creating societal rules and giving order to primitive tribes.

Without that we might not be where we are now, we might still be living in caves, my point is making an absolute comment like that is ridiculous, alternatively, science, unfettered by religion could have created abominations, much worse than we know now with the atomic bomb, created an incurable virus and wiped out the whole population of the planet or used up all of our resources much faster and destroyed the planet that way, and we would be nowhere. It is pointless arguing though as we could never hope to know, but it is not inarguable.

Oh we're back to science now are we, change of direction again. Round and round and round we go, just so you know I am stopping soon as it is just pointless with you you get argued down and one point and switch to another, same happens again, and then you revist the first point, go to another, go back to the second....on and on and on and on.

Ancient religion is something completely different (my main axe to grind is with Islam and Christianity and organised relgion) ancient religion is not even a religion as such it is how the primative human perceived the world (i.e big bright sun in the sky, must be god) and ended being as fundementally wrong as any other religion, and it was abandoned and we moved on, if the same could be applied to those two religions we'd save ourselves a lot of bother.

This is another stupid thing to say, what you are describing is impossible, The church has never limited science it has either allowed it to get on with it (mostly) or banned it out right, as it did for 1500 years, and that was because it feared science a viewed as heresey, nothing to do with super virus's.

Of course you can argue it, you can argue anything by talking bollocks, I can sit here and tell you there's a alien outside my window. But when the best you've got is Caveman dancing round the sun, Science being made stronger by being opressed, and a medeval super virus wiping the planet out, I'm afraid you're just backing my statements that it is inarguable up!

[Captain...]

Oh we're back to science now are we, change of direction again. Round and round and round we go, just so you know I am stopping soon as it is just pointless with you you get argued down and one point and switch to another, same happens again, and then you revist the first point, go to another, go back to the second....on and on and on and on.

Ancient religion is something completely different (my main axe to grind is with Islam and Christianity and organised relgion) ancient religion is not even a religion as such it is how the primative human perceived the world (i.e big bright sun in the sky, must be god) and ended being as fundementally wrong as any other religion, and it was abandoned and we moved on, if the same could be applied to those two religions we'd save ourselves a lot of bother.

This is another stupid thing to say, what you are describing is impossible, The church has never limited science it has either allowed it to get on with it (mostly) or banned it out right, as it did for 1500 years, and that was because it feared science a viewed as heresey, nothing to do with super virus's.

Of course you can argue it, you can argue anything by talking bollocks, I can sit here and tell you there's a alien outside my window. But when the best you've got is Caveman dancing round the sun, Science being made stronger by being opressed, and a medeval super virus wiping the planet out, I'm afraid you're just backing my statements that it is inarguable up!

But this is where you need to articulate yourself better, your view has come across as one against all forms of religion, I have said on more than one occasion that I am not defending any particular religion, nor a supporter of one, but I am defending religion as a concept, people's rights to believe in a religion and not have their belief system called into question because of the actions of a few that undermine it, and also the right to have a religious belief.

I do not defend any atrocity done in religion's name, only that the responsibility of that action lies with the person that committed it and not the religion they follow. You may say I have changed my position, but I haven't, my posts have been direct responses to what you have said, you changed it to bring religion vs science, and you claimed that it was inarguable that we would be better off without religion, which is just a ridiculous claim, even if you limit your definition of religion to just Christianity and Islam, and completely unprovable, much like the gods you argue against.

We will and are starting to abandon those religions, but don't be surprised if a new religion takes its place, or another religion comes to the fore like Buddhism or newer religions, and the problems remain but are done under a different name.

[James.]

Not sure how you can reconcile the belief that religion is man made with the idea that religion as a concept is to blame for the world's troubles. If it's man made surely it always comes back to people - the founders, the architects, the messengers, the believers, etc.

[Manwell Pablo]

But this is where you need to articulate yourself better, your view has come across as one against all forms of religion, I have said on more than one occasion that I am not defending any particular religion, nor a supporter of one, but I am defending religion as a concept, people's rights to believe in a religion and not have their belief system called into question because of the actions of a few that undermine it, and also the right to have a religious belief.

I do not defend any atrocity done in religion's name, only that the responsibility of that action lies with the person that committed it and not the religion they follow. You may say I have changed my position, but I haven't, my posts have been direct responses to what you have said, you changed it to bring religion vs science, and you claimed that it was inarguable that we would be better off without religion, which is just a ridiculous claim, even if you limit your definition of religion to just Christianity and Islam, and completely unprovable, much like the gods you argue against.

We will and are starting to abandon those religions, but don't be surprised if a new religion takes its place, or another religion comes to the fore like Buddhism or newer religions, and the problems remain but are done under a different name.

I have no particular axe to grind with Buddishm or even Sikhism as such but they are religions based around lifestyle as oppose to one worshipping an almighty god. I have said organised relgion time and time again, it was in my orginal post. If you cannot remember how an arguement started this is not my issue.

No you haven't changed your position, and I still don't agree with that, some are were forced to follow religion, others were indoctrinated into it, it is easy to say you can make your own choices when you have been environment you have been, in a different place or a different time, you would not have had that liberty.

It is provable, the Church holds back science, we advance very little in a thousand years, church loses power, industrial revolution and progression. If you think 1500 years of opression, burning the greatest minds the country had to offer, and disreagarding fact for fear of loss of power, as not total proof that the church held back science, you're blinkered.

As I've said I have no problem with individual practice of religion, I have my opnions that it is all shit but if people want to believe it fair enough, I'd take no issue at all if all religious types just practiced their religion kept their mouths shut and didn't murder anyone.

[Captain...]

I have no particular axe to grind with Buddishm or even Sikhism as such but they are religions based around lifestyle as oppose to one worshipping an almighty god. I have said organised relgion time and time again, it was in my orginal post. If you cannot remember how an arguement started this is not my issue.

No you haven't changed your position, and I still don't agree with that, some are were forced to follow religion, others were indoctrinated into it, it is easy to say you can make your own choices when you have been environment you have been, in a different place or a different time, you would not have had that liberty.

Forced by men.

It is provable, the Church holds back science, we advance very little in a thousand years, church loses power, industrial revolution and progression. If you think 1500 years of opression, burning the greatest minds the country had to offer, and disreagarding fact for fear of loss of power, as not total proof that the church held back science, you're blinkered.

Yes some religions tried to hold back science, but no you can't say with any certainty that we would be any more of a scientifically advanced position if there was never any religion. (But lets leave that unarguable comment)

As I've said I have no problem with individual practice of religion, I have my opnions that it is all shit but if people want to believe it fair enough, I'd take no issue at all if all religious types just practiced their religion kept their mouths shut and didn't murder anyone.

As long the same applies to non religious people too, I would be happy.

Anyway, it's been fun, but I really should concentrate on work right now.

[Manwell Pablo]

Forced by men.

Yes some religions tried to hold back science, but no you can't say with any certainty that we would be any more of a scientifically advanced position if there was never any religion. (But lets leave that unarguable comment)

As long the same applies to non religious people too, I would be happy.

Anyway, it's been fun, but I really should concentrate on work right now.

Religious men. I don't get this men are to blame arguement, yes they are you're right, they are men, religious men, religious extremist's. Religion is as only as good as it's teachings (it's creators) and the acitons of it's followers.

So you don't think 1500 years of scientific research would have yielded any advancement? Laughable.

I actually have something to do now as well! After this sh1t I'm actually looking forward to it!

[Captain...]

Religious men. I don't get this men are to blame arguement, yes they are you're right, they are men, religious men, religious extremist's. Religion is as only as good as it's teachings (it's creators) and the acitons of it's followers.

So you don't think 1500 years of scientific research would have yielded any advancement? Laughable.

I actually have something to do now as well! After this sh1t I'm actually looking forward to it!

If it was so unenjoyable why did you keep on replying? I stuck in a meeting which is largely irrelevant to me, so I had nothing much better to do.

[Manwell Pablo]

If it was so unenjoyable why did you keep on replying? I stuck in a meeting which is largely irrelevant to me, so I had nothing much better to do.

Because sadly it's a subject I feel quite strongly about!!

I am loading data off the interernet a millon odd rows at a time which leaves quite a lot of spare time sitting around!

I really hope some bastard asks you a question which you can't answer because you haven't been listening!

[Captain...]

Because sadly it's a subject I feel quite strongly about!!

I am loading data off the interernet a millon odd rows at a time which leaves quite a lot of spare time sitting around!

I really hope some bastard asks you a question which you can't answer because you haven't been listening!

Not gonna happen, I've been keeping my wits sharp on here.

[The Doctor]

Not sure how you can reconcile the belief that religion is man made with the idea that religion as a concept is to blame for the world's troubles. If it's man made surely it always comes back to people - the founders, the architects, the messengers, the believers, etc.

I wouldn't say so - you can consider it man-made and still at fault. While it may have been made by people, I'd argue when it's used to justify atrocities then it's fine to suggest that it as a concept is at blame there.

[digitalalba]

Interesting insight into the way the edl see our Sikh community regards this story. The pictures of Wajid Usman Ullah (restaurant owner) and Bharat Modhwadia are in the article but i can't see the 2nd one.

"EDL Supporting The Sikh Community - Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Leicester Magistrates Court has this month been hearing a case involving the alleged sexual exploitation of a 16 year old girl.

Five men have been remanded in custody and one bailed for a total of 22 charges involving child prostitution, human trafficking and paying for sex with a child.

Although the Leicester Mercury didn’t think it worth mentioning, this is clearly another example of a Muslim grooming gang – that much is clear from the names of the accused. The five held on remand are: Aabidali Mubarak Ali, Rakib Iacub, Hamza Imtiazali, Bharat Modhwadia and Wajid Usman Ullah.

Of course, we can hardly expect the paper to mention Islam. So desperate has the press been to exclude any discussion of religion from these kinds of story that they’ve developed an obsession with the term ‘Asian’ (something we’ve discussed before). Not only is this unfair on other ‘Asian’ communities, but it detracts from what many believe to be an important motivating factor in these crimes: the status of women and non-Muslims in Islam.

In this case we have discovered that the victim was, in fact, a local Sikh girl.

Long before she was attacked, the girl’s father, a university lecturer, became concerned that his daughter was associating with the wrong crowd. Eventually, after a number of warning signs, he managed to gain access to her Facebook account,where he immediately uncovered evidence that she was being groomed for sex.

This he took to the police. But to no avail. No action was taken, and despite his repeated efforts, he was ultimately unable to prevent his daughter from being abused. Another young life ruined and a father overcome with anger that he was unable to do more, anger at the perpetrators, but also anger at the police for letting him and his daughter down so badly.

It was with this in mind that Sikh vigilantes attacked the Moghul Durbar restaurant in Leicester, run by one of the defendants, Wajid Usman Ullah. Two men were seriously injured.

British Sikhs have reason to be proud. They come from a noble, loyal, warrior type culture. Their efforts have aided the British armed forces for generations, we recognise this fact and so does our Queen (Sikhs do actually guard over her and the royal family). Sikhs have proved over many generations that they have no problem integrating themselves into British culture. They may be a relatively small minority, but we’re proud that we’ve had the opportunity to stand side-by-side with members of the Sikh community at a number of our past demonstrations.

Sikhs are, of course, no strangers to Muslim aggression. In fact, one of the great heroes of the Sikh religion, Guru Gobind Singh, is remembered as the man who, in the 17th century, fought to free the Sikh and Hindu people from the tyranny of the Muslim Mughal emperors – one the most brutal regimes in history.

When British Sikhs look at their Muslim neighbours they are unlikely to see their ancient oppressors. But what they do see is a community that, despite being plagued with problems, nonetheless believes itself deserving of the respect that the Sikh community has worked hard to earn. What’s worse is that the government also seems to believe that Islam is deserving of our respect, regardless of whether it actually does anything to address segregation, extremism and the scandal of Muslim grooming gangs.

No wonder British Sikhs are frustrated. And when they find themselves the victims of Islamic extremism should we be surprised if they question whether the authorities can be trusted to deal with the problem?

We have misplaced our trust in believing the authorities would deal with Islamic grooming (which incidentally, has gone on for decades). How many times have we found that our children have been groomed, abused, raped and beaten? Would we condemn anyone who defended their children? Of course we shouldn't, and we won't!

Leicester’s Sikhs, as well as the rest of the community, are owed answers as to why the police failed to intervene when presented with compelling evidence of grooming. Without a convincing explanation, we believe that the police officer in charge of the case must be dismissed.

To that end, we call upon Sir Clive Loader, the Police and Crime Commissioner elected by the people of Leicestershire, to investigate what went wrong and prosecute those who are found to have been negligent in their duty of care.

It should not have come to this. How many more atrocities, how many more hate preachers, how many more examples of Islamic separatism and supremacism, how many more grooming gangs before the authorities finally accept the extent of the problem?

How many more young lives have to be ruined before a father can go to the police and expect them to help him protect his daughter?

In the hope that we can bring further attention to this case, and perhaps even encourage further action to address the problem of Muslim grooming gangs, we're issuing this article to:

* Sir Clive Loader, Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire

* Chief Constable Simon Cole, Leicestershire Police

* Jon Ashworth MP (Labour)

* Keith Vaz MP (Labour)

* Liz Kendall MP (Labour)

* Mayor Peter Soulsby

* Sikh Council UK

We the English Defence League are privileged to stand side by side and live among our Sikh brothers and sisters, and we certainly won't condemn them for taking action against those who prey on their children. Our police forces are so heavily politicised they have become impotent, incompetent, and negligent in their duties to apply the law equally and robustly.

We will no longer stand and do nothing, the time for action is now, words and empty promises do not protect our children. It's about time the Muslim community and police forces up and down the country realise this.

Where the police and the Muslim community fail, the EDL and our Sikh brothers and sisters will not!"

[flowwolf]

Many Sikhs of course fought along side the Japanese in the second world war and were used by the Japanese as exicution squads. Many British soldiers died at the hands of these Sikh exicution squads for merely trying to escape. Oh and was it not Indria Ghandi's personal bodyguard ( also Sikhs ) who murdered her in cold blood ?

So what's with the " we " shit . The E.D.L are ignorant low lifes and if the Sikhs know what's best for them they will distance themselves as soon as possible. They are just being used by the E.D.L and are maybe too thick to realse that.

So don't come on here peddling your facist crap it's not welcome.

[digitalalba]

flowwolf, im not sure what you're suggesting. I wasn't promoting the edl, i merely pasted their article because for once its nice to see that what the edl seem to stand for isn't the case in this regard, infact, look at this

"more than a hundred angry Sikhs surrounded a police station in Luton...They had gathered over allegations a local Sikh woman had been abused and raped by a Muslim man...English Defence League members had appeared in solidarity with Sikhs to ask why the police weren't taking firm action." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/03/edl-sikh-men-women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9dpxhCxUU

There is a Sikh against the EDL group, but that doesn't detract away from the 'solidarity' the edl does have with 'hundreds' of Sikh's in Luton atleast. In the first picture in this link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167009/The-far-Right-leader-Sikh-headscarf-disturbing-anti-Muslim-alliance-EDL-joins-protesters-angry-grooming-girls.html the bloke directly talking to the policeman, he stood for police commisionaire for the edl, he's wearing a Sikh headscarf. What white man would be surrounded by many Sikh's (friends?) if he was a racist.

I think where the edle get the racist tag is because you're 'not allowed to expose anything bad about some musims' and unfortunately for the edl, some nutters tag along to their demo's.

[Captain...]

The EDL, by supporting the Sikh's in this case, just shows that they are an organisation that have an agenda against Muslims, my enemy's enemy is my friend and all that.

That article also massively highlights the incompetence of the police (whether you believe it was for fear of upsetting Muslims, or just general incompetence) they should be doing more to investigate claims of this nature.

[Dr The Singh]

Many Sikhs of course fought along side the Japanese in the second world war and were used by the Japanese as exicution squads. Many British soldiers died at the hands of these Sikh exicution squads for merely trying to escape. Oh and was it not Indria Ghandi's personal bodyguard ( also Sikhs ) who murdered her in cold blood ?

So what's with the " we " shit . The E.D.L are ignorant low lifes and if the Sikhs know what's best for them they will distance themselves as soon as possible. They are just being used by the E.D.L and are maybe too thick to realse that.

So don't come on here peddling your facist crap it's not welcome.

I fully support the killing of Indira Gandhi, it was an act protection, that bitch commited the most henious crimes and would have continue to commit them. If she was alive today, and I had it in my power, I would have done what Beant Singh and Satwant Singh did, they are heroes, they sacrificed themselves for the good of the people and saved manny innocent lives.

I have never heard of Sikh execution squads, and cannot find any evidence, in saying that, if your trying to escape, you expect to be shot!!! I would also add many hundreds of thousands more Sikhs faught for the British and were used as 'fodder' and put on the front line to die, not that condoning killing innocent or passive soldiers whether they be Sikh or not.