Paris Shooting

[Dr The Singh]

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

All over the world there's religious massacres, you only have to look at the largest democracy in the world, India and see the type of religious terrorism and state terrorism it applies.

The fact that the west ignore it, cus of trade ££, shows the fact the governments are ****ed up

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

All over the world there's religious massacres, you only have to look at the largest democracy in the world, India and see the type of religious terrorism and state terrorism it applies.

The fact that the west ignore it, cus of trade ££, shows the fact the governments are ****ed up

[johnny the fox]

All over the world there's religious massacres, you only have to look at the largest democracy in the world, India and see the type of religious terrorism and state terrorism it applies.

The fact that the west ignore it, cus of trade ££, shows the fact the governments are ****ed up

All over the world there's religious massacres, you only have to look at the largest democracy in the world, India and see the type of religious terrorism and state terrorism it applies.

The fact that the west ignore it, cus of trade ££, shows the fact the governments are ****ed up

Pakistan was formed after WW2 because of  religious violence and the threat of India imploding because of it.

[Dr The Singh]

Pakistan was formed after WW2 because of religious violence and the threat of India imploding because of it.

Pakistan was formed because Britian was broke, weak and could not sustain India. Britain then decided to broker a deal with the Indian leaders for several billions. Britian needed the money ASAP, Mountbatten was given 2 months to get the deal done. All of India's leaders including the Muslim, Sikhs, Dalits etc all started putting there 2 pence piece for negotiations. That's when agitations began, black mailing each other for there cake with violence. Nehru, Gandhi etc were desperate for a deal, fearing Brits would never leave, gave into the partition deal. They made promises to Sikhs, hyderabad, and Kashmir, which after they never kept.

India never really won it's freedom it brought it. The funny thing is Pakistan stuck 2 fingers up at the Brits to pay its share, and Gandhi/Nehru fearing reprisals, paid it for them

[johnny the fox]

Pakistan was formed because Britian was broke, weak and could not sustain India. Britain then decided to broker a deal with the Indian leaders for several billions. Britian needed the money ASAP, Mountbatten was given 2 months to get the deal done. All of India's leaders including the Muslim, Sikhs, Dalits etc all started putting there 2 pence piece for negotiations. That's when agitations began, black mailing each other for there cake with violence. Nehru, Gandhi etc were desperate for a deal, fearing Brits would never leave, gave into the partition deal. They made promises to Sikhs, hyderabad, and Kashmir, which after they never kept.

India never really won it's freedom it brought it. The funny thing is Pakistan stuck 2 fingers up at the Brits to pay its share, and Gandhi/Nehru fearing reprisals, paid it for them

so the fact that pakistan was set up as a muslim state through partition is irrelevant? mmmmm 

[Dr The Singh]

so the fact that pakistan was set up as a muslim state through partition is irrelevant? mmmmm

Sorry Johny I don't quite understand the question. But I will add The 3 main political parties during this period were Congress, who portrayed themselves as a secular party (which is bull), majority Hindu party, BJP was a Hindu nationalist party, and Muslim League. Muslim League, being a minority group pushed for a separate Islamic state, it's fair to say Muslims were treated in many places as second class citizen, and lived in poverty and distrusted there Hindu counterparts and rightfully so.

What I'm describing to you is very simplified but it was the sale of India and the administration of that caused The formation of 2 Islamic States, Pakistan, Bagladesh and 1 Hindu nation, Hindustan. Kashmir Became a independent nation, Hyderabad also became a independent nation. Sikhs were offered an iNdependant state of pUnjab within this new union state of India. It's fair to say during this period and post, the action of both Hindustan and Muslim league/Pakistan was attrocious

It's right to say, Pakistan during it's formation ethnic cleansed anyone that wasn't, and the hardline element has been part of there history since

[1993fox]

Sorry Johny I don't quite understand the question. But I will add The 3 main political parties during this period were Congress, who portrayed themselves as a secular party (which is bull), majority Hindu party, BJP was a Hindu nationalist party, and Muslim League. Muslim League, being a minority group pushed for a separate Islamic state, it's fair to say Muslims were treated in many places as second class citizen, and lived in poverty and distrusted there Hindu counterparts and rightfully so.

What I'm describing to you is very simplified but it was the sale of India and the administration of that caused The formation of 2 Islamic States, Pakistan, Bagladesh and 1 Hindu nation, Hindustan. Kashmir Became a independent nation, Hyderabad also became a independent nation. Sikhs were offered an iNdependant state of pUnjab within this new union state of India. It's fair to say during this period and post, the action of both Hindustan and Muslim league/Pakistan was attrocious

It's right to say, Pakistan during it's formation ethnic cleansed anyone that wasn't, and the hardline element has been part of there history since

 

Mostly bull here

 

To say Congress isn't the most pseudo-secular party that has ever existed discredits anything you say. Don't bring up 1984 to try paint Congress as a Hindu party because Muslims and Christians will gladly contest that title for themselves - it was circumstantial that Congress was in power during a time that a Prime Minister was killed by Sikhs. Congress has laid off majority interests since day 1. 

 

You forget that Sikhs and Hindus in Sindh (such as my family) and Punjab were also treated as second class citizens. You seem to favour painting Hindus as the only oppressors of the region - even as a Sikh I find this risible. Anyone belonging to a Dharmic religion was second class west of Gujarat and east of Bengal by the majority Muslims.

 

I don't want to argue with a fellow Sikh but the contradictions in your post are just so nonsensical I feel the need to call you out on spreading misinformation. You imply Hindus were the only oppressors in the region and then admit Pakistan religiously cleansed non-Muslims. Then you say Sikhs were offered an independent state of Punjab 'within India' (you what?) followed by saying India and Pakistan are to blame for this not happening (?). 

 

Also, BJP didn't even exist in 1947 so I don't see why you're bringing them into the Partition setting apart from trying to emphasize they're Hindu nationalists. Congress and Muslim League were the only players those years. I appreciate that you want to express your opinions but please, please do not spread misinformation while you're at it. 

[Dr The Singh]

Mostly bull here

Ok, so what's bull? What do you believe are the version of events?

[1993fox]

Ok, so what's bull? What do you believe are the version of events?

 

See above. 

[Fox in the North]

So impressed with the French public today,an outstanding show of solidarity 

[Rincewind]

Saw this on a poetry site I use. Thought I would share it.

 

Je suis Charlie

Written by: Etienne Lariviere

Translation below (in progress)


Celui qui n'a pas de cœur
Ne doivent jamais reposer en paix

He who has no heart
Will never rest in peace


J’étais Charlie

De ma tombe
Mon âme pleure encore rouge
L’encre coule encore
Arrosage des fleurs ci-dessus
Les fleurs, fortes et belles
Ils doivent étouffer vos manières diaboliques
J'étais Charlie, je suis Charlie, Charlie toujours
Dans ma tombe
je ris
vous perdez

I was Charlie

In my tomb
my soul still cries red
the ink still flows
Above the flowers grow
the flowers strong and beautiful
they shall choke your evil ways
I was Charlie, I am Charlie, Charlie forever
In my grave
I laugh
You lose
 

[ADK]

I disagree, Islamic extremism has been long around before Iraq or afghan war. The establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East has always been a aim. Let's not muddy the waters here, what's happening with ISIS and a establishment of a caliphate is not quite the same as the type of religious fundamentalism seen in this case

 

That's actually my point really. Islamic extremism has been around for well over 1000 years. Yet according to some we are heading towards a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or are going to be overrun in the next 50-100 years. That's absolutely not going to happen.

[Dr The Singh]

Mostly bull here

To say Congress isn't the most pseudo-secular party that has ever existed discredits anything you say. Don't bring up 1984 to try paint Congress as a Hindu party because Muslims and Christians will gladly contest that title for themselves - it was circumstantial that Congress was in power during a time that a Prime Minister was killed by Sikhs. Congress has laid off majority interests since day 1.

You forget that Sikhs and Hindus in Sindh (such as my family) and Punjab were also treated as second class citizens. You seem to favour painting Hindus as the only oppressors of the region - even as a Sikh I find this risible. Anyone belonging to a Dharmic religion was second class west of Gujarat and east of Bengal by the majority Muslims.

I don't want to argue with a fellow Sikh but the contradictions in your post are just so nonsensical I feel the need to call you out on spreading misinformation. You imply Hindus were the only oppressors in the region and then admit Pakistan religiously cleansed non-Muslims. Then you say Sikhs were offered an independent state of Punjab 'within India' (you what?) followed by saying India and Pakistan are to blame for this not happening (?).

Also, BJP didn't even exist in 1947 so I don't see why you're bringing them into the Partition setting apart from trying to emphasize they're Hindu nationalists. Congress and Muslim League were the only players those years. I appreciate that you want to express your opinions but please, please do not spread misinformation while you're at it.

Not disagreeing with you with a lot of it. 1984, stems from partition but I was not referring to that.

Your answers are very indian text book, which i expected, you should read alternatives. Gandhi and Nehru themselves argued over the secular concept congress, it was there biggest dispute, hence the fact that the Indian constitute is a mosh mash of secular and religious ideologies.

Your anti Muslim stance was also expected, again in history it has been well documented the treatment of Muslims pre partition. Jinha's biggest argument was such, they just like the Dalits were ostrisized in many regions. Maybe you should read the extract from Nehru's biography of them and the Sikhs. I didn't say Muslims were innocent, in fact Jinha had help create a environment of violence and distrust. But let's be sensible, the Hindu majority was over 75%, there aggression would outway any other. Communal violence was ripe. But for the fact that the aftermath of partition was testament to the majority rule.

Yes BJP was not an active party but those nationalist believed in Gandhi and then formed what is BJP.

So did Gandhi and Nehru not offer an iNdependant state within India? Mate i find it hard for any sikh not to know this. Nehru himself stated after partition 'how can I give this to the enemies' and stated, things have changed. Gandhi made statements when asked about our free Punjab, ' your rusty swords are useless in the nuclear age'.

I will PM your some details, books etc, it will be good to enlighten another brother.

[bovril]

That's actually my point really. Islamic extremism has been around for well over 1000 years. Yet according to some we are heading towards a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or are going to be overrun in the next 50-100 years. That's absolutely not going to happen.

 

No it's not, but some of these nutters in possession of modern weaponry is a pretty sobering thought.

[ADK]

No it's not, but some of these nutters in possession of modern weaponry is a pretty sobering thought.

 

No more sobering than North Korea having nukes, and certainly less threatening than Communism at it's height or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Unless you were referring to Israel and the US in which case you might have a point.

[1993fox]

Not disagreeing with you with a lot of it. 1984, stems from partition but I was not referring to that.

Your answers are very indian text book, which i expected, you should read alternatives. Gandhi and Nehru themselves argued over the secular concept congress, it was there biggest dispute, hence the fact that the Indian constitute is a mosh mash of secular and religious ideologies.

Your anti Muslim stance was also expected, again in history it has been well documented the treatment of Muslims pre partition. Jinha's biggest argument was such, they just like the Dalits were ostrisized in many regions. Maybe you should read the extract from Nehru's biography of them and the Sikhs. I didn't say Muslims were innocent, in fact Jinha had help create a environment of violence and distrust. But let's be sensible, the Hindu majority was over 75%, there aggression would outway any other. Communal violence was ripe. But for the fact that the aftermath of partition was testament to the majority rule.

Yes BJP was not an active party but those nationalist believed in Gandhi and then formed what is BJP.

So did Gandhi and Nehru not offer an iNdependant state within India? Mate i find it hard for any sikh not to know this. Nehru himself stated after partition 'how can I give this to the enemies' and stated, things have changed. Gandhi made statements when asked about our free Punjab, ' your rusty swords are useless in the nuclear age'.

I will PM your some details, books etc, it will be good to enlighten another brother.

 

Gandhi was as secular as one could be. Just because he was born into a Hindu family certainly doesn't mean he was a Hindu nationalist. He was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist sponsored by RSS because he was seen as being as sympathetic to the Muslim League by ordering Congress to hand funds to Pakistan so they could build up their forces. If BJP existed before partition, India would not exist as it does now, i.e. Pakistan would never have materialized. 

 

If I am 'anti-Muslim' for pointing out atrocities they committed against Sikhs and Hindus then should I call you an anti-Hindu for pointing out their atrocities against Muslims? I am simply providing a counter-argument to throw off your point about Hindus being the only oppressors. We need only to look at the time from the sacrifices of our Gurus to the cleansing of Dharmic religions from Pashtun areas, Balochistan, and Sindh to know that oppression has never been a one-way street in South Asia. No one is arguing communal violence wasn't ripe, but it went both ways and the British didn't stop it because it helped destabilize resistance to colonialism. 

 

Tbh I've googled those quotes and there is very little evidence. I have read many controversial things about Gandhi that are very well-documented on the Internet, so I believe them to be true; e.g. he used to sleep with a 6 year old girl in bed to test his self-control, he stated blacks were inferior to other races while he was in South Africa. Before you think I am a Congress propaganda-fed Gandhi-worshipping Indian I must confess to you brother I am far from it. I have nothing but contempt for the entire Gandhi-Nehru dynasty for their mismanagement of India and South Asia in general. With that said there is very little evidence that either Gandhi or Nehru held anti-Sikh views.

[johnny the fox]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/uk-advised-india-golden-temple-attack-william-hague   interesting article...

 

led to the assassination of Indira Gandhi..30 years ago.

[Dr The Singh]

Gandhi was as secular as one could be. Just because he was born into a Hindu family certainly doesn't mean he was a Hindu nationalist. He was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist sponsored by RSS because he was seen as being as sympathetic to the Muslim League by ordering Congress to hand funds to Pakistan so they could build up their forces. If BJP existed before partition, India would not exist as it does now, i.e. Pakistan would never have materialized. 

 

If I am 'anti-Muslim' for pointing out atrocities they committed against Sikhs and Hindus then should I call you an anti-Hindu for pointing out their atrocities against Muslims? I am simply providing a counter-argument to throw off your point about Hindus being the only oppressors. We need only to look at the time from the sacrifices of our Gurus to the cleansing of Dharmic religions from Pashtun areas, Balochistan, and Sindh to know that oppression has never been a one-way street in South Asia. No one is arguing communal violence wasn't ripe, but it went both ways and the British didn't stop it because it helped destabilize resistance to colonialism. 

 

Tbh I've googled those quotes and there is very little evidence. I have read many controversial things about Gandhi that are very well-documented on the Internet, so I believe them to be true; e.g. he used to sleep with a 6 year old girl in bed to test his self-control, he stated blacks were inferior to other races while he was in South Africa. Before you think I am a Congress propaganda-fed Gandhi-worshipping Indian I must confess to you brother I am far from it. I have nothing but contempt for the entire Gandhi-Nehru dynasty for their mismanagement of India and South Asia in general. With that said there is very little evidence that either Gandhi or Nehru held anti-Sikh views.

Gandhi being secular, sorry brother but I didn't want to continue this debate, but you really need to do your research, proper research, not just surf the web.  Gandhi was reformist, he wanted the hindu family tree to reform to it's caste including Sikhs and Buddhist, Jains, who he believed were hindu.    Gandhi IMO, was 2 headed snale, a very astute, politician, he would in one audience, say he was secular in another he would say

 

Many of my political friends despair of me because they say even my politics are derived from religion. And they are right. My politics and all other activities of mine are derived from my religion. I go further and say that every activity of a man of religion must be derived from his religion, because religion means being bound to God, that is to say God rules your every breath.4

 

He was a believer of the caste system which is about as unsecular as it gets

 

Untouchability is the sin of Hinduism. They must suffer for it, they must purify themselves, they must pay the debt they owe to suppressed brothers and sisters. Theirs is the shame and theirs must be the glory when they have purified themselves of the black sin

 

If India was truly secular, and Gandhi were truly secular, the Constitution would not need the religious explisives it has.

 

Gandhi was a hindu, India is majority hindu, his concerns met the majority, unfortunately they possibly were not in the best interests of the minority.  His thoughts on Sikhs however were very concerning:

 

Today I will only say that to me Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. But the situation is different from a legal point of view. Dr. Ambedkar wants a change of religion. If becoming a Sikh amounts to conversion, then this kind of conversion on the parts of Harijans is dangerous. If you can persuade the Sikhs to accept that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and if you can make them give up the separate electorate, then I will have no objections to Harijans calling themselves Sikhs. (CW, Vol 63, pg 267) -

 

The above statement disgusts me, how can a secular leader state such stuff, so he would be happy for dalits to convert only if sikhs call themselves hindu for vote bank.  As a Sikh, i'm outraged!!

 

You talk about Guru's, this what he said:

 

MK Gandhi called Sri Guru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaj "a misguided patriot". In his speech in Calcutta, Gandhi said, "Guru Gobind Singh was a mislead prophet of India." 

 

Your anti muslim in my view, cus of balance, and your level of defending 2 evils is not the same.  If you believe hindus, and lesser extent Sikhs did not do no wrong, then i'm afraid your blinkered.  If in this case the hindus were so good to the muslims, why did Jinha reject becoming the first prime minister of India, both Gandhi and Nehru begged him?  Don't get me wrong, he massed his private army ready for partition for the massacres the proceded, and if there was a choice between hindu india or muslim pakistan, there would be only one winner, but his statement is true

 

"You have seen the Hindus as co-slaves and you will know when they will be your masters and you (the Sikhs), their slaves"

 

I'm actually anti Indian government, there is no one on this planet that can stop me from saying the truth, and if that truth is about hindu's, then so be it.  Your not providing a counter arguement, cus I have stated Muslims were no better, the question asked to my posts was muslims being the agitators only to partition, which I stated is far more complicated and the hindu's had a major part to play.  Having read the Indian's version of history, I cannot honestly say, I wouldn't trust any of it.  Having read many sources, it's a far complex event, and people forget the role of hindu nationalist.

 

Our guru's time of history is far different from this episode, i'm very proud of my ancestors, hence we have survived up until today.  This is colonial discusion, you should read about the Gaddhar movement, bhai sarabah under british rule.  Read about Singh Sabha movement, under colonial Britain. more Sikhs died then anyone else.......only then to be betrayed, and still betrayed today.  You talk about guru's, would Guru Gobind Singh live quitely in India, would he except what's been done to us post partition.

 

This is what was promised to the Sikhs:

 

"...in future, the Congress shall accept no constitution which does not meet with the satisfaction of the Sikhs" (The Lahore session of the Congress Party. December 31, 1929)

"...the brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special considerations. I see nothing wrong in an area set up in the North of India wherein, the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom."(Jawahar Lal Nehru, Lahore Bulletin, January 9, 1930)

"I ask you to accept my word and the Resolution of the Congress that it will not betray a single individual much less a community. Let God be the witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you (the Sikhs). When pressed further Gandhi said that Sikhs would be justified in drawing their swords out of the scabbards as Guru Gobind Singh had asked them to, if Congress would renege on its commitment." (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Young India, March 19, 1931)

 

British Intelligence Report on how Sikhs were treated:

 

Hinduism has always been hostile to Sikhism whose Gurus powerfully and successfully attacked the principle of caste which is the foundation on which the whole fabric of Brahminism has been reared. The activities of Hindus have, therefore, been constantly directed to undermining of Sikhism both by preventing the children of Sikh father from taking Pahul and reducing professed Sikhs from their allegiance to their faith. Hinduism has strangled Budhism, once a formidable rival to it and it has already made serious inroads into the domain of Sikhism. (D. Petrie, Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence, Government of British India, Intelligence Report of 11th August, 1911)

 

Read the Singh Sabha movement in 1873 onwards, under British control, our Gurdwaray were covered with idols and hindu practices were followed.  The RSS always refer to this time.

 

More quotes from India's lovely politicians, Nehru always considered us the enemy, the second was is critical to Sikh history, you should read the punjabi morcha:

 

" The Sikhs are a lawless people and a menace to the law abiding Hindus ... The [Government] should take strict measures against them." (Pandit Nehru, Indian Prime Minister, on Sikhs)

 

"Kya main taqat dushman (the enemy -the Sikhs) ke haath main de dun (How can I entrust power into the hands of the enemies)." (Jawahar Lal Nehru, 1961)

 

" I hate the very physique of a Sikh because of the turban and beard. " (Vallabh Bhai Patel, late Indian top politician)

 

Answer me another question, when the Indian Consitution was created why did Sikhs boycott the signing, and refused it totally?

 

What do think of Bhagat Singh, why did Gandhi not intervene, his quote, yet on how many occassions did he for others?:

It was asked by British that if Gandhi intervenes then Shaheed-e-azam Bhagat Singh Jee's life would be spared. To that Gandhi said that "jo kiya hay bhugtana chaheey"("if a crime ahs been done one should pay for it".)

 

Are we a criminal tribe?

In a circular sent to all Deputy Commisioners in Panjab by the Home Minister Vallabhi Patel, there were instructions that Sikhs should be treated like a "criminal tribe." They were urged to be severe so that the Sikhs should wake up to the political realities and recognize "who are the masters and who are the slaves."

 

 

If these people could do that to Sikhs, what do you think they were doing to there worst enemies, Muslim.........  Jai Hind!!

 

Don't google buy some books!!

[Dr The Singh]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/uk-advised-india-golden-temple-attack-william-hague   interesting article...

 

led to the assassination of Indira Gandhi..30 years ago.

More info, infact Thatcher went so low as to stop Sikhs celebrating our festivals and used police and institutes to curb our right to protest etc, all over money!!  It showed how far the Indian government would go!!

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/margaret-thatcher-golden-temple-raid-support-letter

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/When-Rajiv-arm-twisted-Thatcher-to-curb-UK-Sikhs/articleshow/45738687.cms

[Dr The Singh]

That's actually my point really. Islamic extremism has been around for well over 1000 years. Yet according to some we are heading towards a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or are going to be overrun in the next 50-100 years. That's absolutely not going to happen.

Apologies chap, yep Islamic extremism even in this country has been around for ages, I was at uni when Amjem Choudary was handing his revolting leaflets, long before Iraq War

[ozleicester]

 

Palestinian and Israeli leaders marching together for peace against terror... WTF

 

The pair of you are killing and terrifying more than the paris shooters ever could

[bovril]

No more sobering than North Korea having nukes, and certainly less threatening than Communism at it's height or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Unless you were referring to Israel and the US in which case you might have a point.

 

It's more sobering because members of these groups, ISIS et al, seem especially determined to meet their maker. At least during the height of the Cold War leaders on both sides understood the implications of a nuclear strike.

[FoxesAreBlue]

It's more sobering because members of these groups, ISIS et al, seem especially determined to meet their maker. At least during the height of the Cold War leaders on both sides understood the implications of a nuclear strike.

Perhaps the special term for total nuclear destruction? Was talking about it at work the other day but I cant remember the name for it.

Like "stalemate" means two opposing sides stuck and going nowhere, I'm sure there is a word for it...

[bovril]

Mutually assured destruction? At least the Communists were atheists...

[FoxesAreBlue]

Mutually assured destruction? At least the Communists were atheists...

That's it, thanks.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30790409

 

Stones of titanium.