Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Death Sentence - Balwant Singh - Share your views

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    First you say they are on similar strength level and now that Sikhs are superior.
    Where did I say superior? Stop speculating.

    On face-value they are near enough equal; but when you consider the Gurkha's are specifically selected it isn't that conclusive.

    The Sikhs are a wider breed of warriors in comparison, history has shown this.

    Infact, any comparisons drawn would be very unbalanced due to the aforementioned.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Where did I say superior? Stop speculating.

    On face-value they are near enough equal; but when you consider the Gurkha's are specifically selected it isn't that conclusive.

    The Sikhs are a wider breed of warriors in comparison, history has shown this.

    Infact, any comparisons drawn would be very unbalanced due to the aforementioned.
    You are indirectly referring to it. They really aren't that specifically selected. The Gurkhas have more military history than Sikhs. I think you would find that comparison would show that when looking at history it would be the opposite to what you have said.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    You are indirectly referring to it.
    Again, speculation.

    They really aren't that specifically selected.
    Yes they are, we have discussed this already.
    The Gurkhas have more military history than Sikhs. I think you would find that comparison would show that when looking at history it would be the opposite to what you have said.
    Nope. Sikhs have been involved in battles for centuries; look it up.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okapobcfc08)
    1. Pompous little get. Just for your information, YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT SANT JARNAIL SINGH JI KHALSA was a TERRORIST. That’s why you arrested him and let him go. Fail.

    2. I’m glad that tyrants and sinners are punished. Such a comment about Indian army personnel being killed is bogus unless you can prove that they were innocent. Don’t get me wrong, innocent being killed is a sin, a big sin. But if a sinner or a tyrant cant be brought to justice via diplomatic means, sikh ethics state that the taking up of the sword will have to suffice.

    If all peaceful/democratic means fail, the picking up of the sword is righteous

    Sri Dasam Granth Sahib

    You accuse f1mad of having little knowledge, you mate are no different.

    P.S. Sikhs are not scared of a predominant hindu state, you dozy or something?

    3. "infact I have huge admiration for the work that Indira Gandhi did for india, for everybody and yes even for the sikh population" Such an idiotic comment when talking about Sikh issues after 1978 is not ignorance but blatant insult. I know hindus that hate Gandhi, and you’re here praising her. The only thing that Gandhi did for Sikhs is attempted to wipe them off the map of India. Shame she failed and paid with 33 bullets. I’m glad that she was slaughtered, just a shame I will never have the guts to do what the great martyrs Shaheed Bhai Satwant Singh Ji, Shaheed Bhai Beant Singh Ji and Shaheed Bhai Kehar Singh Ji. All 3 Khalsa’s carried their duty out immensely.

    4. Your knowledge knows no depths of disgrace comments. There were no riots in 1984, only a genocide. How the f can you dare to call it a riot. Sikhs were savagely killed like a lion looking for its next prey. A riot implies Sikhs vs Hindus. Another comment that smacks of great incompetence.

    5. Please do not advise Sikhs about their religion when you have a dog’s dinner brain. Also, please do not try to understand the Khalistani methodology because it’s a bit much for your poor little brain. If you knew anything, which you don’t, Panjab is one of the most drug infiltrated states in the world. Khalistan would be able to stop such a thing. It speaks a lot about the current administration that the land of the prophets of Sikhism could become such a state. Sharia law has no mention in Sikhism, so what you on about? Khalistan would, for all intents and purposes, clean up the tip that Panjab is in at the moment. Again, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE THIS SITE HAS EVER SEEN. You bark about “hypothetical situation, I don’t know what I would do”, yet you seem to have made your mind up about Khalsaland. I say this regularly, YOU CANT STAND IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE
    I am not going to bother with you anymore, you mighty internet warrior.

    You seem to get riled up very easily, maybe deep down you know that you have no clue as to what you believe in and what it is your might sikh warriors are fighting for. If you are happy that Indira Gandhi was slaughtered then by the same token I am happy that TERRORISTS like SANT JARNAIL SINGH JI KHALSA were hunted and brought to justice.

    It is clear that neither of us are going to change our views even slightly. I still think of you guys as good for nothings, bunch of miserable, complaining little underachievers who want to be given everything even if you dont deserve it. Infact you have made me HATE people like you even more.

    Bravo.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddition)
    1. You didn't bother with me in the first place

    2. You seem to assume that I am Khalistani. Please direct where I have put "I", "am" and "khalistani" in the same sentance, or said something to that effect

    3. I have no clue? Please do not insult me, if you knew me in real life you would know that to be untrue. I am not arrogant to say I have a rich amount of knowledge, but certainly know more than a silly boy like you

    4. Yes but Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa wasnt brought to justice, DID YOU know that a general of Indian army commented that if the Singhs in the Akal Takht were to join the Indian Army Pakistan could be taken care off in one day. General Brar said give me an evening to sort out Bhindranwale, yet it took the government 5 days and a tank. Who do you think is the "real" winner. I think it is the Khalsa Army who defended the Akaal Takht

    5. To be fair, at least I am open about my political, religious views. Are you going to tell me which political or religious ideology you are bounded to

    6. Mate, I dont really give an f if you like me or not. I'm here to correct lies about Sikhs and Sikhism. Mate, I have studied at two top 30 universities in the UK (Aston and Birmimgham) in the last two years, hardly think I am underachieving.

    7. There is nothing bad in Sikhism as a religion. There are people, who claim to be Sikhs, who may do bad things. There is a difference
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Again, speculation.



    Yes they are, we have discussed this already.


    Nope. Sikhs have been involved in battles for centuries; look it up.
    I have super powers when I speculate, things become factual Yes they have but so what ? Having been fighting for centuries does not necessarily mean that Sikhs are the best soldiers.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    Yes they have but so what ? Having been fighting for centuries does not necessarily mean that Sikhs are the best soldiers.
    :sigh:

    This is sucking up my time, your final point was this:

    The Gurkhas have more military history than Sikhs. I think you would find that comparison would show that when looking at history it would be the opposite to what you have said.
    So what's it to be? You're seemingly contradicting your statement (as you quite evidently ignored it).

    Having been fighting for centuries does not necessarily mean that Sikhs are the best soldiers.
    :sigh: again.

    Look into the history of those battles and find out the truth and facts. I'll end our little discussion here, we've addressed the points that needed to be addressed.

    Saintsoldier can continue his discussion with you.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    One big thing with operation blue star... why did the sikh guys bring weapons into the sikh temple and hide there. He should have never brought weapons anywhere near it and seeking refuge in there is part of the reason why civillians got killed and the temple partly destroyed. Furthermore, it is true that there is a blatant injustice with the death sentence but one thing needs to be stated and that is what he was going to do was wrong i.e. kill innocent civillians.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    :sigh:

    Look into the history of those battles and find out the truth and facts. I'll end our little discussion here, we've addressed the points that needed to be addressed.

    Saintsoldier can continue his discussion with you.
    Yes Sikhs might have more military experience but that doesn't mean that the current Sikh soldiers are superior to Gurkhas. That is what you said yesterday, I mean about ending the discussion but I am sure you'll pop back -.-
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nas7232)
    One big thing with operation blue star... why did the sikh guys bring weapons into the sikh temple and hide there. He should have never brought weapons anywhere near it and seeking refuge in there is part of the reason why civillians got killed and the temple partly destroyed. Furthermore, it is true that there is a blatant injustice with the death sentence but one thing needs to be stated and that is what he was going to do was wrong i.e. kill innocent civillians.
    I assume that no-one's ever told you the real reason. Lool below

    Summer 1982 According to "General S.K. Sinha" Leading General in Indian Army at the time:

    "Operation Bluestar had been at least 2.5 years in planning. A DUMMY GOLDEN TEMPLE had been created at a mililtary base in Dehradoon, and training of the operation was taking place as early as 1982".

    The Sikhs, led by Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa, then move into the Akaal Takht Sahib.

    You do the maths? Its a pretty embrassing argument anyway. Why should one's religious heartland be attacked just because one's leaders take up their obligation under one's religion to be shastardhaari (arming yourself with weapons).

    The 10th Master, the transformer of cats into lions, the leader of the Khalsa, the King of Kings, Sahib-e-Alaam, Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj comments:

    "I will not give darshan (meet) with those sikhs who do no present themselves before me wearing weapons"
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    I am not, I'm referring to the system they have in place which would imbalance the comparison in this discussion. This system they have in place is nothing new neither (they've probably had it since day one- they were a tribe to begin with after all).

    Whilst the term "Sikhs" is a generic one, relating to the follower of a religion since the religion was established.

    Whilst the two are very difficult to separate with regards to their strengths out on the battlefield, I'd argue that Sikhs are more of the "natural fighters" between the two.
    I dont know the full origin of your discussion. but i will point ourtcategorically that even today the British army still argues with the indian and nepalese over the recruitment of the best gurkha regiments cadets for their respective armies- the gurkhas are known to be man for man some of the best natural soliders on the planet - even US green berets have stated this.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddition)
    From the picture i cant see what distinguishes that child from any other thousands killed all over the world. A dead child- yes. A dead sikh child-inconclusive. Furthermore, i never implied the terrorist was a 3 year old, you just assumed it and attached a picture of a dead child, which is nonetheless disturbing and heartbraking.
    Look at his head, you can clearly see he has long Kesh (hair) and a Joora (top-knot), which marks him out as a Sikh.

    I have already posted about Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale so if you can read that. I would be willing to clarify myself further.
    Can you provide a link? I can't find it.

    However, your claim that sikhs never retailiated is just plain wrong. There have been hundreds of deaths, possibly in the low thousands, of indian army personnel and not just in punjab, but also in other parts of india during this period.
    I'm not saying we never retaliated. I'm saying we never used force without justifiable reason. Violence was only used to counter violence from the Indian Government.

    So no you cant say you have better ethics and sikhs did try to rip apart india and are still trying,
    We do have better ethics than them, because the Sikhs have never raped, tortured or killed Hindu civilians in their most important place of worship on one of the most important days of the Hindu calendar - which is exactly what the Indian government did to the Sikhs in 1984.

    We're the ones practically holding together India right now, not pulling it apart. India would be a far worse place without the Sikhs.

    also the fact that "khalistan" would not be sustainable, economically or politically.
    It would be stable, for many reasons. Punjab has one of the lowest poverty rates in India, and this is likely to decrease even further if Punjab becomes independent. For example, Punjab would use all electricity for its own needs, rather than giving more than half of it to Delhi

    The woman part was again in response to the other guy who did the same, highlighted women and children being killed by the indian govt, and you have done the exact same thing by placing the picture of a three year old child.
    No, I haven't. A child is by nature defenceless. A woman is not.

    Completely hypothetical situation and would depend on the circumstances and because i am of a non violent nature and have been brought up with the ideals of non violence, most probably yes, i would just let it go and move on, but if there was further danger to me or to my close family, then no i would defend myself. But this situation cannot be compared to the 1984 riots as there are a lot of different variables involved, not just 2 people.
    It would be more necessary to defend yourself in a riot situation.

    Let's change my example then. Supposing you were an ordinary Sikh in 1984, just on the bus on your way back from seeing some friends. You are suddenly ordered to get off the bus by Hindu rioters who say they want to burn you alive. They drag you off the bus and throw you onto the pavement. Would you retaliate?

    Againn you are bringing in a completely different situation in to the mix The holocaust is not comparable in this situation because the jews werent demanding a separate nation and harbouring terrorists as far as i know.
    This is what Nazi propaganda depicted them as doing. The Nazis thought they were all effectively terrorists who are trying to take over the world in some master plan and spread evil in the world through this.

    however, beant singh was a politician not an insurgent
    He was a mass murderer.

    he was blown away by a suicide bomber
    Balwant Singh was not a suicide bomber, which is why he's still in prison now. That's sort of the whole point of this thread....

    and in the process claimed the lives of 17 other people
    This I do regret, the other people should not have been killed

    however in this case i dont think he should be given a death sentence, and indeed a stay of executiion has been granted. but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be given a tough sentence, just because he is a sikh.
    I agree, but he has been in there for quite a while in some pretty bad conditions.

    Maybe the whole skih religion should look at themselves and really identify what it is that they want. the younger generation would not stand for khalistan if they knew what it entailed. A bit like the shariah law, it would be extremely tough to consume alcohol, drugs and even getting rid of kesh.
    It wouldn't be like Shariah law. The main problems that the West has with Shariah law are: subjugation of non-Muslims, gender inquality, and excessively harsh punishments.

    Khalistan would not be like this, as our religion condemns these things.

    During the Khalsa Raj, Sikhs and non-Sikhs were equals; they had the same tax rates etc. Men and women were equal in the law. Not a single death sentence was administered. It was the most peaceful Punjab has ever been.

    Do you want people to consume alcohol and drugs? If not, then why do you want them to be legal? I don't see any problem in banning these things. Do you know how much alcohol costs the NHS each year?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lancelot)
    ...
    Read this thread again.

    It's been proved that the Gurkha's in comparision are not really that "natural", they are given a heck of a lot of training (which imbalances all comparisons made). If you look into the recruitment of the Sikhs in the various war's, they didn't have any training such as that.

    To correct the other poster:

    Gurkha's of nepalese origin have actually received 13 VC's, one less than the Sikhs.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lancelot)
    i dont know the full origin of your discussion. But i will point ourtcategorically that even today the british army still argues with the indian and nepalese over the recruitment of the best gurkha regiments cadets for their respective armies- the gurkhas are known to be man for man some of the best natural soliders on the planet - even us green berets have stated this.
    you mad bro, ye you mad.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Read this thread again.

    It's been proved that the Gurkha's in comparision are not really that "natural", they are given a heck of a lot of training (which imbalances all comparisons made). If you look into the recruitment of the Sikhs in the various war's, they didn't have any training such as that.

    To correct the other poster:

    Gurkha's of nepalese origin have actually received 13 VC's, one less than the Sikhs.
    Wow, Sikhs are now supernatural fighters who need no training, watch out the Sikh soldiers are going to get us.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    Wow, Sikhs are now supernatural fighters who need no training, watch out the Sikh soldiers are going to get us.
    You again? You miss the point every single time, I don't even see the point in responding to your posts anymore.

    Let's have a review of some of the rubbish you have spewed:

    " The Gurkhas have far more VC's than the Sikhs"

    Yet the Sikhs have one more, I asked if you could count. You clearly cannot!

    You're a kid: nothing more, nothing less.

    " I will not do any research, goodbye."

    Tops it off for me .
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    You again? You miss the point every single time, I don't even see the point in responding to your posts anymore.

    Let's have a review of some of the rubbish you have spewed:

    " The Gurkhas have far more VC's than the Sikhs"

    Yet the Sikhs have one more, I asked if you could count. You clearly cannot!

    You're a kid: nothing more, nothing less.

    " I will not do any research, goodbye."

    Tops it off for me .
    The Gurkhas have 13 and the commanding officers have 13 , it still counts towards the Gurkhas because of the work they have done for that regiment , I suggest you read why those 13 officers received VCs . I am a kid now am I ? Assuming you are Sikh and based on your previous point that Sikhs need less training and are adapted to battle , why don't you join the BA in Afghanistan and show how much of a warrior you are provided you don't stand on an IED or get shot in the head. Oh and yes, SaintSoldier couldn't reply to my argument and has given up.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    The Gurkhas have 13 and the commanding officers have 13 , it still counts towards the Gurkhas because of the work they have done for that regiment , I suggest you read why those 13 officers received VCs .
    Likewise, read up why Sikhs were awarded VC's.

    "commanding officers" were not 'original' Gurkha's (Nepal), they were of British origin and were part of the Brigade.



    I am a kid now am I ? Assuming you are Sikh and based on your previous point that Sikhs need less training and are adapted to battle
    I told you to research the various battles Sikhs have fought in, don't write bull shine until you do (I doubt you will).

    All history/evidence/facts is there for you to see, why not look it up?

    why don't you join the BA in Afghanistan and show how much of a warrior you are provided you don't stand on an IED or get shot in the head.

    I actually found this rather hysterical: your point is what exactly? This is the definitive factor of you admitting defeat- your argument(s) have been shot to bits, try and save yourself some dignity without writing rubbish like that.

    You jump from one point to another as shown here. As I said you're a kid.

    I'm outta here.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Likewise, read up why Sikhs were awarded VC's.

    "commanding officers" were not 'original' Gurkha's (Nepal), they were of British origin and were part of the Brigade.





    I told you to research the various battles Sikhs have fought in, don't write bull **** until you do (I doubt you will).

    All history/evidence/facts is there for you to see, why not look it up?




    I actually found this rather hysterical: your point is what exactly? This is the definitive factor of you admitting defeat- your argument(s) have been shot to bits, try and save yourself some dignity without writing rubbish like that.

    You jump from one point to another as shown here. As I said you're a kid.

    I'm outta here.
    Ok then if the Sikh regiments were so great then why are there no officers there who won VCs. I suggest you research some Gurkha battles. You know I am right, just because a person is a Sikh , it does not mean that they are great soldiers.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    Oh and yes, SaintSoldier couldn't reply to my argument and has given up.
    No I haven't, I just didn't feel the need to repost what f1mad has already posted.

    Additionally, I have exams coming up, and I know where my priorities lie. They are certainly not with TSR.

    Nice try, better luck next time

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: May 11, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.