Terrorism By SIKHS?

[stupidjassi]

he he, i was just going to mention the killing of saunders. good one.
I think we should see if bhidranwale was a terrorist or a freedom fighter before we discuss this broader topic

he wasn`t terrorist. REad the history and come to facts. I dont think he was 'braham gayani' but he wasn`t terrorist at least.
Listen to his speaches. go to bhinderwale.net . on youtube Read the Stuff .
He woken up the sleeping people. He made sikh realize our rights.
I wonder he weren`t born , Indra ghandi had already killed sikhism so far.

There is not a single evidence or case where he killed innocent people. everyone was against him. He said "The bird is left alone" and this happen indeed.

And Please dont relate him to Osama. Because there is a difference in Sikhism and Islam. If you are real sikh (khalsa) you preach the truth. you raise sword against tyranny, proctect the poor and obtain salvation.

But if you are real Muslim you kill non-muslim, force other to convert, shed the blood of innocent in the name of God, treat women like animal etc.

Osama might be a real Muslim as Mohammad (

Muhammad owned 40 slaves. Muhammad was allowed by a ETERNAL LAW OF God ""He promised that if I died that way I would get 70 virgins in heaven

Prophet Muhammed was a genius. He thought up the unique institution of Jihad, where men would gladly volunteer to go to wars & die in wars for no pay other than war booty & slaves. )


Please do not relate Sikhism to Islam

bhul chuk maf
stupidjassi

 

[BhagatSingh]

he wasn`t terrorist. REad the history and come to facts. I dont think he was 'braham gayani' but he wasn`t terrorist at least.
Listen to his speaches. go to bhinderwale.net . on youtube Read the Stuff .
He woken up the sleeping people. He made sikh realize our rights.
I wonder he weren`t born , Indra ghandi had already killed sikhism so far.

There is not a single evidence or case where he killed innocent people. everyone was against him. He said "The bird is left alone" and this happen indeed.

And Please dont relate him to Osama. Because there is a difference in Sikhism and Islam. If you are real sikh (khalsa) you preach the truth. you raise sword against tyranny, proctect the poor and obtain salvation.

But if you are real Muslim you kill non-muslim, force other to convert, shed the blood of innocent in the name of God, treat women like animal etc.

Osama might be a real Muslim as Mohammad (

Muhammad owned 40 slaves. Muhammad was allowed by a ETERNAL LAW OF God ""He promised that if I died that way I would get 70 virgins in heaven

Prophet Muhammed was a genius. He thought up the unique institution of Jihad, where men would gladly volunteer to go to wars & die in wars for no pay other than war booty & slaves. )


Please do not relate Sikhism to Islam

bhul chuk maf
stupidjassi

I wasn't relating him to Osama BTW.

 

[stupidjassi]

sorry i was pointing amarsanghera .

I wasn't relating him to Osama BTW.

 

[Sikh80]

It would be very useful for wider participation if you include the definition of a 'terrorist' so that one may find out as to the context. As per the dictionary meaning it is:
1the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

you may also like to include so that there is transparency for all the participants.
.

 

[Archived_Member1]

It would be very useful for wider participation if you include the definition of a 'terrorist' so that one may find out as to the context. As per the dictionary meaning it is:
1the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

you may also like to include so that there is transparency for all the participants.
.

according to these definitions, the US government, the GOI, the government of Israel, as well as the traditional muslim terror groups are all terrorists.

 

[stupidjassi]

when i think of terrorist i guess meaning of terrorist is:

"The one who oppress the poor and innocent people and/or use them to obtain their selfish means"

otherwise by the following definition you found , Guru Gobind Singh Ji was also a terrorist ( I apologize ) and Khalsa is also terrorist.

bhul chuk maf
stupidjassi

It would be very useful for wider participation if you include the definition of a 'terrorist' so that one may find out as to the context. As per the dictionary meaning it is:
1the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

you may also like to include so that there is transparency for all the participants.
.

 

[Sikh80]

I have used the dictionary loaded on my computer.You may suggest that is suitable and appropriate within the framework of which we all can discuss.
regards to all.

 

[Sikh80]

according to these definitions, the US government, the GOI, the government of Israel, as well as the traditional muslim terror groups are all terrorists.

:idea:May be so, I have taken the dictionary meaning. You may suggest some other if it is more appropriate:star:

 

[BhagatSingh]

when i think of terrorist i guess meaning of terrorist is:

"The one who oppress the poor and innocent people and/or use them to obtain their selfish means"

otherwise by the following definition you found , Guru Gobind Singh Ji was also a terrorist ( I apologize ) and Khalsa is also terrorist.

bhul chuk maf
stupidjassi

yes he was actually! never thought about it that way...

 

[Archived_Member1]

terrorism in the modern context is:

ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets.

CIVILIAN being the most important word in this definition.

punjab police - not civilian
hindutva mobs - not civilian
those who make war on sikhs - not civilian!

edit: those who make war on any group based on ideological, political, religious, or other percieved differences. i was simply using sikh as an example in the context of this topic.

 

[Sikh80]

One may think once again befor finalizing it so that we do not start falling back again on this point. The defintion given above can also be challenged on grounds.Hence we should have two or three inputs before we can formulate an acceptable definition. Let Mr. Bhagat singh ji and Jassi also frame one each.I shall also do the same by tommorrow.It is fairly late here.
I shall call it a day.

 

[BhagatSingh]

definition of a terrorist: a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence

ill try to find one that fits my view

 

[Sinister]

The definition is simple:

A terrorist is a Utilitarian....in that they always believe the ends justify the means!

they are not devoid of morality.

a terrorist that can accomplish the most good with minimal casualties is a good one (udham singh) and a terrorist that causes the most chaos and still doesnt prove his point is a bad one (Bhindranwale, Osama)

that is the inevitable march of history freinds

 

[dude]

Hello Sat sri akal...

 

[dude]

and everything else

 

[stupidjassi]

The definition is simple:

a terrorist that can accomplish the most good with minimal casualties is a good one (udham singh) and a terrorist that causes the most chaos and still doesnt prove his point is a bad one (Bhindranwale, Osama)

that is the inevitable march of history freinds

haha that`s a good joke, So again its relativity. we came where we started from.

anyways
I have this one
"
those acts which are intended to create fear (terror) and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
"

stupidjassi

 

[stupidjassi]

Hello Sat sri akal...

sat sri akal,
welcome!
stupidjassi

 

[Archived_Member1]

The definition is simple:

A terrorist is a Utilitarian....in that they always believe the ends justify the means!

they are not devoid of morality.

a terrorist that can accomplish the most good with minimal casualties is a good one (udham singh) and a terrorist that causes the most chaos and still doesnt prove his point is a bad one (Bhindranwale, Osama)

that is the inevitable march of history freinds

what chaos did bhindranwale cause? who did he kill? what did he bomb? sorry if it's a stupid question.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<he wasn`t terrorist. REad the history and come to facts. I dont think he was 'braham gayani' but he wasn`t terrorist at least.
Listen to his speaches. go to bhinderwale.net . on youtube Read the Stuff .
He woken up the sleeping people. He made sikh realize our rights.
I wonder he weren`t born , Indra ghandi had already killed sikhism so far.

There is not a single evidence or case where he killed innocent people. everyone was against him. He said "The bird is left alone" and this happen indeed.

And Please dont relate him to Osama. Because there is a difference in Sikhism and Islam. If you are real sikh (khalsa) you preach the truth. you raise sword against tyranny, proctect the poor and obtain salvation.

But if you are real Muslim you kill non-muslim, force other to convert, shed the blood of innocent in the name of God, treat women like animal etc.

Osama might be a real Muslim as Mohammad (

Muhammad owned 40 slaves. Muhammad was allowed by a ETERNAL LAW OF God ""He promised that if I died that way I would get 70 virgins in heaven

Prophet Muhammed was a genius. He thought up the unique institution of Jihad, where men would gladly volunteer to go to wars & die in wars for no pay other than war booty & slaves. )


Please do not relate Sikhism to Islam>>>


LOL

how quick are we to get into holier than thou mode.

sikhi is different from islam. i know that too.

but the "sikhism" preached by many so called "sikhism" leaders is no different from Taliban espoused "islam"

i have listened to quite a few of those links you sent... they sound so much like what other "terrorist" organization leaders use.

even a lot of followers of those organizations donot consider their leaders as terrorists. the admire them, place them on pedestal, make a martyr's image of them.


i have nothing against bhindaranwale espousing for sikh rights, but within the legal and constitutional framework.

what i am against is to use religion as a shroud for cloaking the intentions to mislead and divide people.

that is what religious "terrorists" do.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<what chaos did bhindranwale cause? who did he kill? what did he bomb? sorry if it's a stupid question>>

giving speeches which create a sense of apocalypto and then egging on youth to lay lives for "religion" is a good starting point to ponder.