# Terrorism By SIKHS?



## stupidjassi (Dec 27, 2007)

Some of the human right wbesite actually publishing evidence that Sikhs were terrorists . Please comment

( http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1994/kashmir94-03.htm)

The accounts below are typical of attacks that appeared to be deliberately carried out by Sikh militants against randomly chosen, unarmed civilians in public places using deadly automatic weaponry.  
In October 1992, suspected Sikh militants gunned down five civilians and a law enforcement officer in a heavily wooded area in Uttar Pradesh that has become a refuge for Sikh separatists fleeing a crackdown by Indian authorities in Punjab.  The attack followed a massacre two months earlier of twenty-nine villagers in the same area.  In that incident, villagers collecting wood in the forest were captured by suspected militants, bound, and killed by automatic gunfire.(96)
In March 1992, four Sikh separatists armed with AK47 assault rifles went on a shooting spree in the industrial city of Ludhiana killing twenty civilians and injuring others.  The armed gunmen drove a car first through the city's Vishwakarma residential district, mowing down ten people at a neighborhood market.  The gunmen then drove on, shooting people at random along a two-mile route, killing eight more.  They ended the rampage at a public square by shooting to death two more civilians, and then escaped.(97)
In May 1988, a total of sixty-five people were reported killed by Sikh extremists in hit-and-run attacks in a thirty-six-hour period.(98)
In Kuban village in October 1986, five gunmen sprayed a crowded marketplace with bullets on a Saturday killing eight people and injuring four.  Police sources said the attack appeared to be in revenge for the police killing of militants in the area earlier the same month.  It was the worst single attack since fourteen bus passengers were shot near Mukhtsar town three months earlier.(99)
On May 21, 1986, Sikh gunmen killed nine Hindus and two Sikhs in a shooting spree in an Amritsar market.  The attacks came during a twelve-week period of separatist violence during which more than 230 people were killed, many of them Hindu civilians.(100)
	Reports of attacks near Hindu temples, in conjunction with Hindu festivals, and even on Hindus praying at religious sites were also common; such attacks often involved use of deadly automatic weapons.

On July 14, 1992, four militants riding motorscooters opened fire at a busy shopping district in Bhatinda town in Punjab, killing seven civilians and injuring five more seriously.  The incident took place outside a Hindu temple, and may have been in retaliation for a security operation aimed at flushing out militants in the area.(105)
In April 1990, thirty-five people were killed when a bomb exploded during a Hindu religious procession; Sikh separatists were suspected.  The bombing set off dozens of Hindu-Sikh clashes throughout the state, resulting in another sixteen deaths.(106)
In October 1987, gunmen on a motorscooter killed at least eight people in the Indian capital, spraying submachine gun bullets in a residential neighborhood and at fairs heralding the Hindu New Year.  The gunmen then abandoned their scooter and boarded a public bus which was halted at a police roadblock about six miles from the shootings.  The gunmen opened fire, wounding a sub-inspector and a passenger.(107)
In May 1986, Sikh extremists reportedly opened fire with automatic weapons on Hindus praying outside a small-town shrine in Punjab state, killing two and wounding seven.  The shooting occurred as the Hindus were reading from the Hindu epic Ramayana in what was to have been a night-long prayer vigil.  It was the second major attack in a month in Jandiala Gur, a town fifteen miles east of Amritsar.(108)

	The Arms Project identified dozens of reports of attacks on buses and trains carried out by militants.  The following accounts are representative examples:
In December 1992, a state-run bus traveling to Chandigarh was ambushed by six militants, believed to be members of the Khalistan Liberation Front, who ordered Hindu passengers to stand apart from the Sikhs. The gunmen reportedly then raked the Hindus with hundreds of rounds of AK47 rifle fire, killing sixteen and wounding nine.  Five weeks earlier, twenty-five Hindu migrant laborers were killed in a similar bus attack.(113)
On November 4, 1992, militants placed road blocks and stopped vehicles on the Gurdaspur-Tibri road near Amritsar. Seventeen persons identified as Hindu were shot.  According to a report published in the Punjab English daily, _Tribune_, the police claimed to have recovered a note on Bhindranwale Tiger Force (btf) letterhead stating that the killings were in retaliation for the killing of a btf leader.(114)
In an October 1992 attack marking the fourth anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Sikh gunmen bombed an intercity bus near the border between Punjab and Kashmir, killing eighteen civilians and seriously injuring twenty-eight.  The attack, along with two separate attacks against Hindu laborers, triggered anti-Sikh rioting.(115)
At about 9:30 P.M.  on June 15, 1991, gunmen opened fire inside two passenger trains stopped outside Ludhiana, killing at least 75 passengers.  The attacks reportedly were coordinated, as both trains were stopped about a mile from the station by having their emergency cords pulled.  Survivors stated that on one of the trains, Hindu passengers were identified before being shot.  On the second train, the firing was indiscriminate, and many Sikhs as well as Hindus were killed.  Although no group claimed responsibility for the attacks, they were believed to have been carried out by groups opposed to the elections scheduled for June 22.(116)
On July 7, 1987, Sikh separatists attacked two buses in northern Haryana state, killing thirty-four.  Most of the victims were Hindu.  The militants used a car and a jeep to create a roadblock.  On one bus, they singled out particular passengers, dragged them off, and shot them to death.  Militants then boarded the second bus and opened fire, killing all the passengers.  Chinese-made AK47s were used in both attacks.  The incidents occurred the day after militants opened fire on a bus in Punjab, killing forty passengers, and wounding twenty-seven.  The victims were all Hindus bound for a pilgrimage center in Uttar Pradesh.(117)
In June 1987, militants hauled seventy-two Hindus off two rural buses and shot them dead.(118)
	The following accounts, excerpted from press reports, also illustrate the pattern of such attacks:

In September 1993, a car bomb attack using RDX explosives against Sikh moderate politician Maninder Singh Bitta killed eight people.  Bitta himself escaped with minor injuries.  Three Sikh separatist organizations claimed joint responsibility.(129)
In May 1992, Sikh separatists riding scooters shot at the car of Excise and Tax Commissioner A.K.  Mishra at Bradara Gardens in Patialia City.  Mishra and his guards were killed, and the driver of the car was injured.(130)
In November 1988, Jagdev Singh Talwandi, a Sikh leader who had initiated moves to unite the main Sikh political party, was shot and critically injured.  Two of his bodyguards were killed.  Militant Sikhs opposing the unification were believed responsible for the attack.(131)
In January 1987, Sikh extremists armed with automatic rifles assassinated Joginder Pal Pandey, a leading Hindu politician and his bodyguard.  Six other people were also killed by militants in a surge of attacks in Punjab.(132)
In September 1986, officials in Chandigarh said Additional District and Sessions Judge R.P.  Gaind was shot four times by two Sikh gunmen in a store in Jullundur as his wife and daughter stood outside.  The two assassins, armed with 9mm semi-automatic pistols, escaped on a motorscooter.  Gaind had received death threats from Sikh militants after presiding three years ago over a dispute between Sikhs and Hindus involving a Hindu temple in Jullundur.  He also tried cases involving Sikh separatists in the city of Hoshiarpur.(133)
and more......


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 30, 2007)

good one jassi I hope we can prove some of these wrong.


----------



## stupidjassi (Dec 31, 2007)

BhagatSingh said:


> good one jassi I hope we can prove some of these wrong.


bhagat singh ji,  I doubt it. I was too young those times when these things happened. But my question is it true? can somebody prove this wrong?  

no wonder why sikhs are leaving sikhi, because media is against sikhs, but did babar khalsa acutally do this? how could a sikh of guru gobind singh can do this?  But as in case of Parmar (Talwinder Singh Parmar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) . this guy who swear that he`ll kill 50,000 hindus and bombed the plane , is this true? 
Is the fault in our side? 
seems like no one has answer eh...

stupidjassi


----------



## Sherab (Dec 31, 2007)

This is all just to liberate Khalistan from India. It declared its independence 20 years ago.

More info: http://www.khalistan.com/PressReleases/PR101007_Council of Khalistan Celebrates 20th Anniversary.htm


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 31, 2007)

stupidjassi said:


> bhagat singh ji,  I doubt it. I was too young those times when these things happened. But my question is it true? can somebody prove this wrong?
> 
> no wonder why sikhs are leaving sikhi, because media is against sikhs, but did babar khalsa acutally do this? how could a sikh of guru gobind singh can do this?  But as in case of Parmar (Talwinder Singh Parmar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) . this guy who swear that he`ll kill 50,000 hindus and bombed the plane , is this true?
> Is the fault in our side?
> ...



There are bad apples in every religion .It does not mean that people should leave religion.
As far as fault is concerned yes fault was on both sides


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Dec 31, 2007)

stupidjassi said:


> bhagat singh ji, I doubt it. I was too young those times when these things happened. But my question is it true? can somebody prove this wrong?
> 
> no wonder why sikhs are leaving sikhi, because media is against sikhs, but did babar khalsa acutally do this? how could a sikh of guru gobind singh can do this?


 

please remember to take these incidents in context of the time they happened.  in the time period from '78-'92, sikhs were routinely murdered by police, military, militant hindus, and sikh splinter groups (false nirankaris).  when we isolate these incidents, they may look like terrorism, but put in context of the larger picture, one can see that most of them were more likely self defence or revenge.  i have a hard time believing that sikhs would kill innocent victims.  but remember that in the 80s in punjab, very few people were innocent!

many of these attacks were directed at politicians and police, or at militant hindu groups.  not at regular civilians.  

when your own country/government is trying to destroy your people, i don't think fighting back is necessarily terrorism.

i'm not saying that no sikhs made mistakes, because obviously there were some bad apples.  but i think that the way the indian media has portreyed events makes it look as though the sikhs are to blame for far more than they really did.

this is just my opinion, based on the personal stories of friends and family who lived in punjab during that time.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Dec 31, 2007)

stupidjassi said:


> Some of the human right wbesite actually publishing evidence that Sikhs were terrorists . Please comment
> 
> ( http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1994/kashmir94-03.htm)
> 
> ...


 

sorry i can't address every point, but first, why is this under the heading "kashmir", if none of these incidents happened in kashmir?

second, 1992 would be the 8th anniversary of gandhi's death, not the 4th.  makes me wonder how many other mistakes are in here...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 1, 2008)

words and terminology....
the "terrorists" that the British Govt hanged for crimes agaisnt the state..like Bhagat Singh are heroes of today with their statues being installed in the Democratic Parlaiment of India..and his hanging day is a Public Holiday...times change and so do definitions...as they say..one man's meat is another man's poison...
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 2, 2008)

Gyani ji

its a far fetched analogy 

you know that too...


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 2, 2008)

Yeah i know, but  bhagat singh never killed innocent people , or fired in public place. He bombed in parliament  without claiming any casualties. 

Here i somehow managed to get a list in which they described how 'sikh terrorists' looted, fired on 'innocent' hindu public . and if they did, then for sure its terrorist act. 

So i was just wondering that if they actually did it, or just media using these stuff to prove Sikh identity wrong.

stupidjassi





Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> words and terminology....
> the "terrorists" that the British Govt hanged for crimes agaisnt the state..like Bhagat Singh are heroes of today with their statues being installed in the Democratic Parlaiment of India..and his hanging day is a Public Holiday...times change and so do definitions...as they say..one man's meat is another man's poison...
> Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 2, 2008)

yeha i know, seems like someone was in too rush when they made this report. lol. i dont know how much authentic is this report but this is wht they claim to be.



jasleen_kaur said:


> sorry i can't address every point, but first, why is this under the heading "kashmir", if none of these incidents happened in kashmir?
> 
> second, 1992 would be the 8th anniversary of gandhi's death, not the 4th.  makes me wonder how many other mistakes are in here...


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 2, 2008)

sikhs are never terror-Ist.
what do ye think?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 2, 2008)

did you read the introductory paragraphs on that page you posted?  they basically explain WHY sikh militancy started, how it was shaped and encouraged by the GOI...   i don't think any sikh retaliation was surprising after the massive human rights abuses imposed by the punjab police, the military, and the GOI.   how can a handfull of incidents compare to the daily torture and murder of innocent civilians by the police?  

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

i'm siding with the freedom fighters on this one.


----------



## Sherab (Jan 2, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> did you read the introductory paragraphs on that page you posted?  they basically explain WHY sikh militancy started, how it was shaped and encouraged by the GOI...   i don't think any sikh retaliation was surprising after the massive human rights abuses imposed by the punjab police, the military, and the GOI.   how can a handfull of incidents compare to the daily torture and murder of innocent civilians by the police?
> 
> one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
> 
> i'm siding with the freedom fighters on this one.


Glad to see someone's on my side.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 2, 2008)

Bhagat Singh murdered an innocent Deputy Police JP SAUNDERS.....when in fact he wanted to kill SCOTT the Police Chief who allegedly ordered the police to lathicharged lala lajpat rai to death.
The TRUTH is always hard to digest. Just becasue the Establishemtn today promotes a person as hero or martyr doesnt mean naything...ala..Bhinderawalleh and his picture in Sikh Musueum...see how many scream ****** murder at this and millions others WANT the HERO/MARTYR picture to be put up....same logic..bhinderawallh is some men's meat and others poison..
NOT FAR FETCHED ANALOGIES..dears but plain FACTS..
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 2, 2008)

secondly..the "real sikhs" who deserve the martyr status cmae FORWARD and admitted to their actions...the killers of indira gandhi, the vaidya killers, the Sukhjinder and Jinda duo..etc etc etc DIDNT HIDE, DIDNT SHAVE to hide their ID..Didnt run away....they owned up to their actions - right or wrong is a matter of perception.  The "HIDDEN KILLERS" are all ALLEGED (SIKHS) - no one claimed anything or saw anything..daily new evidence surfaces as to who really kills and then alleges/implicates...ala the Chittisnghpura massacre of innocnets just before Bill clintons visit has been proved to be different than those originally alleged !!! what is seen is not always truth...
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 3, 2008)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Bhagat Singh murdered an innocent Deputy Police JP SAUNDERS.....when in fact he wanted to kill SCOTT the Police Chief who allegedly ordered the police to lathicharged lala lajpat rai to death.
> The TRUTH is always hard to digest. Just becasue the Establishemtn today promotes a person as hero or martyr doesnt mean naything...ala..Bhinderawalleh and his picture in Sikh Musueum...see how many scream ****** murder at this and millions others WANT the HERO/MARTYR picture to be put up....same logic..bhinderawallh is some men's meat and others poison..
> NOT FAR FETCHED ANALOGIES..dears but plain FACTS..
> Gyani jarnail Singh


 
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


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 3, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> I think we should see if bhidranwale was a terrorist or a freedom fighter before we discuss this broader topic




trick question, he was a preacher.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

LOL

easy way out

 osama also preaches muslim brotherhood


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 4, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> LOL
> 
> easy way out
> 
> osama also preaches muslim brotherhood


ah see, he preaches muslim brotherhood, whereas sikhs preach universal brotherhood


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 4, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2008)

stupidjassi said:


> 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.
> ...


 
I wasn't relating him to Osama BTW.


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 4, 2008)

sorry i was pointing amarsanghera 					. 




BhagatSingh said:


> I wasn't relating him to Osama BTW.


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 4, 2008)

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:
*1*the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy 
*2*the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way 

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


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 4, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> 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:
> *1*the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
> *2*the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 4, 2008)

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




Sikh80 said:


> 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:
> *1*the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
> *2*the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
> 
> ...


----------



## Sikh80 (Jan 4, 2008)

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 (Jan 4, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2008)

stupidjassi said:


> 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"
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 4, 2008)

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 (Jan 4, 2008)

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 (Jan 4, 2008)

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 (Jan 4, 2008)

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 (Jan 4, 2008)

Hello Sat sri akal...


----------



## dude (Jan 4, 2008)

and everything else


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 4, 2008)

Sinister said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2008)

dude said:


> Hello Sat sri akal...


sat sri akal, 
welcome!
stupidjassi


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 4, 2008)

Sinister said:


> The definition is simple:
> 
> A terrorist is a Utilitarian....in that they always believe the ends justify the means!
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

<<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 (Jan 4, 2008)

<<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.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

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

using Harmandir Sahib as a shield is second one


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 4, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> 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.



ok let me ask you ( again i`m repeating) 

do you think Guru gubind singh ji was a terrorist?  or are against guru gobind singh ji also?
He was against legal constitutions defined by mogul .
he also did ' objectable' speaches and infact he did big sin than bhindrawale because he was 'guru' in the legacy of guru nanak. He was not suppose to instruct his innocent followers to take weapons in their hands


bhul chuk maf
stupidjassi


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

<<do you think Guru gubind singh ji was a terrorist? or are against guru gobind singh ji also?
He was against legal constitutions defined by mogul .
he also did ' objectable' speaches and infact he did big sin than bhindrawale because he was 'guru' in the legacy of guru nanak. He was not suppose to instruct his innocent followers to take weapons in their hands>>

in the eyes of moguls he "was" a terrorist.

but so was Jesus Christ, so were all other greats..

what do you want to prove?

Osama = Bhindaranwale = guru Gobind singh = Guru Nanak = Jesus Christ ???

LOL


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 4, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<<<what chaos did bhindranwale cause? who did he kill? what did he bomb? sorry if it's a stupid question>>
> 
> using Harmandir Sahib as a shield is second one



as a shield?  interesting.  my husband and inlaws were able to freely enter and leave harimandir sahib during the time bhindranwale lived there.  so was anyone else who was willing to remove their shoes and cover their head.  there is evidence of this on video tape, from some of the many western reporters who entered and spoke with him.

 bhindranwale was a preacher, he had lived in the harimandir sahib compound for several years...  preaching.  where else should a preacher live if not a gurdwara?

sorry, i don't get the "shield" thing.


gandhi was looking for an excuse to arrest him, she had none, so she attacked.  why do people blame him for her actions?


----------



## Sinister (Jan 4, 2008)

A true martyr would have marched to gates of the red fort and nailed the hands of indira gandhi to the front gate (with an ink pen)

And yes guru gobind singh was a rebel... fighting oppression... where his ends justified his means

you have to experience an impulse of distaste before you thrust your sword into the belly of your enemy or fire off an arrow from your quiver (it's a natural emotion...if you dont experience it... you are a psychotic lunatic)

that does not however indicate He was devoid of morality. no rebel, terrorist or anyone who displays civil disobedience is ever devoid of morality and incapable of love.

and lets all stop this nonsense and stop adding insult to the fabric of reason. 
stop diefying that which was not a diety


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

Bhagat singh walked up to get arrested

he wanted to use world media to get his voice heard.

if bhindaranwale was just a preacher why did he have these things?

- having arms inside harmandir sahib

- calling for "dharm yudh"

- calling indira - " pandit di beti" in a hugely derisive terms.

LOL

i have no problems with his calling for sikhs to adopt attire as he thought was the proper one...but all the above were beyond the realm of being a preacher


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

oh

and please read zafarnama to get insights into Guru Gobind's mind

The Sikhism Home Page: Select Writings


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 4, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> Bhagat singh walked up to get arrested
> 
> he wanted to use world media to get his voice heard.
> 
> ...



i can only speak to the arms inside harimandir sahib.  akal takht has ALWAYS contained weapons, and it always will.  there's nothing wrong with having weapons inside the walls of harimandir sahib or akal takht.  i don't know why people always talk about this as though bhindranwale was the only one who had ever carried arms there. 

Guru Hargobind Sahib set the precedent.   not some preacher that everyone loves to hate.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

well LMG, rocket launchers, AK 47

what was he preaching?

and does he equate himself with Guru Hargobind ji?

i know in his speeches he always called himself"servant " of Guru's etc etc... but he carried himself as if he was giving orders...telling youth what to do,  his verbatim...us paapi nu sodhna hai>>

whata a loaded way of telling youth to bump off someone...Sodhna is a loaded punjabi word as bump off is. it means...to correct...as well it means ----------


and let me correct some notions

weapons were never "inside" akal takht
except for what ever people carried as their swords etc as a "regular" attire.


they never built bunkers inside.... 

khalsa armies always had a camp "outside" the boundaries of the Harmandir sahib. 

There is a Bunga which has been the camping place of Nihungs for over 250 years

haha

thanks, i understand that you completely accept him as a saint

good for you.



<<not some preacher that everyone loves to hate.>>

yes

i love to hate him, i am not infallible to not hate someone. his stupidity cost lives of many youth, cost innocent childhood of many

he certainly is a character worth calling a saint


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Jan 4, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> well LMG, rocket launchers, AK 47
> 
> what was he preaching?
> 
> ...




our Gurus used guns, why should we limit ourselves to the weapons available in their times?  are we so backward a faith we cannot learn new weapons? 

i used to hate him too.  i thought he was a terrorist.  then i met people who knew him personally, and listened to what they said.  i read his speeches.  i learned just how corrupt the indian media can be (in the early 80s there was a standing order not to print anything about bhindranwale without it being approved by the GOI first).  after doing research, i'm changing my mind.

i don't think the western word "saint" is appropriate, because it has connotations of perfection, and obviously, someone who was so manipulated by indira was nowhere near perfect.  however, the word "sant", which is used for many preachers in punjab, is appropriate. 

i think he made a lot of mistakes, but i think that there's a lot of negative propaganda about him out there too.

(we'll address weapons later...  i have to cook dinner.  )


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2008)

so why doesn't SGPC change with time and include Sikh must carry a gun as one of the K...not a kirpan but Kalishnikov...



what do you say for that..



 so why a e sikhs so rigid then about 5 Ks?

lol

happy cooking !!


----------



## Sinister (Jan 6, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> so why doesn't SGPC change with time and include Sikh must carry a gun as one of the K...not a kirpan but Kalishnikov...


 
LOL

I would actually convert if that change was made...just to see the look on peoples faces as I entered the room with a klashnikov.

The autocratic Bhindranwale had assumed singular jurisdiction over the guilt and innocence of a good portion of India's citizens. And to him lethal violence was a justified means of punishment for those whom he considered culpable. He was the legislature, executive and judiciary all rolled into one with complete disregard for the democratic concept and the separation of powers. 

The result; the emergeance of an extremely divisive leader who never tolerated a voice of opposition. My views on him would be quite different if he were actually an elected representative...because he was politically involved on all levels. It adds a thick layer of materialism to his self constructed image of a "sant" or "preacher". 

do I agree with how operation Blue Star was conducted...NO it could have been conducted with alot less bloodshed. Do I like Indira Gandhi...No ... she was horrible politician and I dont like Dynasties. Did I like Bhindranwale...HECK NO ... he was a tyrant that assumed the role of leader and voice of sikhi when he wasn't. he played with the sentiments of sikhs NEVER for anything positive or constructive (I never heard him say..lets work this out together).


----------

