HSD1

This is about more than oil now, especially as countries like Saudi, the States, Russia and Iran are selling it for historic lows - global price heading to under $30 a barrel. This is more to do with the collapse of 'Pax Americana' and the fallout from various world players learning to flex their muscles without being held to account by the 'world policeman'. It was only a matter of time before the toffs in the UK had set this country on the path to class apartheid of Victorian levels they would want a foreign adventure too. Looks like this whole Syria thing is turning into a clash of 'civilisations' now though.

I also think it has something to do with the other NATO members not being too happy with the proxy war some of their members are fighting with Russia in Syria and how willing some of them are to shoot down their planes or supply Al-Qaeda etc. The British government doesnt seem to have any qualms about bombing ISIS on one hand and supporting the Saudis and other terrorists in their actions against the legitimate ogvernment of Syria on the other. Putin seems to know what he's doing though. Making sure his ally stays in the fight and giving ISIS the kind of hammering the RAF wish they could inflict. A massive contrast to how Britian ditched Gaddafi a few years ago and Saddam Hussein back in the 90s. Seeing as ISIS are telling people to head to Libya or the Sinai now instead of Syria, it looks like the war will go on for a long time especially as the West now has very few friends in the region.

Well here we go again. Bit pointless starting to drop bombs as the Sunni genie has been let out of the bottle a long time ago and is spreading across the Middle East and North Africa now. When the Kurds and Yazidis descend on Raqqa for the bloodbath of the century (so far) expect more Sunni retaliation. Anyone still think this will end well? I think Cameron would do anything to shift the paedo/pigloving scandals under the carpet. What's noticeable though is NATO's response in all this. After what happened in Paris I expected more of them to want to do something about Daesh but they've all gone quiet apart from Britain.

Bad time to be a shifty looking person in East Punjab.

Not surprising, that guy is a complete fruit loop. The whole Sikh Taliban thing when Sikhs have been hounded out of Afghanistan and he has said nothing just shows how detached from reality he is. Still a lot of work to do, there is always more we can be doing. We also have to be vigilant that all this effort to protect and empower our people isnt derailed into silliness or apathy as it has done so many times in the past.

This Rajput needs his own thread where the mods can dump all his posts. Just an idea.

No I dont, the world is far more complicated than the simple pendu way you see things. I find it sickening that you have to make such emotional self righteous capital out of the suffering of the Yazidis, simply telling them they should have gone and joined Saddam's army and letting them get slaughtered now. Where could they go? What could they do? You have glazed over all my points and backed yourself into a corner, what have all the Sunni tribes in Iraq who were part of Saddam's army do? They got slaughtered just like the Yazidis. You can sit in the West chatting crap whilst people die, but lets face it what would you say if Pakistan descended into chaos and large numbers of terrorists started pouring into East Punjab? No it ran through most of the violence. It's why the Sikh militias in East Punjab border could go on rescues/punishment raids into West Punjab whilst the muslims didnt try anything similar into East Punjab. The militias were set up and supplied by the militaries of East Punjab or by smart individuals at a local level. The Akali Dal couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery. The British Army never taught the rubbish you are on about. The British Armed forces used motor vehicles to transport supplies in theatre and most convoy support revolved around the use of air power. How on earth you can translate all that to SIkhs on horses and using carts is getting ludicrous. Can you actually provide any sources that have categorically and statistically verified that Sikhs were better at organising convoys? You have some anecdotal evidence, great, my family come from the border region and the refugees they had to deal with were dishevelled, ill and shocked at loosing their homes and their birthright. They werent some cowboys who blazed a trail eastwards like 19th century Yanks in those John Wayne movies you probably watched growing up in the 60s. He had been waiting for a while to get a Sikh leader on his own and when he did go out of his way he had his offer turned down. What did you want Churchill to do? Chase after Baldev Singh and beg him to do what was good for his own people? Not everyone responds that way to a blunt refusal and being talked down to- just Sikhs. Churchill could have been a valuable go between for us with the British Government, the British Armed Forces and the Americans - but we turned him down even when he tried taking a Sikh leader under his wing for a while and introducing him to people who could have given Sikhs their own country. Would the other SIkh leaders been any different? Biggest pack of morons ever. More excuses. No wonder Sikhs didnt get their own country if they expect it to be served on a plate to them. No one gifted them anything, the Jews werent brainless dogs who sat around watching the world go past until someone decides to give them a kicking. They planned for and took what they wanted. Again, why did we allow ourselves to get in the position where we contemplated our future all of a sudden when two different governments with no interest in our welfare were tearing up our homeland? Answer that and you might find out the real reason Jews got their own country. So what if Pakistan had British generals? The same generals who refused to get involved in the Kashmir conflict even under direct orders from Jinnah? And what would it mattered if Sikh ex-soldiers had faced off against their former generals and officers? You were encouraging the Yazidis to do the exact same thing when you said they should have joined Saddam's army back in the day to now face ISIS who are run by a lot of Saddam's former generals and officers. Haifa was predominantly Arab up until 1947 when the Jews started strongarming them out. In one battle the Jews managed to kick out over 50% of a city because they wanted to. You can throw around percentages but it just masks the fact Sikhs had been neutered by the Brits. Why could it be done in the 18th and not the 20th - not even with all those shiny automatic weapons the former Sikh soldiers had? All 3 main leaders signed the authorisation for Britain to use air power against agitators during independence. Sikh leaders never said anything when our lot were being killed, but when trains started rolling into West Punjab full of dead muslims, Jinnah complained to Mountbatten and he scolded the Sikh leadership who said they stood by the use of force against violent agitators. The RAF/IAF couldnt spare the planes to even patrol the railways let alone bomb suspected villages so Mountbatten gave up. Its all in his correspondence in the Mountbatten files. I know Sikhs like you are used to being spoonfed but if you want to stay ignorant I'll still sleep easy at night. I support the idea that some people are more mental others. Sikhs havent been martial since 1849. They have been cannon fodder though. As for maths, I can tell you that I have better qualifications in it than you or ilk could ever hope for. I see English isnt your strong point as I was referencing Sikh deeds in WW1, we all know Sikh effort towards WW2 wasnt anywhere near the same level. But nice try at trying to confuse a point. If the Brits werent bothered by who they recruited why did they put so much effort into brainwashing SIkh kids into loving Britannia and hating Britain's enemies, pay community and religous leaders in the Sikh community on commission for recruits and good old fashioned pressganging? The problems with Pathans and Balochs is that they were considered more capable of independent thought than Sikhs, who were more useful as they blindly followed and were a bit woggish. Isnt this trip through 1930s British racial stereotyping fun?! If they refused to fight they would have been in massive shit far away from anywhere that they use to their advantage. The British could have replaced us, but they never did, for what kind of rupert wants to go into combat with a bunch of self-serving muslims or useless Hindus? Their thoughts, not mine.

Yes I do. If we had the brains and balls to get our own country, we might have actually felt the need to look after it. Nepal has never been a major country, like Punjab was. So Sikhs are nothing more than a cargo cult now? Great. If aping what people did in the 60s is such a great idea, why dont some Sikhs in EP invent the telephone - I heard the guy who did that ended up filthy rich. Or maybe the people there should set up companies called 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' because those companies ended up rich didnt they? lol. I've heard the saying 'every silver cloud has a silver lining' but I dont think that quite translates to getting benefits out of something as mad as the Holocaust. West Germany's payments were paid as they had been let off the hook for a lot of reperations and the fact that the Jews had gone and got their own country. Do you think the West Germans would have still paid it out if the Arabs and Brits had pushed the Jews into the sea? Face it, the Jews achieved what they wanted because they werent stupid, they worked together and they fought hard. Nothing superhuman about that.

Yes, the Jews who were gassed and cremated magically managed to resurrect themselves, fly over to Palestine and beat up the Arabs and Brits. That's exactly what happened. Amazingly, tying their fortunes to the Polish, Russian, British or Unites States armies didnt work out for the average Jews in Eastern Europe. The White Paper from Britain limited Jewish migration to Palestine in 1939 to 75,000 a year. Well done to Britain, in one fell swoop they condemned millions to their deaths. These were the same people we let play God over us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939 As for getting themselves recognised, so what? They're not crybabies who whine that all their allies are trying to screw them over like we Sikhs do. If the Khalsa stopped crying and pointing at others saying they've got it easy, maybe just maybe they might achieve something. Otherwise keep crying, the Jews wont care what you say, they've got their own country and no one messes with them. You wont see Israeli women leaving their homes to work in the sex industry in Europe or Israeli men working as brickies in Mullahland or Anglostan. Turn that bitterness and resentment around and use it for something constructive. If you dont ask you dont get, but if you just do it chances are you'll get it. Why dont you think they did it themselves? Wasnt that place set up by a Sindhi?

Well it was theirs wasnt it? They wanted it, they worked towards it without making it obvious and before anyone could stop them they had it. @JungChamkaur Have you learnt how to wash your hands yet?

But there numbers were diminishing, what matter is it how that comes about? There was no mass sympathy for the Jews after WW2, most reports of the Holocaust were written in the media and not exactly harrowing. It was only with the trials and war criminal hunts along with video documentaries in the 50s and 60s that changed world opinion. Stop backdating how things are today to back then, the Jews fought hard for what they had because they had the balls to take what they wanted, not expect it to be handed to them like children.

Hang on a minute you were talking about modern weapons earlier and the training in how to use them, now you're saying it's to do with military tactics. So what military tactics are you on about that the Sikhs learned and that the Yazidis could have made use of? The muslim convoys were badly organised as it was Ramadan and they tended to bring all their livestock with them for some reason. Sikhs travelling westwards werent so stupid to fast or bring cattle, and their armed guards tended to be cavalry militia from East Punjab many of whom were armed with swords/lances - not all had firearms. They were co-ordinated by havildars from the independent states. Stop trying to sound quasi-scientific in your assertation that it took some kind of military training to help deal with these kinds of situations. I dont remember the British Army issuing pamphlets to their troops on how to fight your way out of hordes of angry muslims. Well in the binary world Sikhs like you live in there is only option but in reality being in Saddam's army could have caused all sorts of problems and been absolutely no guarantee that they wouldnt have been steamrolled by ISIS like the Sunni tribes have. And it was our own Sikh military traditions that allowed us to kill so many muslims, not British infantry squad tactics. Churchill tried to talk Baldev Singh into meeting the British cabinet and military leadership. He wanted to cut some weird deal where Sikhs got their own country and in return Sikhs would side with Britain in the Cold War and guarantee the sovereignty of Singapore with the deployment of two divisions there and emigration. It was in Churchill's memoirs and referenced by some other top brass back then but Baldev went and told Nehru who sweet talked him that India would offer Sikhs so much more... The Mountbatten Papers detail how there was indifference to the violence until Sikhs retaliated and trouble in villages would be bombed and fighter planes used to strafe groups moving towards railways. Your obsessed with percentages, but what you say is right. If Jews with a small brigade in the British Army were able to take over 50% of the land with less than 30% of the population then what excuses do Sikhs have for 1947? You havent explained why units completely independent of the British army like the Haganah and Irgun were able to face the British in Haifa and beat them in predominantly Arab city. What excuse do we have for losing for Lahore? Apart from the fact that Sikhs have accustomed to trying to save face rather than achieve real world results. Well Sikhs held as much of the Western Front in WW1 as the Belglian Army or US did when the war ended. Not bad for a colonised people. We won more Victoria Crosses per capita than any other nation including the four home nations. Before all that we were instrumental in a lot of Britain's wars in East Asia. Jinnah could have offered millions of muslims but the British wouldnt have had them. You may like to peruse British Indian Army religous makeup figures in your spare time but it doesnt take a genius to see that the numbers fluctuated based on two things: Britain's own economic state and the nature of the wars she was fighting. In peace or poverty, the amount of overall troops would fall, in war the British would go out of their way to recruit Sikhs - including pressganging and bribing religous/political figures to produce a certain number of Sikhs for service...All the other stuff you say is neither here nor there if you cant even see basic statistical patterns or understand the reality of recruitment. If there had been no SIkhs in the British Armed Forces and police it would have been even harder for them to keep the Axis out of Egypt, Burma and East Asia. WIthout control of those their own rule in India would have crumpled into a free for all, where soldiers stationed abroad would have languished in Japanese or Italian POW camps. In India it would have been left to those left there to forge their own path. Doesnt take a genius to see what would have happened. For a moment can you stop oscillating between such binary extremes? Not everything is either 6th gear or neutral. It must be absolutely mental to see everything in such way. Except they did that under their own steam, not under the noses of the Brits who were very keen to stamp on individualism and independent thought in their Sikh troops. Read some British army officers memoirs of WW1 and see how easily they wound up Sikh soldiers. British Indian Army training wasnt exactly a chance to 'be the best you can be', it reinforced class, caste and other prejudices that can be seen in all branches of their Armed Forces in those time periods, which in turn was a reflection of their own society.

@Tony You have a very colloquial view of history and using that logic to draw analogies with the present is neither here nor there. If the Yazidis had joined Saddam's army and not been picked on they would still have suffered plenty dead in the Iran-Iraq War as well as both Gulf Wars. Trading all those men for a few weapons would have made no difference. The Sunni tribes, the Free Syrian Army, Syrian Arab Army, the Iraqi Army, Hezbollah and Shiah militias have all been fought to a standstill by ISIS. You still havent explained why military experience and guns would have helped the Yazidis if it hasnt helped any of the former? Secondly, and more importanly, no one saw what happened to the Yazidis coming. I bet no one here knew who they were until ISIS attacked them. Even if they had weapons, what difference would it have made if they had been caught with their pants down like we were at Partition? ISIS would still be raping their women and girls, they would just have more guns to add to their arsenal. Stop comparing apples and oranges. Ironically the only force in the region who have held their own against ISIS are the Kurds...... do they have a proud history of serving in Saddam's army? Quite the opposite I'll think you'll find. Go ponder that. Sikh leadership had plenty of options. Churchill offered us our own state and we turned him down to his face as we were happy with Congress. At the end of the day what kind of leaders take orders from others when they when they can just go and get what they want? Sikhs are reactionary, the violence of Partition came as a shock to all Sikhs, you have no evidence that our leaders premeditated what happened in East Punjab. When Sikhs started fighting back in East Punjab, Montbatten summoned the Sikh leaders who agreed to his plan to use air power to quell uprisings in East Punjab! Our leaders were docile, complacent and wholly spineless. On a side note, it's this very style of lazy, apathetic and uncaring leadership and attitude that encourages so many Sikh youth to tolerate abuse from outsiders in order to feel some sort of acceptance nowadays. They prefer it to the fear of having to grow up and turn into the domesticated turkeys they have for elders. If our leadership cant do better for us then they shouldnt be in charge. We came away from Partition with next to nothing. We still have nothing. Yet things keep getting worse. I'll tell you what was unrealistic - sitting on your own hands for a hundred years. Seriously no one goes through that length of colonialism willingly unless they are retarded. I'm not talking about the ability to throw off the shackles of occupation, I'm talking about the absolute lack of will to change our situation. Most Sikhs werent worried about paying for levies, they happily accepted colonialim - for a chance to get balls deep in a memsahib when her husband was chasing little boys around Lahore bazaar or to go abroad and see the world looting or doing Britannia's 'good work'. If the Sikhs back then had done this for the Khalsa and Punjab Empire I could sort of understand, but to do it for someone else and then say that we were forced into it is a bit of a stretch. The British in Palestine had no Jews in their army or police. Yet in 1948 at Haifa a few Jews took on thousands of Arabs who were backed up by British regulars and tanks. The Jews won. How? Because they wanted it more. They slaughtered the Arabs, fought house to house, killed Arab snipers with impunity. Then the British tanks came rolling in. Did the Irgun stand around like old women farting and discussing the merits of whether they could do anything about it or not like Sikhs would have? No, they ran into the buildings along the road that the British tanks were driving down and blew up the larger houses covering the tanks in rubble. They then ran towards the tanks and poured petrol into the visors and hatches trying to set the crew alight. When the Brits inside opened their tank hatches the Jews stabbed and beat them whilst others lit dynamite used for mining or molotov cocktails and threw them into tanks and forced the crew back in by shutting the hatches. Why did they fight so ferociously? Why didnt they just kill the Arabs in their vicinity and sit there saying 'I'm alright now'? They didnt wait for some outsider to show them the way, they had the will to act. Something Sikhs back in 1947 and to this day lack. You still havent countered my earlier point that a predominantly non-Sikh Indian Army would have been able to acheive far less in both World Wars and put the British in the position where they may not have been able to call the shots on who got what. Or havent you wrapped your brain around the notion yet? Using that same logic we should have just given up after the Ghalugharas too. Maybe it's stupid to not fight for a future where you can raise your children as Sikhs.

Well let me spell it out for you. If the Yazidis did as you say, who do you think the Iraqi Army would have sent into the minefields without weapons like they did in the Iran-Iraq War when the predominantly Sunni Iraqi Army used those who werent like them as cannon fodder? During the First Gulf War, who do you think the Republican Guard would have forced to stay and face the American onslaught whilst they tried to run and hide from the USAF? You dont need to be a genius to know it would be the people referred to as Devil Worshippers by the Sunnis. Finally, with many former members of Saddam's army now part of ISIS what difference would have being in Saddam's army made? Look at the Sunni tribes in Anbar and Tikrit who have been practically wiped out by ISIS - where did being in Saddam's army get them? I hope this spells out my point that your analogy is terrible as the Yazidis were never a major political/military force in the previous century or former rulers of Iraq unlike SIkhs who were both in Punjab. Patiala may have had a small army but it was functional. Germany had an army of 100,000 at one point and a few years later had control of most of Europe in that time period. The Israeli Defense Force and its predecessors was small yet they still won the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. What is your point? After Partition the Hindustanis deliberately minimised the role Sikhs play in the Armed Forces... looks like we played that martial race card so many times that our enemies saw it coming. Hindsight is a beautiful thing. To say that what happened would have happened anyway is laughable. Speak to the generation who went through it and many of them felt there was nothing stopping the Muslims descending on East Punjab - that's why they started the reprisals to make sure that their backs were clear before the onslaught (that never came even if the British tried to help the muslims). You say that Sikhs had well armed convoys - well of course those who had weapons would have been well armed when they made their move eastwards. But plenty werent and many SIkhs died. The oh so mighty Sikhs who fought to save the world from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan couldnt even save their own people when it came to it. The fact that rather than take destiny into our own hands and decide our own borders we waited for some four eyed anglo administrator to decide who could live where and which side of the border you had to get to shows how impotent the Khalsa was. Who the hell would listen to their former masters who were running away over the needs and lives of their own people? Dress it up how you want, not all of us crave acceptance and need a skewed worldview to support it. As for what happened after 1849 we should have done what any normal people would have done. Planned to get back on top. Remilitarization. Waited for a time when our occupiers where engaged elsewhere. Not fought wars for them like utter prats. Your kind like to go on about how many Sikhs fought in the World Wars, yet you never talk about how many were killed, wounded or desensitized by what they went through. Face it, the British sold us a lie, we fell for it, they screwed us and walked away with everything whilst we were left to pick up the pieces. FFS Partition has negative effect to this day with the poverty and backwardness of East Punjab to issues with the Pakistani community in the Commonwealth, terrorism in South Asia and our own people's lack of a backbone due to knowing how far we have fallen. To dress it up as anything else makes you as bad as the BBC lefties who spin their rubbish about 1947.

Maybe the Yazidis should have joined Saddam's army back in the day to help them fight wars in the present. After all a lot of Saddam's top commanders and officer class who would have led the Yazidis (in a disastrous war with Iran and then the US in the 80s/90s) are now in charge of ISIS military operations. Then the Yazidis could be just like us, fighting for one group who in turn try and bring about their destruction in the next war. Because that's done us so well....... You say that if it wasnt for the Sikhs in the Indian Army then the muslims would washed over us and taken all Punjab. But that's just your opinion. Some nutjobs say the reason EP stayed Sikh was the high prevalance of former INA/Tiger Legion soldiers there. I personally feel that it was down to one simple thing - East Punjab had two independant states who's militaries took the role in Partition that the Irgun/Haganah were doing in Palestine. They armed Sikhs with guns and the necessary ammunition, provided jeeps and trucks and were standoffish with the British occupiers enough so that they didnt go after the Sikh militias. Your point also doesnt explain why Sikhs in West Punjab didnt survive, seeing as many of them had served in the British Armed Forces. Why didnt they prevent the muslims taking over? Before you go off on one detailing the number of jatts/chamars in the Indian Army was higher in the Doaba/Majha/whatever region, take a step back. A long time ago, a great man said all who take refuge under the Nishan Sahib would be protected by the Khalsa. 100 years before Partition if a Sikh village was under threat from muslims they would send someone to their local FaujiQilajat garrison. Within days thousands of Sikh regulars and militias would be in the area ensuring the rule of law and Sikh values as laid out by our Gurus - as well as knocking some muslims about. Yet for many of our grandparents, the Nishan Sahib wasnt a symbol of protection and strength - it was a target that drew the monsters to the door. Have you ever asked yourself why? I'll tell you why - the British demilitarised Punjab and made sure Sikhs were exposed so that in future they could finish us off when we were no longer useful. They tore down the walls around our villages, filled in our defensive ditches, confiscated all weapons in every household and took any books that would mentally arm Sikhs with any kind of foresight. If anything, Partition was a continuation of the Second Anglo-Sikh War; during that war the British flooded West Punjab with hundreds of political agents, weapons and money. They turned a mass of people who had been forced to live nicely with others back into the savages they were under the Mughals. After the defeat of one legion at Gujrat I believe that if we hadnt agreed terms the British would have encouraged the muslims hordes to head towards Lahore/Amritsar. It suited them to stop the war then, but when it suited them to finish us off they didnt waste any time. Why was there such a large British military presence around Amritsar? Why do you never ever hear of any account of British troops helping Sikh or Hindu refugees from West Punjab get to safety, yet the British poured troops and weapons into East Punjab to help muslim refugees get through? Face it, the muslims and brits pulled a fast one and you lot are still trying to get your heads round it. 70 years later. I hope you still dont think that Guru Nanak prophecised that Britannia and the Khalsa would rule the world together? If we had let the British fight their own wars they wouldnt have been in a position to tear Punjab apart...

Eugh, another BBC programme about Partition and another chance to drag out the same old hashed out story of Sikh patriarchs killing their daughters who would have preffered to be raped, tortured and forced to produce more terror tots than die with dignity according to the BBC. I think we need to write letters to the BBC letting them know that even though cuckoldry is common amongst Englishman (and Sunny Hundal) not everyone would enjoy watching their daughters get gang-raped by random men, even though this is something that is a cornerstone of English culture. Surely the British sense of tolerance that we hear so much about could stretch to accomodate those of us who dont indulge in that sort of thing? If you believed the BBC you'd end up believing that Muslims killed no one and the Sikhs were responsible for all the violence - including killing their own. Outside of BBC-La-La-Land we all knew that Britain gave Jinah the nod to go ahead and when it didnt work Montbatten tried to getting the RAF to carpet bomb Sikh towns and villages. When the RAF couldnt do it he wanted the British Army to force Sikhs onto cattle trains and deport them to central India. Seeing as the British forces were having a hard enough time in Amritsar even with tanks against civilians the plan was dropped. No wonder the Irgun over in Palestine hung as many Brits as they could get their hands on. As for Anita Rai crying over the women not having a say, it's not like they had a lot of good options anyway. I'm surprised Nihal hasnt done a radio show about with a phone in to capitalise on slagging off Sikhs.

Bit hard to do that when the UK media are accusing Russia of bombing 'moderates' like Jabat Al Nusra also know as Al-Qaeda in Syria. They're the good guys according to the establishment.

Even with Badal's blackout on bad news, it is clear most of the drugs the idiots back in EP like to take are being sent over by our oldest enemy. Now they are trying to get it over here to. Sikhs in the UK need to do more to be aware of people like her trying to get younger working class Sikhs addicted to drugs sold by predominantly muslims gangs.

Well after reading the million man -v- forty Chamkaur and the Sunny Hundal thread it struck me that a few of the old hairy fairy types had been given free rein, so I decided to drop a few reality bomb type threads to see if they had anything to say. You know that these emus like to revert to type unless forced otherwise. As I find some interesting stuff I'll post it, like Amarpal Singh Sidhu's book about the Second Anglo-Sikh War which should be out soon. Otherwise I'll just end up like everyone else arguing all the time in random threads.....aint nobody got time for that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131833/Man-condemned-harem-sex-slaves-ordeal-control-rape-torture-evil-14-year-campaign-sleep-women-possible.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3235062/Blonde-Danish-teenager-15-murdered-mother-kitchen-knife-watching-ISIS-videos-beheading-British-hostages-online.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231908/British-teacher-brainwashes-primary-school-children-writing-letters-support-Syrian-jihadis-calling-diamonds.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/29/islamic-state-armageddon--attack-india_n_7895170.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/savage-gang-chop-womans-hair-6044364