Jamuka

I fully support to the series of events following what happened. Why is Gurpreet such a hateful person and why is she targeting her own community?

God help Micheal Moore the fatso... and meanwhile... BAGHDAD, Iraq Nov 16, 2004 — Al-Jazeera television said Tuesday it received a videotape showing the slaying of a woman believed to be hostage Margaret Hassan, the longtime director of CARE in Iraq. Hassan's family in London said they believed she was dead. The station planned to broadcast parts of the video later Tuesday. CARE said in a statement, "It is with profound sadness that we have learned of the existence of a video in which it appears that our colleague Margaret Hassan has been killed. … The whole of CARE is in mourning." The 59-year-old Briton was abducted in Baghdad on Oct. 19, the most prominent of more than 170 foreigners kidnapped in Iraq this year. Her captors later issued videos showing her pleading for Britain to withdraw its troops from Iraq and calling for the release of female Iraqi prisoners. Video May Show CARE Director Being Killed Video May Show Iraq Aid Worker Killed -Husband Marines Investigate Shooting of Wounded Iraqi Jihad Ballout, an Al-Jazeera spokesman, said the station received the tape a few days ago but had not been sure of its authenticity. "We invited British diplomatic officials to come and view it," he said. "It's now likely that the image depicts Mrs. Hassan." Her four brothers and sisters said they believe Hassan is dead. "Our hearts are broken," they said in a statement. "We have kept hoping for as long as we could, but we now have to accept that Margaret has probably gone and at last her suffering has ended." The family did not indicate why they now believed Hassan was dead, but said: "Those who are guilty of this atrocious act, and those who support them, have no excuses." On Sunday, U.S. Marines found the mutilated body of what they believe was a Western woman on a street in a Fallujah during the U.S. assault on the insurgent stronghold. Besides Hassan, the only Western woman known held was Teresa Borcz Khalifa, 54, a Polish-born longtime resident of Iraq who was seized last month. Al-Jazeera reported on Nov. 2 that Hassan's captors had threatened to turn her over to followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi and his men have been blamed for numerous deadly car bombings and the slayings of foreign hostages, including three Americans and a Briton. More than 170 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq this year; more than 30 of them have been slain. Born in Ireland, Hassan also held British and Iraqi citizenship. She lived in Iraq for 30 years and married an Iraqi. In its statement, her family said: "Nobody can justify this. Margaret was against sanctions and the war. To commit such a crime against anyone is unforgivable. But we cannot believe how anybody could do this to our kind, compassionate sister. "The gap she leaves will never be filled." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=256919

Ok, sorry brothers. It really does not matter who is wrong or right here but with utmost humility I hope Sikhphilosophy, JSB and Mehtab accept my sincere apologies. I humbly apologise.

Consider it 'SEWA'! I am nobody but that does not stop one from pointing out an odd behaviour. After all, this IS a discussion forum. No? The last time I checked in a discussion forum, one should be able to express oneself to the fullest? Am I right? Did you even read what I said or do you usually lose your head at the slightest criticism brough forth toward a member of the Sikh faith or Sikhism? I woudn't be the leat bit surprised if I were in front of you right now, you would not hesitate to resort to violence. Keep it up bafoon! It is no wonder that Sikhs are exchanging blows over the petty issues; ie making the langar halls with or without chairs! Keep up your idiocity! This is the precise attitude that has kept us backward and this is why we have no homeland to call ours simply because of stupid bickering over petty issues! You obviously have not gained from Guruji's teachings! You can go to a devout Christian and tell him on his face that Jesus is a liar and he will still behave in an examplary manner, will still call you a brother and debate with you with civility. You will almost never find that attitude or humility among todays Sikhs for we are too busy judging others and losing or heads over trivial and petty issues. It's no wonder that Christian nations are the most powerful on this planet today. More anger resulting from insecurity. Yes, never critisize lest you want to go home in a body bag. Am I right? No freedom of speech for we are surrounded by insecure idiots like you with short tempers. Aaaaah, the age old Punjabi custom of putting words into someones else's mouth. Thank you! Yes, I have. I have learnt that despite great teachings from our Gurus, we still have donkeys like you in our midst. We need to conduct studies and find out why is that. Maybe you can help. Read carefully what I said before simply losing your head. The topic at hand has nothing to do with religion per say but Mehtab HAD to bring it in and use his experience with falling in love with Guruji's picture and passing off that as fact. This is a discussion and if somebody wants to contribute, he or she has to be prepared to be critisized as well even if one were to use Guruji's name. I did precisely that but idiots like you cannot take any criticism when it touches Sikhism. You obviously do not understand the rules of engagement in a discussion. You're an idiot 'par excellence'! Secondly, claiming that one was inspired to embrace a religion based on a picture or drawing IS stupid. What if archeological findings prove that Guru Gobind Singh ji was physically defect in some way. Will that diminish your faith in Sikhism? How superficial AND stupid! Is this what Guru Nanak Ji brought to the world? It's quite sad you do not see this point for you are too busy judging me. I am not a learned Sikh scholar but I think I understand the gist of Sikhism better then you.

'Shalom' brother! I am a big fan of Israel and I recognize it's right to exist. We Sikhs can learn a lot from the Jews. From what I see, we have many similarities. Hopefully we can all learn from you.

Well for starters the analogy of comparing your experience in falling in love with Guru Gobind Singh ji's painting with the topic at hand (love at first sight) was plain stupid. It is like comparing apples to oranges. BTW how does one embrace a religion based on a picture? I mean seriously, if you came across a beautiful picture of Jesus Christ, would you convert to Christianity? In order for me to prove how stupid this analogy was, I had to go to your 'level'. Glad to be of service.

Yawn....another cheap tactic to gain converts. How pathetic.

Mehtab wrote That picture is merely an artist depiction of how Guru Gobind Singh Ji might have looked. We have no real idea how they really looked. What if historians and archeologists come across new findings that proves that our Guru were physically ugly? Will you then leave Sikhism? Sukhi wrote Hmmmm, it appears that we do! This is a cause for a celebration! Mehtab wrote Yes Mehtab, I've 'been' there. I too was once extremely infatuated by one lass and I too thought this was 'love at first sight' for me. Two years of pure hell have made me a wiser person now. Please note, I don't believe that there is absolutely no cases of 'love' at first sight but in general I truly do not believe it exists. It is just a fantasy of ours, it's more romantic to meet a partner this way so we entertain our ego to this nonsense. Adminji wrote Dear administrator, do you by any chance have the English translation of the abover mentioned verse? Jogi wrote Yes, very true. As mentioned earlier, I've been there. It's nothing but what you say of it. All of you who believe that after watching movies like 'Sleepless in Seattle' and 'Titanic' and believe that you will have the same kind of experience just because you have a crush on another person. My advice to you is that, be ready for a shock of your life! In the real world, there is no such thing. Maybe it does happen randomly but in the majority of love affairs out there, it does not. I too was under this same delusion for a long time. I thought arranged marriages was totally 'uncool'. I am now proud to say I am 'sober' from my own delusions and believe that arranged marriages ain't such a bad idea although it may not be the best option.

True love has nothing to do with 'sight'.

I'm Stalin too!

Trying to be something or someone else is usually a sign of INSECURITY. I suspect these Canadian youth are children of parents migrating straight out of Punjab. Their parents must be typical FOB's (Fresh of the Boat) or must exhibit strong FOB behaviour. In order to make sure they are not identified as FOB's these Punjabi youth have decided to act all Black since they themselves are not White. And as simply as you want it you will not simply get it because 'Politically Correct' is against the very nature of being a human. You are trying to stifle the right for others to express themselves to the fullest simply because what he or she has to say is not very 'nice'. In fact judging from Khalistani47's post, the opposite has happened. I hope you learnt something from this thread. LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!! What an outburts!!!! My punjabi sucks by I sure as hell know what 'kuthiz' means!!! Man AK you are funny!!! LOL!!!!!! Tupac is cool!!!

We must be allowed to criticise Islam By Will Cummins(Filed: 11/07/2004) In the time of Marcus Aurelius, Christianity was a growing force within the Roman Empire. His ministers asked him if the state should join the non-Christian majority in attacking the new religion, or seek to protect it. The Emperor's reply is found in his Meditations. The state's response to Christianity, he said, or to anything else, should be determined by one simple question: "What is the thing in itself? What does it do?" Today, the Government faces a similar dilemma regarding Islam. In response, the Home Secretary announced plans last week to make vilification of Islam a crime. He insisted that his law to "ban incitement to religious hatred" was meant to defend every faith. However, only Muslims have asked for immunity. The legislation would "close a loophole", David Blunkett observed, because inciting hatred of people on racial grounds is illegal in the UK, but inciting hatred of them on the grounds of belief is not. The problem is that a virulent hatred of Muslims can no more be racism than a virulent hatred of Marxists or Tories. Nobody is a member of a race by choice. Such groups are protected from attack because it is unfair to malign human beings for something they cannot help. However, nobody is a member of a community of belief except by choice, which is why those who have decided to enter or remain within one are never protected. Were such choices not open to the severest censure, we could no longer call our country a democracy. It is a red herring for supporters of Mr Blunkett's law to say that Muslims should be shielded by the race laws because Jews and Sikhs are. It is the racial persons of Jews and Sikhs that are protected, not their beliefs. In any case, Sikhism and Judaism are race cults which actively discourage converts. It is almost impossible to become a member of either religion unless you are racially Jewish or Punjabi. They are diametrically opposed to inclusive ideologies like Christianity or Islam, which seek to convert everybody. Some propose special protection for Muslims by saying that Islam is a racial identity because three of the four schools of Islamic law enjoin faithful Muslims to murder anyone who wishes to leave the faith, thus limiting every Muslim's freedom of action. But is this a point in Islam's favour? And is this the sort of religion we want to throw people into prison for condemning? To argue that Islam should have special protection because it is a "religion" while Marxism or Conservatism are "merely philosophies" is equally specious. All that divides a religion from a secular ideology is something whose existence - supernatural support - is disputed by adherents of the latter. To privilege supernatural belief-systems by law would be to impose the view of the faithful about this on everyone, the situation that prevailed in the Middle Ages. This time, it is Islam, not Christianity, that New Labour wants to impose on Christendom. A society in which one cannot revile a religion and its members is one in which there are limits to the human spirit. The Islamic world was intellectually and economically wrecked by its decision to put religion beyond the reach of invective, which is simply an extreme form of debate. By so doing, it put science and art beyond the reach of experiment, too. Now, at the behest of Muslim foreigners who have forced themselves on us, New Labour wants to import the same catastrophe into our own society. In a recent television panel, Iqbal Sacranie explained why the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the organisation he leads, had pushed for this legislation. The British should be allowed not to believe in Islam, he said (thanks, Mr Sacranie!), but they should not be permitted to "criticise" it. Ken Livingstone has gone even further. On Wednesday, the Mayor of London welcomed to City Hall the Qatari divine Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, according to the MCB "an Islamic scholar held in great respect throughout the Islamic world". Basing his teaching on Islam's holiest texts, Dr al-Qaradawi has urged his fellow Muslims to beat their wives; to use child suicide bombers to kill female and infant civilians; to murder Jews, homosexuals and British servicemen; and to colonise, desecrate and usurp Christian Rome. Mr Livingstone said that the newspapers that had condemned Dr al-Qaradawi for such views "showed why this legislation [blunkett's] is necessary". It was the critics of Dr al-Qaradawi's beliefs, Mr Livingstone insisted, who were, as the Muslim Association of Britain put it, "the image of evil". Dr al-Qaradawi, a mainstream figure in a major religion, had endorsed Jew lynching and wife beating: Mr Livingstone seemed to imply that, like Islam, such activities should therefore be above criticism. This brings us to the nub of the issue: the fact that Islam's teachings are completely unlike those of other faiths. The Government shows no sign of understanding this. Defending his proposed legislation, Mr Blunkett, for instance, said: "It applies equally to far-Right evangelical Christians as to extremists in the Islamic faith." But what "far-Right evangelical Christian" has ever proposed or endorsed anything as horrifying as what the moderate Muslim regards as normal? In Roman Polanski's film Chinatown, the villain, John Huston's "Noah Cross", murderous tycoon, asks the private detective character, played by Jack Nicholson: "Exactly what do you know about me, Mr Gittes?" "Mainly that you're too respectable to want your name in the papers," Gittes replies. "Course I'm respectable!" Cross exclaims. "I'm old! Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough!" The same is true of religions. Our rulers know as much about Islam as Gittes knows about Cross: that it has been "around long enough" (since the seventh century); that it "doesn't want its name in the papers" (except on its own terms); and that it is sanctified by the principle, central to multiculturalism, that any civilisation, however repulsive, has the same value as any other, however benign, and is entitled to protection and praise simply by virtue of existing. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Noah Cross in his warning to Jake Gittes: "You may think you know what you're dealing with, Mr Blunkett - but, believe me, you don't!" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../11/ixhome.html

Please don't tell me how to behave in this forum for it does not belong to you. I did not 'attack' anybody. I was merely sharing my thoughts with another member and the last time I checked, I'm allowed to do so. Don't get your 'kashera' in a twist just because you do not agree to my comments that you deem 'useless'. Meanwhile, get lost and leave me alone! Anyway Bambookat here is an article I would like to share with you. What do you think about it? Any truth to it? THE NEW SOCIAL CANON OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by Dan Rowden, 1994 Of recent times the more strident protagonists of Political Correctness have sought to mount a literary defence of this new and increasingly insidious social theology. It is my expressed hope that the more rational members of our disturbingly apathetic society will view such utterings with the caution they deserve. It seems to me that Political Correctness is one of those sugar-coated principles that, in theory, presents itself as a philosophy of reasonable persuasion, but in practice manifests as a philosophy that seeks instead to - compel. The various defenders of the faith wish to argue that correct speech is simply about showing consideration, both for the feelings of the subject (wherein a person or persons are involved), and for the factual propriety of the substance of one's statements; they would have us believe that such linguistic rectitude is indicative of an enlightened society. This view is, to me, both highly debatable and problematic, not to mention pretentious . . . If it were indeed the case that Political Correctness was a philosophy that merely sought to reasonably persuade the individual that studious attention to the nature of one's language was a desirable thing, it wouldn't be so bad. It is clearly the case, however, that PC has become something far other than this. What we now have is a social philosophy that has shifted its ground, and has moved from an ethic of persuasion to one of compulsion. The fact that individuals now face possible disciplinary action, if not outright dismissal, at their workplace, and in a more general social sense, have various swords of litigation hanging over their heads, makes palpable the truth of this evolutionary move. This applies most particulary to social commentators of various kinds and certainly to broadcasters in the media, who, I would think, are acutely aware of these facts. This simple reality aside, even the moral invective with which PC's defenders ply their trade and denounce the hapless fools who dare speak as their conscience demands, is evidence of this change in the ethic of PC. Even the name of the principle itself is cause for concern: Political Correctness - precisely whose politics, and whose notions of correctness are we talking about here? It is imperative also, that we differentiate clearly between people's "sensibilities" and their "liberties". It should be noted that the manner in which one expresses one's views impinges only on another's sensibilities, and does not, unless such views are acted upon, and with the intent of some form of imposition, diminish anyone's liberties. If an individual wishes to suggest that women are inferior to men (or vice versa), or that the Pope is the incarnation of the proverbial anti-christ, it is their inalienable right - not only to think such a thing, but if their conscience demands it be said, to say such a thing, and to do so by whatever means are available to them; and I might add, to do so with impunity. The fact that it may strike a dull chord with a particular individual is ultimately a problem for that individual and their private insecurities. The old line about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre simply doesn't apply in this context, because such an act is calculated to cause an affray and therefore impinge on people's liberties. It is true of course that certain invective, when expressed, may arouse the passions of the more irrational members of a society, and that such passions may lead to something more overt, but we cannot seek to limit an individual's right to free speech purely upon the basis of presumed or imagined consequences. For instance, as an Atheist, and one who is utterly uncompromising in his view of metaphysical realities, I would support, without equivocation, the right of a Christian of the Fred Nile variety to publicly declare, by way of conscience, that atheists are intrinsically evil. Such a declaration would not cause me any real concern if it were not accompanied by any obvious intent to limit my personal freedoms; firstly, because I am not a hyper-sensitive, insecure milksop; and secondly, because I recognise the superiority of the importance of the principle of freedom of speech over the superficiality of individual egotisms. It is simply a fact of life, that yes, even in these wondrously enlightened times, there are people out there who are foolish and naive enough to actually believe in something. There are yet those, who, despite the best attempts at re-education by academic relativists and sundry agnostics, still insist on clinging to notions of immutable principles and values. It is patently clear to such people that PC has become a tool for the suppression of free thought and speech, more specifically of the holders of such a philosophic perspective. Though it may seem to some that the oft' analogised Spanish and Italian Inquisitions constitute a rather odious comparison, I feel that the principle is essentially the same and that to draw an homology is, therefore, quite reasonable. I concede of course that it is a matter of degree, but the reality is that we are seeing the suppression of certain individual freedoms at the impost of a particular social power; in the time of the Inquisition the tyrant was the Catholic Church; the new tyrant is society itself. Today we are seeing the tyranny of society over the individual, manifest in all its ignominy, through the advent of Political Correctness. True and consistent virtue in a society cannot be artificially fabricated, be it moral and intellectual custom, or old fashioned oppression by which we attempt this. It is utterly pointless expecting people to say one thing, when in their hearts and minds they think entirely another. A truly tolerant society is one which is tolerant even of the intolerance of its particular members. Creating a facade of social cohesion and considered tolerance by painting over reality with a candied veneer such as PC is totally without merit, and dangerously myopic. We need look no further than what was once Yugoslavia for proof of this. Generations of rivalries, prejudices, antipathies and sundry hatreds, were simply whitewashed over with the veneer of "nationhood" called Yugoslavia. It was, of course, a ridiculous contrivance, and merely created an environment in which these various tribal animosities festered and became increasingly purulent, like an infected sore that is covered by so many bandages you cannot tell what is happening underneath, until of course it is too late, and it bursts forth in all its pus-ridden virulence. It is imperative that each individual in any given society has available to them an accurate overview of the multiplicity of beliefs and principles, and yes, even the hatreds and bigotries of that society. Such a social comprehension can only come about in an atmosphere of the full and frank expression of all views - as they are truly held! - not merely as we might prefer them to be held. To imagine that people will, in time, begin to feel differently about a particular issue if they are exhorted to express their view in a particular manner, is simply inane. The truth is that people are likely to become more inflexible if they feel that the capacity to express their views as their conscience demands is being undermined. Political Correctness is a nice idea - too nice by half, methinks. Its prophets and disciples have, it seems, become far too enamoured with its (and their own) supposed virtue. This rather insipid narcissism has evolved into a particularly disquieting sense of infallibility of which even the Papacy would be envious. Let me stress, in conclusion, that it is precisely the relativism and moral agnosticism of modern academia that is the source of this foolishness. Such philosophies as those held by these modern Pyrrhonists deny any notion of an objective, absolute truth, either in a moral or a metaphysical sense; this basically means that one view is as true and valuable as another, hence no particular view should (or nowadays, can) be expressed in such a way as to imply superiority, or heaven forbid, that it constitutes a Truth! You cannot force people to be more enlightened; and to think otherwise is fatuous in the extreme. At best we can encourage people to develop a greater sense of personal integrity, in both the moral, and I think more importantly, the intellectual sense. This takes time; it requires a paradigm shift in social consciousness. It seems to me that we are indeed experiencing a shift in social consciousness, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. What we are seeing is the consideration of personal sensibilities taking precedence over certain personal liberties (in this case, freedom of expression). In a society that prides itself on the claim of being, as we say, "free", evolutionary back-peddling such as that which Political Correctness has become, should be regarded as intolerable - if one may be momentarily . . . incorrect.

Dear moderator, I apologize for my comments. Sorry dude. Which proves my contention that there is NO such thing 'true love' ala Hindi movie style. It is the figment of man's imagination. All this moronic talk about meeting 'the right person' is pure bull. Anybody here agree with me?

In short you're asking him to be 'Politically Correct'. It's amazing, one cannot even express themselves properly without some PC Nazis like you jumping on them. Who cares about stereotype OR not? What about freedom of speech? What about his right to express himself to the fullest? I bet you would have not said anything if he had claimed Sikhs were trying to behave like English gentlemen.