HSD1

you see that word in the middle of the sentence: 'and'? well that means you can express two different points. one point about having lived in W.germany, and another about having experienced what happened before firsthand. as for the question about women, you worded it badly (and dont go editting that post now that i've pointed it out). you also didnt explain why you asked such a random question or explain what you are trying to achieve with you ignorance.

even when it's institutionalised, its the people in the bloody institution who are the bigots. get that? why, were you there? where were you hiding?

"the history of nazi Germany of past" by saying 'the history of' in front of 'nazi germany of past' you are implying you saw something firsthand, which has since passed into history. your comment also implies there is/was another nazi germany in place of the old one. i hope that cleared your misuse of certain phrases up for you. funny how you can get away with little snipes like that without a warning. maybe i should start whinging about every little offense i perceive as well.

what does women voting have to do with anything mentioned? get a grip.

that's not what your last post implied. please improve your use of english.

and what did he say about personal attacks or low language? and what does rehat maryada have to do with the definition of bigotry or your lack of understanding on these subjects? my qualification is that i write for certain journals. i wont go into what field as i just started in the industry, but i punch above my weight. now back to what i asked you last time, what kind of engineer are you? and i have been to germany and i really liked it. great people and not what i thought they would be like. they can be a bit nutty sometimes though. what were your experiences? get called an untermensch a few times? wonder why. now let me explain something to you. if a load of people do something wrong, it does not make it right. you can quote as many sources as you like where other people have made the same mistake as you and it will prove nothing. its pretty basic: you have a definition of a word which you use in the wrong context. so do other people. yet you are so thickskulled about it you wont even admit that. do you have an issue when being proved wrong?

post 35: what? are you calling me a woman? what are gibbering on about man? post 36: like i said, please stop repeating what you heard elsewhere. i'm not a robot, i can understand things for myself. post 37: well read my posts and you will see. i hate when people ignore the points made and then when they are confronted about them they say 'what points?!!?'. go and read my posts, and if you cant answer the points raised, i'll take it as an admission of your guilt at being wrong. also, i live in the uk - like you mentioned in post 35.

who are you to judge? deciding who are sikhs, how the english language should be used and now asking certain questions is immature. 'shows my essence'? so you have no english or history qualifications. thought as much. and what kind of engineer are you? so you were around in hitler's time? how old are you? and what were you doing in germany at that time? as for the defintion of bigotry, maybe if your grasp and understanding of english was better, you would see where i was coming from. and could you please stop repeating words and phrases you hear elsewhere? its makes you look stupider than you probably are.

no, you keep sticking links into posts after i have posted a reply to them. why cant you answer my points?

all right, all right, we can all see that you're very good at repeating what others say. explains a lot.

well done, finding a link after my last post. shame its a random link to some minutes of some australian department. also the person who typed that has a bad sense of english, as can be seen by the numerous errors. predictably, the person who wrote it does not understand the meaning of bigotry either. they might as well have said 'cars are bigots too', as that would have made just as much sense. back to the question: why cant you admit you're wrong?

what link? how is it childish to confine a word to its own definition? are you suddenly a master of the english language now as well as being the judge of who is/isnt a sikh? i know a lot more about history than you. please tell me your what qualifications you have. i know about confederate america and the kkk, and there are words to describe what happened there, and bigotry is not one of them. go back and read the first post. i was not asking for every admin cut to come on here and post what they think is bigotry; i asked others how we can go about dealing with it. but some of you are so retarded you couldnt even understand that and went off on one. you cannot answer a single point and seem to think everyone should agree with your stupidity. Mod's Note: First warning given to HSD for making personal attacks against singh2 in multiple places . Please in future learn to target the message not the messenger. This forum will not tolerate personal attacks. Please use civility tone when doing discussion, personal attacks is not only distasteful but also looses all credibility in the post.

wow. what is wrong with you? cant you admit your wrong and that you derailed a thread because you have serious intellect issues? btw i searched 'bigotry promoted by governments' and all the links were to complete junk. point proved. now run along you moron.

god, your english is bad. you see that part you call a definition? yes? now see the part where it refers to 'a person' and then goes on to use 'one' in the sense of an individual. do you understand that it refers to one person? so why do you go on to start describing countries? there are other words to describe your examples at an international/national level, and bigotry is not one of them. also, the examples you give are not 'institutional', as any one with a bit of intelligence would know. just because you see the rest of us use 'big' or 'intelligent' words, doesnt mean you have to copy us like some monkey. i hope you learnt something just now. i realised why you cant respond to any of my points and use the 'holier-than-thou' attitude. it's all you have.

give it a rest. first you dont know what a bigot is and now it seems you dont know what a hypocrite is either. if resorting to personal attacks and using low language makes you a non-sikh, then what are you Mr 'SPN-and-KA-raped-my-dog'? oh, and just for your knowledge, your assumption that non-sikhs use low language and personal attacks is a form of bigotry itself. who are you to decide who are sikhs or not? your english is terrible btw. put me 'in spot'?! lol

well that megapost of yours is all about the failings at a national and governmental level. it is not bigotry, and does not really relate to anything mentioned in this thread. people like yourself like getting offended and then screaming and shouting at those who 'offended' them, whilst demanding some kind of an apology. there are so many of you in the panth i'm surprised you havent killed each other yet. oh wait i forgot, all you do is whinge rather than getting up and doing anything. did i say bigotry was selective? no. but some people feel the need to bring up things just to assure themselves they are doing something. typing on the net wont get justice for sikhs in india and it wont get you a khalistan. i hope your clever enough to understand that. do you have any idea on how to deal with bigotry and bigots? if not shut the hell up. people like you and cul are why we end up getting screwed over, its a shame you dont realise that. Mod's Note: First warning given to HSD for making personal attacks against singh2 in multiple places . Please in future learn to target the message not the messenger. This forum will not tolerate personal attacks. Please use civility tone when doing discussion, personal attacks is not only distasteful but also looses all credibility in the post.

can the mods cut singh2's post down or stick it in another thread? people like him have serious issues.

i know what you mean, but its all getting a bit much now. there are more hindu/musi/goreh apologists in the panth than there proper sikhs who are willing to stand up for other sikhs. when palestinians/tamils/british soldiers die, we are all told that we should feel sad and help them etc, but when sikhs die or suffer, these people are like 'yes! serves them right for not being just like me'. where did they all come from? in the uk, most of our leaders fall in that category and most of the youth are just as pathetic. then there are the fundamentalists who are so nuts that i know whatever we do, it will feel like fighting whilst tied to a dead body. why are they like that? dont they understand that unity and intelligence counts for something, where as praying non stop and doing stupid things and then peshing to cover their backs will cause problems as waheguru isnt that stupid. some of them even enjoy keeping their fellow sikhs down and sucking up to outsiders. gives them some sense of worth, or reminds them of what they did when the british were around. a day of reckoning will come, and i will enjoy giving these sepoys their comeuppance.

sikh extremists? where? i've never seen any in england. its always middle-aged asses who call themselves that, but most of the time they flee from a fight. most anti-muslim sikh groups are based around existing gurudwaras/uni sikh societies that have problems with the local muslims. i dont think there is a sikh body/organisation capable of even working with the bnp. i hope this isnt sunny-hundal-esque scaremongering. reminds me of those hindu freshies who think that i'm a member of BKI!

its a combination of an arab and european set of ideas, which lead to a bizarre and paradoxical (yet amusing to me)belief system and attitude. as for the hadith, what makes you think that being a muslim is the same as being a good person? that quote does not imply anyone is not a muslim. and if i had a problem with your 'statements' i would just ignore them, as you have done to most posts that prove you wrong.

i apologise for my swearing. to singh2: i personally think you are of no substance. have a nice day.

A definition of bigot: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Bigotry is the corresponding mindset or action. The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion." pretty much fits the guy i was describing. he does deny the famines, it was someone else who said they were not orchestrated... and what? i may not plan to burgle your house, but if i do it doesnt mean it's any less of a crime. if the nazis had just shot and burnt the jews in their villages or in race riots, would that make the holocaust any less horrific? just because the english dont have the capacity for perfection like the germans do, doesnt mean the english are 'good guys'. what about all the war crimes they committed during the anglo-sikh wars. how many of our boys survived the battle of Gujerat or Sobraon? secondly, where did i mention racism? i didnt did i? so it was you (who once again) had a knee jerk reaction and spat out a load of crap. do you even know how to read? this isnt the first time you shot off your mouth like a fool. btw, an idiot who is ill-informed and refuses to change when told factsis a bigot. how is nazi or soviet rule different to british rule? your a moron. do you even know about history? the victor always writes it, and growing up in britain, guess who's history we are going to end up being spoon fed? they are all as bad as each other. go to germany, and they say hitler was a product of the harsh terms imposed by britain and france. most east europeans i know said communism wasnt that bad, and many russians miss communism. just because we are told all other countries and their leaders are bad/evil/whatever doesnt mean its true. the hindus took up the reins where the british left off. if the british were still there, there would still have been a Sant Bhindranwale Ji, 1984-esque situations etc, it would have been a parrallel to what really happened. actually, this reminds me; during partition the british came up with a plan to move sikhs to central india to stop us carving our own state as they were frightened by what we were doing to the muslims. they didnt do it though because they thought loosing british lives would be bad news at home and spur the sikhs on to freedom. our enemies have learnt to keep us down but not to push us far enough so that we have fewer reasons to strike back. go admin cut yourself. this is what i mean by the idiocy of political correctness. people like you expect me to cover every base. if i say that the british did something bad, why do i have to make up for it by saying something about others as well? sod off back to sikhsangat, because thats the kind of attitude they have there. if i say some sikh girls are tarts, the loonies on there say i'm sexist for not saying boys are just as bad (which i do say). and then if i say something considered 'islamophobic'in a thread, people say why dont you mention 84. if i talk about what hindustan did to us in another thread, they say what about the british raj. when i say the british morphed and neutered sikhi, they say why dont you mention what muslims do in the UK to sikhs. i cant f****** win whatever i say. you are the real politically correct clown. what is that meant to mean? so you prefer the british raj do you? well why dont you go and live there then? go and get some posh c*** off one of the facebook groups and take him to india and let him treat you like shit. see how long you enjoy reminiscing then. heard of the slaughter after the indian mutiny? or how soldiers would rape indian women with impunity? but when someone spits at a white women in the street, all the nig-nogs (as they liked to call us) are forced to crawl on their stomachs in that street afterwards (this actually happened in amritsar). heard of the 'white man's burden'? well cul, you are the sikh man's burden. what are you doing on a sikh forum? did stormfront refuse your coconut section idea? maybe if you grovel, ass lick and say 'yes sahib' enough they might feel sorry for you and take you in. to dalsingh: this guy is a loon. when/if there is a sikh empire again, this lot will be swinging from the trees or up against a wall soon enough. cul's last words will be along the lines of 'it aint half hot mem-sahib!', or something like that. god this cul certainly knows how to derail a topic. where do these coconuts come from? that's worth a topic in itself.

omg what have you done? this is nowhere near as good as the last one. also what is 'sikhawareness'? a half-werewolf, half-loch ness monster (see what i did there guys, eh? oh never mind) that follows full rehit? seriously there should be a vote on the colour of the world sikh and other parts.

he goes onto say that indians cant rule themselves and any truly intelligent ones wanted the british to remain as their overlords. he describes britain's theft of the subcontinent's resources as fair, refuses to acknowledge famines there or any other crimes committed. then he says that india's contribution was minimal in WW2 and that we owe them (supposedly britain paid for india's war effort) and that indians did not fight in WW2. still dont see the bigotry? go on facebook and you will see dozens of groups like 'bring back the british empire', where the main point is that all us darkies want these island monkeys to rule over us. are you willing to allow them to harbour such attitudes? it wouldnt surprise me if you did, as sikhs are so thick at understanding the idea of consequences. as for political correctness, its a word the right made up to label things they dont agree with. like the HRA, which the BNP then went on to use to prosecute the guy who leaked their membership list. look at the 'speak your branes' site to see how lambasted and ridiculed the phrase 'political correctness' is nowadays.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/02/second-world-war-nostalgia-myths?commentpage=1 In the above article, a writer gives an alternate and fairly accurate view on WW2. yet if you look at the comments section, some of the anglo-saxon-crybabies are acting as if they just saw someone rape their mum. one fool in particular, 'MoveAnyMountain', makes quite a few ridiculous and ignorant comments about indians and the role of our ancestors in WW2. my question is how does one deal with a bigot who is so retarded that they will never see the truth even if it's thrust in their face? is it even possible to do so? also, i dont think it would be wise if anyone reading this waded into a debate on the guardian site. trust me it wont end well.