HSD1

really? how so?

Without giving an opinion on Churchill, just to add, he did send Sikh Regiments to war in North Africa with used WW1 rifles against state of the art tanks, planes, rockets etc of the Germans, many thousands of Sikhs were simply used as canon fodder - he is even said to have called Indian soldiers as no better than animals. The General that was leading the Sikhs (forget his name) at that time was dismissed by Churchill because he 'cared' to much about the Indian soldiers i.e. asking for better equipment and opposing pointless loss of life i.e. sacrificing a whole battalion just to gain a few hours etc.

His comments re Sikhs after the war contradict his personality during it - either he developed a conscience or he was farsighted enough to see the economic benefit of pleasing the Sikhs i.e. the motorcylce helmet decision etc.

when you say WW1 rifles, i presume your referring to the lee enfield rifle, which was standard issue to all riflemen in the british and commonwealth forces during both world wars. i had a relative who was in the artillery in n.africa and he never mentioned that sikhs were under equipped, could you tell me which division the battalions came from? as for cannon fodder, do you know what australians think of churchill? quite a lot i know hate him, as they believe he threw the young men of two generations into unwinnable operations with little regard for their lives (gallipoli and the japanese onslaught into SE asia). but hey, guess what it was a war. dont join up if your going to cry about casualties. and look into history a bit more. in n.africa, before montgomery arrived on the scene, churchill sacked almost dozens of generals for failing to have the courage to attack the germans and italians. you seem to confuse the bad and almost mad military decisions of a man who had his heart in the right place and was honourable towards us outside of war. politics/religion/military dont really mix.

wth is a half sikh

someone who has one sikh parent, but the other one isnt.

churchill was a bad guy? like when he spoke out against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which led to him being ostracized by the ruling class of britiain during the interwar years? or when he offered our sikh nation a homeland, which our leader refused because he was too busy setting up the VHP? sounds like a good friend to me. so what if he gassed and bombed a few arabs here and there. no great loss is it? its seems its the musis on here who get their knickers in a twist about the grand old man. any real sikh should be glad britain produced men who were willing to be our friends rather than our enemies.

what i find interesting about this thread is how different it is to a similar one on sikh sangat. well, apart from the musi presence, the intelligence on here is a little better - no ones accused the brits of stopping sikh girls wearing dastars yet! lol.

but on a side note, i thing the english saw us in the same way they viewed the scots, and that explains some of their behaviour towards us. but as to whether the british raj or hindustan is better, all i can say is its the same for the sikhs who live in the punjab to some extent. as we live in the west we are able to see it in a different light, which leads to a fairly wide range of opinions.

hmm, a little weird. on one hand it does seem a little far fetched, but on the other hand its hard to understand why Macauliffe would make this up, unless he actually did somehow see it or knew someone who enforced this. are there any other sources about this?

rockys? wth? thats not even an option lol. but they are good.

i wonder if the indian army maintains any of these things for sikhs soldiers?

burger king. dont even start, this discussion is already over.

Guru ji, ticked the things that could be done and then some things he said "No" Sant Ji questioned as to why they could not happen and Guru Ji said "these things must happen......because Akaal Purakh and willed them to happen.........."

and then

It just got me thinking that maybe 2012 is an inevitable thing that has been, and maybe will be posponed but will surly come to pass.......

i'm not sure how you managed to connect the two, but rather than it having been delayed maybe we should wait for 2012 first. mind you no matter what, whenever something major happens, people start going on about nostradamus and other mumbo-jumbo.

i think there has to be a seperation of politics, religion and military. and by this i dont mean a clean seperation, but that those in the army shouldnt interfere with the govt/takht, and they in turn should not oppose the army and give it what it needs. japan/israel are good examples. people mention sant ji as a great military/political leader but i disagree. he was outmaneuvered by his enemies who got him in the end. also, without khalistani general Shabeg Singh ji i seriously doubt Sant ji would have lasted long against the assault. his placement of the MG and sniper/rpg positions exacted a heavy toll on the commandos. we need specialists in their respective fields, who can command those underneath them, rather than a jack of all trades trying to keep everyone happy.

lol, Kemal had the forces of the remnants of the turkish empire to play with and use. any decent sikh leader would have to start from the ground up. but the ideas of Kemal are very important to the future of the youth who believe in khalistan. so many of them are turning into fundamentalists or believe praying in their bedroom all day will make khalistan fall from the sky.

of course the army is rough. lots of them are racists. and a lot arent and go out of their way to help you. but all of it gives you the experience and ability to understand these people. where else do you get to observe the white working class and upper class? secondly, crimes against civilians is a harsh term as many people in the army have a good sense of right and wrong, and dont see this as a musi hunting trip. there are bad apples in the forces, but there are many bad apples in all walks of life. look at those in PMCs or the other side like the taliban or iraqi militias.

oh so your a musi then. explains a lot. the rest of your post is misinformed and silly assumptions.

You're an Idiot who thinks you can just join the army for training then take a walk to avoid combat engagements as it suits you. The truth hurts does it? So what. It's hard to believe there are people as stupid as you.

did i say that? hell no.

Who said I was in the armed forces? I wasn't. You can check all the rules and regulations for joining the army online, as I have done. Look up Colchester correction centre for AWOL offenders too.

oh the great and glorious internet!! oh must be true. Colchester MCTC is for various crimes committed by military personnel and is a hell of a lot nicer than a civilian prison.

However, none of this concerns you as you won't apply and even if you did they wouldn't accept you.

haha lol. dont sound so bitter, just because you got rejected, lol. dont worry, just jerk off whilst you watch 'gran torino' and keep dreaming your clint eastwood

Keep dreaming loser.

? and how was that an answer to my question? dont the marines and paras use sa80s? we both know the answer, its just that it proves your point wrong, no wonder your in a twist.

ego? really? how about you answer my pm and we'll see who knows more. and as for the sa80, could you tell me what the paras and the marines do different? they use the sa80 too. and its actually the pathfinders and a few other regiments that use american equipment as well rather than an sa80. but what this has to do with usefulness and the british armed forces, i'm not sure as most of your points are way off. also the raf reg is a craphat regiment, so i'm not sure why your putting them up as the best in the armed forces.

yes dalsingh, afghanistan is an ill conceived war and is possibly unwinnable. everyone knows that. but thats life - even if the end you want looks impossible doesnt mean you just give up and wonder off. i have no faith in our 'panthic' leaders or the possibility of the under-20s becoming competent enough to secure sikhi and look after themselves. but hey that doesnt mean i can give up and say its none of my business or not my problem. we all have to face a baptism of fire one day, and its better to have the training and do it in a small war then wait until later life and have it happen outside your front door when you have no idea what your facing.

also, yes there are a few sikhs who do something, but most are moneh/keshdhari and get ostracised by the rest of the sikh community. this leads to them getting disillusioned and not building on what they did when they were young. then another generation grows up facing the same problems, and goes through the same mistakes/experience as the one before it. we need to break that cycle, lose the nepotism and create institutions/attitudes that can be used to get each generation up to speed. one way i believe is for every sikh to have military experience. its a means to an end. i'm not a stormtrooper for john bull, mainly because john bull does not own the parade ground anymore - uncle sam issues all our orders now! our elders fought in WW1/WW2 and now in india the sikhs there are literally the 'stormtroopers of henry hindustan'. we think things are getting better but really they have hardly changed. having more sikhs in the army will be a PR (something most sikhs get wrong) victory and help to dispel the myth all brown british people are lazy/stupid/have loyalties elsewhere and stop the bnp from forming support in the army. if griffy gets the army behind him, we would be in seriously deep ****. also, by having large numbers of sikhs in the army, it shows that sikhs are not tied to india. that'll really upset those slumdogs over there. and as for getting killed, well if we want khalistan, if we want to retaliate to the encroachment of islam or we want to hit back at racism, then we will take some losses. we just have to make sure they died for something rather than just giving up and living for the sake of existence.

sorry for this fairly incoherent post, but i hope you see the points i'm trying to make.

napalm the buggers. that'll teach 'em. man, i wish we had a khalistani air force.

lol, aww poor guy, you're all upset someone disagrees with you? aww let me get you a tissue.

actually maybe you should check your facts. several consecutive tours in the TA? no. it depends on what you do and what you want to do. and as for not leaving if you've been called up for a tour of duty (which might not even be afghanistan) you can still leave, as if you dont want to go, the army just kicks you out. simple. also, there are some special exemptions http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/15272.aspx . i've noticed a lot of upset people at the thought of sikhs having military training and fighting - why are you lot crying so much? you bloody well moan and whinge about khalistan/NWF sikhs/violent racism all day, but none of you have the balls to do anything to protect sikhs when we are attacked. if you dont like it, sod off and enjoy your decadent lives.

hmm, dalsingh, i see where your coming from. but unless you have a better alternative, then i think the end justifies the means. there is nothing wrong with joining the army, as long as you dont compromise who you are. give it a go, go to you local army careers office and become a part-time reservist in the TA, as that is the option (if i'm right) that means you wont have to go to a warzone. every sikh needs to know how to be a soldier.

also, jatt boot , what is the meaning of your name? it makes me think of a sikh submarine for some reason

lets make a british sikh regiment and create khalistan muhahahahaha

yep. 700 british sikhs against the 1 million strong hindustani army. i almost feel sorry for them, dont they know we sikhs kick ass?

btw, i was told it was an indian of some sorts who put that on the ARRSE site as he has posted under other names with similar topics.

double post

i'm sorry but this talk of not pulling the trigger or not fighting is silly. some sikhs are so quick to hate on moneh or non-amritdharis for being just moneh or non-amritdharis. but what about cowardice? of course no one raises that issue. my personal view of a sikh is someone who knows how to fight and is willing to but it to good use, and is also not a criminal and considers sikhi his/her religion. if you cant fight, then i dont care how tall your turban is, how long you beard is or how much you look down on other sikhs - you'll still be pathetic.

bloody hell, have you seen the comments in that link? so sikhs cant wear kirpans no matter how obsolete or small, yet the public think that white people can build bombs and do what they like with them. sheer hypocrisy. makes me wonder why firearms licenses are so hard to come by in this country. i could sure do with one.

also, why is this turned into a islam -v- the west thread? they're all as bad as each other. islam/christianity? whitey/musis? all the bloody same. to paraphrase a great man, "there is no white, there is no muslim". why? because they're all the same in my eyes. well not all, but most.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=82686/

my mate just sent me this old link, and what a shocker it is. supposedly this seabass is an officer in the hindustani army too (though why he's on the British Army forum, i dont know). seems those slumdog shitheads are trying to stop our community from performing any proper role in britain. come on people, prove people like seabass wrong. get a good education, join the TA/other armed forces, and show that we are a part of britain, rather than 'indians'.