Liono Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 The government hasnt published the Nanavati report yet ........ what are they waiting for ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 i get the point but flag-abuse is a bad way to get the message across. it means something to a LOT of people, who had nothing to do with the post-84 events. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liono Posted April 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 The Indian Government was involved 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 punjabi descent. uk resident 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 a nations flag may mean a lot to a lot of people but the point is that those people should understand that their nation has been involved in a genocide, a goverment they elected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liono Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 well said 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 not enough thought has gone into this. look at the kara on your wrist. it's round. things go round in cycles in this world. effect of this cartoon is only to add to the polarisation between "Hindu" and Sikh communities. in the run-up to 84 non-sikh indians felt genuinely under attack and very scared. indians believe everything they read in their newspapers. they believed they were going to be wiped off the planet and their women would be raped, etc. they didn't hear bhindranwale, they only saw him. likewise, they only saw sikh youth running around with guns and swords, and heard nothing they said except warlike shouts. the stage was set for the conflict by indira gandhi. when bluestar happened, there were no rights and wrongs in anyone's mind. only fear. then people had to choose a side. it was out of control. we have to be careful to avoid polarising the communities yet again. it only plays into the hands of corrupt politicians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liono Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Bruce I take it you are not Sikh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 it's inaccurate assumptions like that which sow the seeds of conflict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liono Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 'Seeds of conflict' ........its just a assumption/question.....lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 oh no, not conflict in this instance in this discussion. conflict on a much larger scale between groups of people who don't talk. i am a sikh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernal Monk Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 I agree that 84 and times were real bad...and WE NEED JUSTICE...but to all people that hate Hindus...ya'll fucked up. Sorry, but hating Hindus or blaming 84 on Hindus is just wrong...and yes there were "sikh" terrorists killing Hindus....Let's get justice and live in peace... Besides back in Punjab some of our best family friends are Hindu...oh and my dad prolly wouldn't be here if it wasn't for his HINDU friends...damn...too much hate people 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liono Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 I dont hate Hindus ....i got some Hindu friends actually (not proud of that ...lol) because I aint dumb enough to paint all the people with the same colour ......but dont like people who try to rewrite history ..... and are sellouts ...it hurts more when its your own people ..... never mind ..... and there were alot of hindus that killed Sikhs ..... why you afraid to admit it..... the majority cried when indira was shot .....why ?? that woman was evil to Sikhs and to her own people aswell....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernal Monk Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 I dont hate Hindus ....i got some Hindu friends actually (not proud of that ...lol) because I aint dumb enough to paint all the people with the same colour ......but dont like people who try to rewrite history ..... and are sellouts ...it hurts more when its your own people ..... never mind ..... and there were alot of hindus that killed Sikhs ..... why you afraid to admit it..... the majority cried when indira was shot .....why ?? that woman was evil to Sikhs and to her own people aswell....... right, I thought that was a given...I know Sikhs sufferred more than anyone...no need to tell me..I was just stating that there were bad Sikh elements as well. I'm not trying to rewrite history...and I'm not afraid to admit shit...Indira was a admin cut and I would have killed her myself... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 right. but in any war situation someone has to win. it's pointless going over how atrocious it is that sikhs died so horrifically in great numbers (i know it happened). it's only productive to look at what caused it, so that we can prevent it in the future. if you really want to prevent it, that is, and not just even the score . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 the merit of going over the atrocities carried out by some hindus against the sikhs is so that we do not forget. we do not forget our people were murdered just for being amritdhari e.t.c. however i agree with bruce that their is a danger that some people may start to display hatred towards all hindus and this is also wrong. people need to judge individuals and not races. however when the perpetrators of the genocide are still sheltered by the indian state i can also understand peoples hatred of that system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 always blaming someone else, never bhindranwale and cohorts... even go so far as to blame an entire nation... if atrocities were committed, who shoulders the blame? furthermore, the alleged perpetrators if they were acting on orders will attract the full "shelter" of the indian state. imagine the effect on morale if they did not. nobody would want to take any measure to stop any terrorist. nothing is nice about war, for all your romantic notions and irresponsible interpretation of sikhism. this is what it's all about - women being raped and killed, people set on fire, tortured etc. this is why it must never happen again. the violence and horror inflicted is exactly what would happen anywhere in the world when a bunch of fanatics has been allowed to run haywire and fortify themselves in a building, making threats to all who oppose them. until attitudes of sikhs are revised to become nonviolent, there will be no serious attempt to change india's stance on how sikh insurgents are dealt with (i.e. violently). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 the merit of going over the atrocities carried out by some hindus against the sikhs is so that we do not forget. we do not forget our people were murdered just for being amritdhari who exactly are "your" people palm? why don't you identify with the people YOU label quite ignorantly as "Hindus". Sentiments like the one you just espoused exacerbate division, and I urge you to rethink your alignment with that particular cause. in my dealing with many pro-khalistanis, i have always encountered this bad attitude, and very strained forced courtesy. it's obvious that they would kill me on the spot for being anti-khalistani if they had the chance, whatever my religious protestations might be. they don't give a hoot about religion - who do they think they're fooling?? in that sort of climate of division, i throw in my lot with GOI instantly. what you need to work on is erasing the false division created by bhindranwale types. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernal Monk Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 what was wrong with palm's post? He means some Sikhs were killed simply for being amrithdhari, they were automatically called terrorists because they were amritdhari. No where in his post does he mention or refer to Khalistan. And he said some Hindus killed Sikhs, what exactly is the problem here? No offense Bruce but it seems you have some preconceptions of people that are Sikh and speak out about 84...even though they are talking about the riots and such afterward in which innocent people suffered (not talking about khalistanis). You seem overly paranoid about everything, even when your fellow Sikhs mention 84; yet you are fiercely loyal to GOI.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 there's no problem it's just that the killings happened as a result of something. i find it absolutely crucial to analyse what that something was, and the result of my analysis shows that a whole system of thought that had gone unchallenged for too long was to blame. we need RULE OF LAW, not make-believe samurai wanting to be martyrs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernal Monk Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 ok, but I don't see how widespread killing of innocents is justified as a result of that? What did those people have to do with it? And I mean on both sides, but let's face it, the Sikh losses were much greater, and oh there was no rule of law to stop the free for all...the police just stood by plus the some members of the govt. were involved in it. Govt. is suppossed to uphold the law, so if Sikh "terrorists" were causing problems, then take care of it, but is it lawful to kill innocent citizens that had nothing to do with it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 rule of law was suspended and emergency powers implemented at the time of the punjab emergency. there is no way anyone could have attacked the site of the golden temple without stirring up even the moderate sikhs, and yet it was a catch-22 - couldn't get the bad guys without going in there and physically taking them. yes, a lot of people took the heat who weren't to blame. but the extremists had succeeded in scaring the govt. the govt took the decision to utterly crush the seeds of any future rebellion, and a lot of crimes had the tacit approval of govt officials and police. sikhs then and now comprise a very large (disproportionately large) segment of the indian armed forces and police. counter-insurgency measures are a type of WARFARE and are very very painful. things should not have been allowed to fester for them to become necessary. bhindranwale and followers should have been taken out 8 years earlier, but he was actually a seed of indira gandhi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palm_w1 Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 bruce i think your hindutva credentials have been laid bare. "even go so far as to blame an entire nation..." refer to your previous posts, all white people are not to be trusted, british govt should recompense india. blaming individuals i guess. however i do not blame an entrie nation, just their leaders and the hindu death squads they unleashed. "always blaming someone else, never bhindranwale and cohorts..." errr, ok. i blame bhindrawale for picking up innocent sikhs in delhi in 1984, raping them, murdering them, destroying a whole community etc etc. cut the cr*p. " furthermore, the alleged perpetrators if they were acting on orders will attract the full "shelter" of the indian state. imagine the effect on morale if they did not" alleged, people like sajjan kumar are guilty full stop. personally if people like him are prosecuted for genocide i couldn't really care about morale. what are you suggesting, that all murderers who are servants of the state should be given immunity from prosecution so that their morale does not suffer? i think you should stay off the skunk a little, try weed or hash. " why don't you identify with the people YOU label quite ignorantly as "Hindus"." because they have shown the gulf that exists between the two philosophies by carrying out a genocide agaisnt 'the other' " I urge you to rethink your alignment with that particular cause." what cause? remind me again which faction i am affiliated to "who exactly are "your" people palm?" humanity "in my dealing with many pro-khalistanis, i have always encountered this bad attitude, and very strained forced courtesy. it's obvious that they would kill me on the spot for being anti-khalistani if they had the chance" i give you more credit than i previously did. You have very shrewdly managed to label me as pro-khalistani and not only that you have made me out to be violent and appear as though i want to attack you. not even the indian govt could be proud enough had they created a PR master for there genocidal intentions. This is exactly how the indian givt and certain hindu elements have managed to classify people as extremists and violent. your manipulative nature and deceiptfulness has been laid bare in the above statement. please do not label me or try and sow seeds of notions YOU are inventing. debate on the merit of your arguments, not by trying to spread fear and hatred, you would make an excellent editor for the Daily Mail. "there's no problem it's just that the killings happened as a result of something." so that makes it ok i guess jai hind 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 skunk, weed and hash?? what the hell are you on about mate? you do realise that Bruce Lung is a Hong Kong film actor, not a reference to drugs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 do we at least agree that bhindranwale was a terrorist? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.