Why so much sympathy on Bangladesh??????????????

[swaich]

Right. The greatness comes with writing name of books you read & forums you been member of. It doesn't matter what you say or think.

I again repeat the question if Modi is Hitler for 2002 , the same rule is applied to Rajiv for 1984 & you consider him Hitler ? Does Phoolka book deny murders of Sikhs by Congress cadres under his watch ? Does Phoolka like you say that he is sure Modi is Hitler but not sure about Rajiv ?

PS : BJP/right wing/Hindu nationalist/saffron fascists saved many sikhs from tyranny of Congress & its Hitler in 1984 and you know it is said by you in some other post.

According to you greatness is following your way of thinking and opinions. But I can't condemn a man or compare him to Hitler as I haven't read enough on him. Simple. I don't need to give any reasons to you beyond that.

Doing a little good in 1984 is like a drop in the ocean of bad deeds.

 

[abhikrana]

What authentic and established facts have you read about Modi to compare him with Hitler?

This is nothing more than your interpretation of convenience.

According to you greatness is following your way of thinking and opinions. But I can't condemn a man or compare him to Hitler as I haven't read enough on him. Simple. I don't need to give any reasons to you beyond that.

Doing a little good in 1984 is like a drop in the ocean of bad deeds.

 

[abhikrana]

Sumit,

Converting an atheist into a believer in this case is a futile exercise.

The irony in our country is that Hindus have been the victims and sufferers of large scale terrorism fomented by Muslims and Sikhs (earlier) and yet it is the Hindus who are communal.

It is all part of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by the Congress party and its supporters. In order to prove themselves to be secular, Hindus are expected to be apologetic for and of their faith.

Right. The greatness comes with writing name of books you read & forums you been member of. It doesn't matter what you say or think.

I again repeat the question if Modi is Hitler for 2002 , the same rule is applied to Rajiv for 1984 & you consider him Hitler ? Does Phoolka book deny murders of Sikhs by Congress cadres under his watch ? Does Phoolka like you say that he is sure Modi is Hitler but not sure about Rajiv ?

PS : BJP/right wing/Hindu nationalist/saffron fascists saved many sikhs from tyranny of Congress & its Hitler in 1984 and you know it is said by you in some other post.

 

[rathiji]

According to you greatness is following your way of thinking and opinions. But I can't condemn a man or compare him to Hitler as I haven't read enough on him. Simple. I don't need to give any reasons to you beyond that.

Doing a little good in 1984 is like a drop in the ocean of bad deeds.

so definition of terrorism given by you is fake & references to Hitler seems politically motivated. Done. Take your time read about the leader whom you can't condemn even after Sikh pogrom, once you finish reading we will discuss it. Its not wise to waste time when you don't have any knowledge about him. You failed miserably to defend Rajiv & to prove that How Modi & right wing are prone to violence. You might have some personal problem with right wing , well... Its ur problem not nation's.


one more thing , if saving act by RSS/right wing is a drop of good deeds than killing them mercilessly on roads & burning them alive is an ocean of bad deeds by Rajiv & Congress. We ( right wing ) did what we thought was right , we dont need certificates. I am happy you don't represent Sikhs perspective towards right wing because I meet many who admire our work even the last years seva in Hemkund Sahib where RSS saved many Sikhs stuck there.

 

[prashantacmet]

Indian PM though assassinated unfortunately was not killed because of religious hatred or fanaticism as was undertaken by the Sikhs and still being undertaken by the Muslims.

How can be you so sure.. PM was killed because he helped crushing Tamil hindus to support Bodh sinhli..

as far as your India-hindus statement is cocerned, Hindus are majority here....majority of any country is unlikely to involve terrorist activities...Tamils-hindus are minority in SL..they are indulged in terrorism..though we have different viewpoints why they took up the weapons

 

[prashantacmet]

The fact remains that it was not on religious/fanatical lines as undertaken by the Sikhs or the Muslims where religion and its tenets take precedence over everything, even life.

sikshism was formed to protect hinduism..When the protector of Hinduism (baahman , rajpoot) were licking ass of Mughals..sikhs (read sikh jatts) and jats took on the mughals...

Britishers at least recognized these brave people and they knew they were exploited for centuries....

 

[rathiji]

sikshism was formed to protect hinduism..When the protector of Hinduism (baahman , rajpoot) were licking ass of Mughals..sikhs (read sikh jatts) and jats took on the mughals...

Britishers at least recognized these brave people and they knew they were exploited for centuries....

Absolutely wrong. Sikhism was never formed to protect Hinduism. AFAIK , Guru Nanak was founder of Sikhism and waging war against Mughals was never his tenant or Sikhsim. Please do not spread any rumour based on wrong knowledge. Later on over the centuries when Mughals started persecuting Sikhs & gurus after many failures of truce, then it took form of a political & military entity.

I think swaich will guide you more on this if the foundation was done to save Hinduism or not & you will believe him as He is a Sikh.

PS: Jats were always brave as a community you do not need to a blanket cover of Sikhism to call our community brave. You can take references of Surajmal, churamal , Gokul & more.

 

[rathiji]

How can be you so sure.. PM was killed because he helped crushing Tamil hindus to support Bodh sinhli..

as far as your India-hindus statement is cocerned, Hindus are majority here....majority of any country is unlikely to involve terrorist activities...Tamils-hindus are minority in SL..they are indulged in terrorism..though we have different viewpoints why they took up the weapons

Afghanistan
Pakistan
Yemen
Syria
Somalia
Sudan
Nigeria
Mali


I think this is more than enough.

 

[prashantacmet]

Absolutely wrong. Sikhism was never formed to protect Hinduism. AFAIK , Guru Nanak was founder of Sikhism and waging war against Mughals was never his tenant or Sikhsim. Please do not spread any rumour based on wrong knowledge. Later on over the centuries when Mughals started persecuting Sikhs & gurus after many failures of truce, then it took form of a political & military entity.

I think swaich will guide you more on this if the foundation was done to save Hinduism or not & you will believe him as He is a Sikh.

PS: Jats were always brave as a community you do not need to a blanket cover of Sikhism to call our community brave. You can take references of Surajmal, churamal , Gokul & more.

I think only you have read history..all others are dumb here...and I don't need to ask anyone..all of the history you know by today I had learnt that 20 years ago......you have been brainwashed completely....as fanatic muslims are one in madarsas...

 

[abhikrana]

The conflict in Sri Lanka is/was more on ethnic lines and less on religious lines. Tamils were viewed as a separate ethnic group who migrated to Sri Lanka ages/centuries ago.

Do you know officially Sri Lankan Tamils were a disadvantaged group, they not having many rights which the Sri Lankan Sinhalese enjoy.

And if you link the killing of ex-PM on religious lines instead of ethnic lines, we can link any and every killing to religious lines indirectly. At best, that was an aberration (though unfortunate) and not part of worldwide concerted effort as is the case with Muslims and Sikhs (earlier). Hindus are a peace loving people and this fact has been acknowledged world over.

As I said earlier, Hindus have taken to arms over ages and centuries but it was either on territorial, ethnic or other grounds or to safeguard against the tyrannical barbarians whose only aim was to obliterate the Kafirs.

If you still would like to view otherwise, you are welcome to do so.

How can be you so sure.. PM was killed because he helped crushing Tamil hindus to support Bodh sinhli..

as far as your India-hindus statement is cocerned, Hindus are majority here....majority of any country is unlikely to involve terrorist activities...Tamils-hindus are minority in SL..they are indulged in terrorism..though we have different viewpoints why they took up the weapons

 

[abhikrana]

There are shortcomings in every faith and religion. That does not give one the right to be hypercritical of one's own faith. Better thing would be to be instrumental in reforms in a constructive manner rather than just whining and criticizing.

And if that is not possible, one can by choice convert to other faith/religion than eternally feeling sorry for being a Hindu.

sikshism was formed to protect hinduism..When the protector of Hinduism (baahman , rajpoot) were licking ass of Mughals..sikhs (read sikh jatts) and jats took on the mughals...

Britishers at least recognized these brave people and they knew they were exploited for centuries....

 

[prashantacmet]

There are shortcomings in every faith and religion. That does not give one the right to be hypercritical of one's own faith. Better thing would be to be instrumental in reforms in a constructive manner rather just whining and criticizing.

And if that is not possible, one can by choice convert to other faith/religion than eternally feeling sorry for being a Hindu.

why are you twisting the post?..and what is this shortcoming, conversion etc?

an entire community is tagged as sycophants of britishers here...when I talk about sycophancy of mughals..you start to teach me another lesson....

 

[abhikrana]

I am not teaching you anything my friend. You already seem to be a very learned person.

why are you twisting the post?..and what is this shortcoming, conversion etc?

an entire community is tagged as sycophants of britishers here...when I talk about sycophancy of mughals..you start to teach me another lesson....

 

[rathiji]

I think only you have read history..all others are dumb here...and I don't need to ask anyone..all of the history you know by today I had learnt that 20 years ago......you have been brainwashed completely....as fanatic muslims are one in madarsas...

What you think about me or urself doesn't prove that Sikhism was formed to save Hinduism from Mughal Tyranny. If you have any proof of this from your 20,200,2000 years old learned history then post it here that Guru nanak formed Sikhism to save Hinduism.

your brain is not still brainwashed so i believe there are many false assumptions in it like i quoted in post 148. Do you have answer for that ?

 

[prashantacmet]

What you think about me or urself doesn't prove that Sikhism was formed to save Hinduism from Mughal Tyranny. If you have any proof of this from your 20,200,2000 years old learned history then post it here that Guru nanak formed Sikhism to save Hinduism.

your brain is not still brainwashed so i believe there are many false assumptions in it like i quoted in post 148. Do you have answer for that ?

First read this :

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa061000a.htm

 

[prashantacmet]

kl

What you think about me or urself doesn't prove that Sikhism was formed to save Hinduism from Mughal Tyranny. If you have any proof of this from your 20,200,2000 years old learned history then post it here that Guru nanak formed Sikhism to save Hinduism.

your brain is not still brainwashed so i believe there are many false assumptions in it like i quoted in post 148. Do you have answer for that ?

May be I did not convey the word "formed" correctly..

Can you reply these questions?

- Have Muslims ever converted into sikhism?
- when the majority of Hindu population converted into sikhism..before guru govind singh or during/after that period?
- why the guru teg bahadur was executed?
-

 

[rathiji]

First read this :

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa061000a.htm

Did you read your own link properly? Sikhs said that Sikhism is not an offshoot of Hinduism & was not created as the sword arm of Hindus against Muslim invaders.

I corrected the same when you loudly screamed that Sikhism was formed to fight Mughals for Hindus. Now you are getting more & more controversial.

Being firm about own religion is better than being apologist for other religions.

 

[abhikrana]

Instead of discussing Sikhs or Sri Lankan Tamils, let's get back to the topic of the thread. I think by doing that we would be doing justice to the thread. We have all done our bits in digressing from the topic.

kl

May be I did not convey the word "formed" correctly..

Can you reply these questions?

- Have Muslims ever converted into sikhism?
- when the majority of Hindu population converted into sikhism..before guru govind singh or during/after that period?
- why the guru teg bahadur was executed?
-

 

[rathiji]

kl

May be I did not convey the word "formed" correctly..

Can you reply these questions?

- Have Muslims ever converted into sikhism?
- when the majority of Hindu population converted into sikhism..before guru govind singh or during/after that period?
- why the guru teg bahadur was executed?
-

No problem. If you did not convey it properly but you conveyed other off topic things quite well.

I think root cause of your problem lies in the post where I called Sikhs sycophants of British & you are hurt n venting out that on me now. So lets address the root cause first. The questions you raised were already discussed thoroughly & i contributed in that , if i remember Upender was also there in that discussion. I will give you thread & post no's.

now why did I called Sikhs sycophants of British? It's not because they worked for then got tittle of sir or served in British Army . It's because many Sikh states & kings helped East India company militarily to fight war against Indians & to crush first freedom struggle of 1857. Do you know that ? Sikhs sided with East India company to kill & defeat Indians n helping British to establish colony in India.

read about fisrt freedom movement of India , 1857 mutiny.

 

[prashantacmet]

Did you read your own link properly? Sikhs said that Sikhism is not an offshoot of Hinduism & was not created as the sword arm of Hindus against Muslim invaders.

I corrected the same when you loudly screamed that Sikhism was formed to fight Mughals for Hindus. Now you are getting more & more controversial.

Being firm about own religion is better than being apologist for other religions.

yes ji..i read my link properly.. but i uess you read only some selective block. Let me paste for your convenience

"RSS activists proclaim that since Sikhism came into existence as the sword arm of Hindus against the Muslim invaders, and since such a situation no longer exists, the community should return to the Hindu fold. In fact a group of RSS leaders want to assimilate the Sikh community into the fold of Hinduism and disperse its religious identity."
"

"Hindus say that the Sikh guru Gobind Singh gave his followers a distinct militant identity by ordering them to wear the five Ks - kesh, kangha, kara, kachcha and kirpan - to protect Hindus from the tyranny of the Mughals."

- you belong to RSS . instead of asking me to stop spraedig rumor..why don't you ask t from RSS itself?
- is RSS conspiring?..why they are telling lies?
- is this site hinduism.com is a fake one?

by the way you did not reply " what is the status of sir chottu ram in your eyes?"