Jump to content

London attack: Four dead in Westminster terror incident


Premi5
 Share

Recommended Posts

Observe these chalakhiyan:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/25/westminster-attack-khalid-masoon-acted-alone

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/26/intelligence-services-access-whatsapp-amber-rudd-westminster-attack-encrypted-messaging

So, first we're told he acted alone; a lone wolf without any direct guidance from an overseeing hand, and that's the narrative they're pushing, in terms of mentally unstable social outcasts acting out of a sense of misplaced grievance against society. Nothing to do with Islam, apparently. Then we have the home secretary telling us WhatsApp will need to be accessible to intelligence services. Why? If the perpetrators of these attacks are mentally disturbed social pariahs whose problems are solely internalised, without any third party influencing their decisions and actions, then why do the security services need access to encrypted messages? Are these guys sending WhatsApp messages to themselves in the lead up to these attacks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering: just how much of the current indigenous 'anger' at immigration in England is down to certain white people feeling angry that their nation is not able to ruthlessly follow a greedy and violent foreign policy without violent retaliation on their own soil by 'immigrants' or their offspring?

 

Also, some people are talking about apathy. Well, I think a certain percentage of the indigenous may secretly feel that their own government is largely responsible for the havoc that is taking place around the globe and so shut up about all this terrorist stuff because of their own perceived culpability in matters. What do you think of that MisterrSingh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I've been wondering: just how much of the current indigenous 'anger' at immigration in England is down to certain white people feeling angry that their nation is not able to ruthlessly follow a greedy and violent foreign policy without violent retaliation on their own soil by 'immigrants' or their offspring?

Also, some people are talking about apathy. Well, I think a certain percentage of the indigenous may secretly feel that their own government is largely responsible for the havoc that is taking place around the globe and so shut up about all this terrorist stuff because of their own perceived culpability in matters. What do you think of that MisterrSingh?

Ultimately I see it this way: you (as in western powers) cannot hope to enact expansionist policies for economic gain under the pretence of benevolent motives of freedom, democracy, etc., whilst simultaneously enacting political policies at home that essentially disadvantage those in your home country who are already on the bottom rung of society. THEN if you continue to invite a particular group of people into Western countries as immigrants, who have directly been affected by the aforementioned expansionism in their home countries, and then hope some of these immigrants don't seek some sort of retribution which is tacitly endorsed by their religious beliefs (either directly through violence, or a gradual, indirect process of subversion through democratic means), then I'd say you're either mentally retarded, naive, or a traitor to your own kind. Throw a particularly virulent political and social climate into the mix, and trouble is inevitable. So either stop messing around in other countries, or prevent those from the affected places entering your country, whilst cracking down on those already here from those locations if there's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. If not, then you deserve everything you get. 

Edit: I'm aware most terrorist attacks in Europe are perpetrated by home grown or converted individuals, so curbing immigration isn't going to prevent them from doing what they do. The perception is that immigration is fuel for these attacks, so either tackle that misconception, or reduce immigration from certain countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Ultimately I see it this way: you (as in western powers) cannot hope to enact expansionist policies for economic gain under the pretence of benevolent motives of freedom, democracy, etc., 

Do you think they should be doing this I the first place in this day and age?

As Sikh citizens of the nations that attempt to do this, how should we feel about? Indifferent, supportive, condemning? Quietly supportive? 

Are there no ethical/moral dimensions to this type of thing that we should be reflecting upon? More so given the outright carnage these escapades have caused abroad (which DO play a big part in the terrorist attacks here in my opinion).

Lately, we've seen two ex-soldiers who've converted to Sikhi (Tegh Singh and Fatehpal Singh Tarney on Sikhchic) talk about the trauma or psychological issues  and emptiness they've felt having been involved in some of these dubious wars. Isn't this more important for us in the UK, as the indigenous here go well out of their way to represent and encourage Sikh loyalties in such endeavours given some sections of our communities history with their previous colonialist agenda?

21 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

So either stop messing around in other countries, or prevent those from the affected places entering your country, whilst cracking down on those already here from those locations if there's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. If not, then you deserve everything you get. 

When you say this, it almost sounds like you are saying that it is okay to pursue destructive policies abroad as long as you insulate yourself from any potential violent repercussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

When you say this, it almost sounds like you are saying that it is okay to pursue destructive policies abroad as long as you insulate yourself from any potential violent repercussions. 

There's a certain realpolitik that has to take place in matters of statehood. Is it unsavoury and underhand? No doubt. If the next man has no compunction in playing the game and winning, then it would be incredibly naive and damaging to cling to notions of honour and integrity whilst everyone else is doing the opposite. Leading by example and hoping your opponent does the same is fantasy. Unfortunately, there's no place for noble and holy intentions in these things. I wish it wasn't so. The way human life and all it entails is reduced to something so inconsequential is a huge tragedy.

Only a complete and drastic shift in human consciousness would allow for the things you're advocating. I'm looking at things from a wider perspective with no fear or favour, for or against a particular race or region. Acknowledging the reality of these things doesn't mean i agree with their practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

There's a certain realpolitik that has to take place in matters of statehood. Is it unsavoury and underhand? No doubt. If the next man has no compunction in playing the game and winning, then it would be incredibly naive and damaging to cling to notions of honour and integrity whilst everyone else is doing the opposite. Leading by example and hoping your opponent does the same is fantasy. Unfortunately, there's no place for noble and holy intentions in these things. I wish it wasn't so. The way human life and all it entails is reduced to something so inconsequential is a huge tragedy.

Only a complete and drastic shift in human consciousness would allow for the things you're advocating. I'm looking at things from a wider perspective with no fear or favour, for or against a particular race or region. Acknowledging the reality of these things doesn't mean i agree with their practice.

 

I hear you. 

I just feel that although these 'ruthless' things are unavoidable in matters of state, some degree of restraint on how far we go isn't a new or unusual idea either. It's like Wazir Khan sanctioning the execution of kids, and the famous man from Malerkotla saying: "That's going too far, I'm not being a party to this."

This type of restraint may also be considered a matter of commonsense, and acknowledging umpteen historical examples of overstretched, longstanding empires which collapsed abruptly and quickly as a result of over-ambition and trying to take on some perceived lesser race/tribe/nation with disastrous consequences (for themselves) should serve as a warning. Sort of analogous of Moghuls scoffingly taking on a perceived ragtag army of mixed castes of some 'new-age' religion (i.e. our forefathers). 

Is it wise to disturb a hornet's nest, when you have a delicately built edifice that is wide-open to attacks? Going back to a good few years ago, when Bush and Blair kickstarted much of the crap we see today, we can say that those who warned of the idiocy of playing such politics and warned of an increasingly dangerous world as a consequence (and not increased security as was touted) were proved right. So maybe that 'realpolitik' you talk about isn't actually that, but poorly thought out politics that have come back to haunt the instigators?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've come to admire about Muslims in the West during the past decade or so is their resilience when it comes to defending their faith and doctrines in the face of incredible hostility - overt or otherwise - and attempts by whites for them to either disavow certain sections of their teachings, or even undergo a reformation of sorts. I have a broad sense of mistrust about all things Islam, and don't think much of their religious teachings, but fair's fair, i wish there was a similar strength of mind and loyalty for his or her faith amongst the average Western Sikh, who i feel would be all too willing to appease any potential non-Sikh dissenters by changing and distorting certain Sikh ways. For some of us, Sikhi is an adornment; an afterthought to be considered mood permitting, whereas i feel with Muslims Islam is THE priority, and everything else falls into place behind it.

Muslims don't, by and large, bend to the prevailing moods and opinions of the time, instead they try their best to shape their surroundings to their will, and that's a quality that should be respected - regardless of whether one agrees with their ways or not - if you've decided to follow a faith in its entirety. They're loathed to allow any outsiders to dictate how they need to conduct their religious business. We, on the other hand, are too malleable and agreeable, and those who have no business speaking for Sikhs seem to be sought time and time again for comment on issues they've no business discussing. 

I'm not a supporter of blind zealotry or religious violence, however being resolute and uncompromising and unapologetic for one's ways in order to placate a fickle, lost, and weak majority society simply is bad form in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

One thing I've come to admire about Muslims in the West during the past decade or so is their resilience when it comes to defending their faith and doctrines in the face of incredible hostility - overt or otherwise - and attempts by whites for them to either disavow certain sections of their teachings, or even undergo a reformation of sorts. I have a broad sense of mistrust about all things Islam, and don't think much of their religious teachings, but fair's fair, i wish there was a similar strength of mind and loyalty for his or her faith amongst the average Western Sikh, who i feel would be all too willing to appease any potential non-Sikh dissenters by changing and distorting certain Sikh ways. For some of us, Sikhi is an adornment; an afterthought to be considered mood permitting, whereas i feel with Muslims Islam is THE priority, and everything else falls into place behind it.

Muslims don't, by and large, bend to the prevailing moods and opinions of the time, instead they try their best to shape their surroundings to their will, and that's a quality that should be respected - regardless of whether one agrees with their ways or not - if you've decided to follow a faith in its entirety. They're loathed to allow any outsiders to dictate how they need to conduct their religious business. We, on the other hand, are too malleable and agreeable, and those who have no business speaking for Sikhs seem to be sought time and time again for comment on issues they've no business discussing. 

I'm not a supporter of blind zealotry or religious violence, however being resolute and uncompromising and unapologetic for one's ways in order to placate a fickle, lost, and weak majority society simply is bad form in my opinion. 

Muslims are also very adept in making the system work for them, they are excellent lobbyists. 

If there is one area where we as Sikhs need to be more effective is in the lobbying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Muslims are also very adept in making the system work for them, they are excellent lobbyists. 

If there is one area where we as Sikhs need to be more effective is in the lobbying.

do you not think this is 100% about placating the oil rich countries not power of lobbying , c'mon since when have you known the europeans and americans to not think of exploitation first?

The sauds buy silence from the goray , buy non-interference on condition of arms sales . etc I mean they are decimating Yemen but not a whisper on MSM only NGO , amnesty sites ....

MUslims are told not to question , not to think about the contradictions , the mention of three goddesses of old supposed daughters of Allah , so is it worship of a devta or Akal Purakh ...Lord only knows . Memorising arabic phrases from the quran without vichar is the name of the game , I'd say our way is better Santhiya and vichar , quality over quantity. Often I have heard muslim apostates say stuff like I can read the Arabic but I just didn't realise what it said , when I found out , I had too many questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

do you not think this is 100% about placating the oil rich countries not power of lobbying , c'mon since when have you known the europeans and americans to not think of exploitation first?

The sauds buy silence from the goray , buy non-interference on condition of arms sales . etc I mean they are decimating Yemen but not a whisper on MSM only NGO , amnesty sites ....

MUslims are told not to question , not to think about the contradictions , the mention of three goddesses of old supposed daughters of Allah , so is it worship of a devta or Akal Purakh ...Lord only knows . Memorising arabic phrases from the quran without vichar is the name of the game , I'd say our way is better Santhiya and vichar , quality over quantity. Often I have heard muslim apostates say stuff like I can read the Arabic but I just didn't realise what it said , when I found out , I had too many questions.

Lobbying is influencing and persuasion.

How that influence and persuasion works is another matter.

Like I said before Islam is a political ideology pretending to be a religion, it is a flawed political system that has to use certain tactics to keep things under control.

Our way is the better way like you have said. But as Dashmesh Pita told us to adept in the ways of rajniti.

If we were to fully realise our potential then we have to fully implement miri-piri. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use