Premi5

London attack: Four dead in Westminster terror incident

88 posts in this topic

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

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. 

Problem in England is that we've created such a low image of ourselves in the political domain (post annexation) with English people, they don't even consider us worthy (and let's be frank, capable) of anything of any significance in the political domain. Time and time again we have rings run around us - and we still repeatedly follow old maxims and strategies that aren't working at all.

To lobby we need some bargaining chips. Muslims have it with oil rich nations and the capability to disrupt the economic system of the land here through terrorism. 

What the hell do we have to bargain with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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. 

There isn't a thing I could disagree with in all that. 

Going back to the post I made just previous to this - we (and let's be frank some of our ancestors) have created an image for the people here in England that only suggests malleability and compromise on our part. 

They must know that they came in and largely rewrote our faith during the colonial period. What weaker signal could we have sent them? How would this not mentally effect how they perceive us?  

Edited by dallysingh101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Problem in England is that we've created such a low image of ourselves in the political domain (post annexation) with English people, they don't even consider us worthy (and let's be frank, capable) of anything of any significance in the political domain. Time and time again we have rings run around us - and we still repeatedly follow old maxims and strategies that aren't working at all.

To lobby we need some bargaining chips. Muslims have it with oil rich nations and the capability to disrupt the economic system of the land here through terrorism. 

What the hell do we have to bargain with? 

To be effective lobbyists we need to know what things are in our interest as it stands.

What do we need the government and institutions to do for us?

And I am not talking about things "kicking off".

I am just wondering whether the reason we are not as politically active is because most of our needs are met and most of the sangat are satisfied.

What we are left with is small things that we whinge about? Like the expression "1st world problems".

Maybe I am wrong, if anyone here could point out what interests of ours that need to be furthered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying as a Sikh is how woefully under-represented we are in Parliament, whereas Muslims are starting to make serious inroads into British politics at every level. It seems the only councillors we have are the ex-Communist, pro-India types - or their second generation offspring - who are as much unrepresentative of Sikh British interests and causes than any non-Sikh candidate. Heck, there's even white politicians who understand certain issues to do with us better than our own lot. Whether we need such representation or not is secondary, but we can't be crowded out of legislation formation by Muslims. It's social suicide.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

What's worrying as a Sikh is how woefully under-represented we are in Parliament, whereas Muslims are starting to make serious inroads into British politics at every level. It seems the only councillors we have are the ex-Communist, pro-India types - or their second generation offspring - who are as much unrepresentative of Sikh British interests and causes than any non-Sikh candidate. Heck, there's even white politicians who understand certain issues to do with us better than our own lot. Whether we need such representation or not is secondary, but we can't be crowded out of legislation formation by Muslims. It's social suicide.

I grew up seeing a few turbaned Sikhs as mayors and councillors and whatnot. I'm wondering if it made any difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I grew up seeing a few turbaned Sikhs as mayors and councillors and whatnot. I'm wondering if it made any difference? 

They were symbolic, hollow positions without any genuine influence. What I'm talking about is cabinet positions, or senior posts at the heart of government in the daily hubbub of Westminster, which is where Muslims are starting to infiltrate (without wishing to make it sound like a conspiracy, lol). Satpal Sandhu or whoever, sitting on the local council in Bedford has little to no bearing on nationally implemented legislation that will affect daily Sikh life in Britain, whereas Sadiq Khan, Naz Shah, etc, are actually getting on with it where it matters. A compliant, virtue signalling indigenous population is also a big help in these things, but that's another subject.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now