Jump to content
dallysingh101

Sikh 'gang' helped 69 illegal 'Afghan' immigrants into UK

Recommended Posts

Good on them, looking out for our people first above all. Couldn't care less about these goraay or coconut Sikhs whining about 'illegals'. 

Can't speak for the motives of the 'gang', but every Sikh family extracted from that hellhole is a victory in my opinion. 

 

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Balkaar said:

Good on them, looking out for our people first above all. Couldn't care less about these goraay or coconut Sikhs whining about 'illegals'. 

Can't speak for the motives of the 'gang', but every Sikh family extracted from that hellhole is a victory in my opinion. 

I agree you have to follow the law of whatever country you reside in ... but, given the context of millions of "refugees" flooding into Europe, it's very, very difficult to understand what the big deal is about 69 Afghan Sikhs. Angela Merkel invited, stupidly, a million "refugees" into Germany alone.

The reason I put "refugees" into quotes is because the overwhelming majority of them are not refugees, as that term was understood up until 5 minutes ago. They are not (mostly) from Syria. They are from stable, although poor nations, which do have jobs. They are coming to live off of welfare. NGOs are running ships to pick up refugees coming from North Africa (is Syria in North Africa?). It is alleged by Italian authorities that the NGO ships are colluding with human traffickers--the traffickers get out 12 miles off of Libya into international waters and call up the NGOs to pick them up, having pocketed $3000 per "refugee".

Even the ones that are from Syria are not coming from a war situation. They are coming from safe camps in Turkey. International law says that the refugee is supposed to stay in the first safe country they come to (that would be Turkey for Muslims). Even parts of Syria that are under government control are safe, and people are living their normal lives (going to school, work, etc.). They don't go to those areas because they don't want to live under a non-Islamist government, they want to live under a jihadist government, which has been eviscerated by the Syrian army, which is why they are fleeing.

Even in President Trump's original travel ban on travel from 7 war-torn or enemy nations, there was a provision for real refugees who were religious minorities. That's in line with international law and the definition of a refugee. That applies in spades to Sikhs in Afghanistan. It does not apply to a Muslim in Afghanistan because he has no reason to believe his life is in danger because of religion.

I would just like to ask someone from the "Establishment" why it is that a Muslim from Afghanistan or Pakistan is a refugee, but a Sikh from Afghanistan is not! Oh, and by the way, regardless of what you think of Afghan Sikhs, they don't go around molesting young European women celebrating New Year's (Germany was covering that up, but the report was leaked) or attacking 10-year olds because of a "sexual emergency" (the Austrian Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the 20-year old "refugee" says he thought the 10-year old "consented").

In the wider context of letting in millions of so-called refugees, it is extremely difficult to condemn these 69 actual Sikh refugees.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2017 at 0:38 AM, BhForce said:

I would just like to ask someone from the "Establishment" why it is that a Muslim from Afghanistan or Pakistan is a refugee, but a Sikh from Afghanistan is not! Oh, and by the way, regardless of what you think of Afghan Sikhs, they don't go around molesting young European women celebrating New Year's (Germany was covering that up, but the report was leaked) or attacking 10-year olds because of a "sexual emergency" (the Austrian Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the 20-year old "refugee" says he thought the 10-year old "consented").

In the wider context of letting in millions of so-called refugees, it is extremely difficult to condemn these 69 actual Sikh refugees.

I can't be 100% sure Singh, but I have my theories. Native religiosity has more or less collapsed in the West, but the people here still seem to be motivated by the very Christian sentiment of guilt. I've noticed that the third world crises and conflicts which antiwar/pro-refugee types tend to get most worked up about are those which their governments directly caused. This  naturally includes almost all the Middle-East. When this is compared against the completely flaccid response from these people to things like the Rwandan Genocide, East Timor, Sikh genocide etc, catastrophes which the West didn't really have a hand in, I begin to feel increasingly certain of my view. 

Afghan Muslims were made 'refugees' directly because of the West, whereas Afghan Sikhs are made 'refugees' because of the centuries old prejudice against kafirs in this country which the West had no hand in creating. Whites therefore don't feel anywhere near as guilty about the latter as they do about the former, and this lack of guilt to motivate them to do something is why they take no action on behalf of Afghan Sikhs. 

Secondly, Middle-Eastern/pro-Muslim causes are very fashionable among certain segments of Westerners, in a way that the suffering of Sikhs is not. I'd like to hear your opinion and the opinions of the Sangat on this, but I believe certain Westerners (leftists etc) do not feel as sorry for Sikh refugees as they do for Muslim refugees, because the Sikhs with whom they are familiar are often quite wealthy (working as professionals, lawyers, engineers etc), whereas many of the Muslims with whom they are acquainted are quite poor (cab drivers, small restaurateurs). Sikhs in the UK are reportedly the second wealthiest religious community after the Jews, Muslims are at the very bottom of the list. It's hard to feel sympathetic for people who appear to be doing better than you. Obviously this is not the case - most Sikhs in the Punjab and Afghanistan are hardly wealthy, but their association with the rest of us appears to be working against them. 

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

Some stupidity on the article:

"Border officials were unable to distinguish between the illegal immigrants who masqueraded as the genuine passport holders because they were wearing turbans - which Sikh men are allowed to have on in their ID documents."

If everyone wearing a turban automatically looks the same to you, you probably shouldn't have your job as a border official.

But all in all, this is a great thing for everyone. I don't know the true motives of this Sikh "gang", but it got a good result. But the Brits really should be focusing on their millions of Muslim "refugees", over some Sikhs who probably at most will provide more benefit than harm to their society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Balkaar said:

I can't be 100% sure Singh, but I have my theories. Native religiosity has more or less collapsed in the West, but the people here still seem to be motivated by the very Christian sentiment of guilt. I've noticed that the third world crises and conflicts which antiwar/pro-refugee types tend to get most worked up about are those which their governments directly caused. This  naturally includes almost all the Middle-East. When this is compared against the completely flaccid response from these people to things like the Rwandan Genocide, East Timor, Sikh genocide etc, catastrophes which the West didn't really have a hand in, I begin to feel increasingly certain of my view. 

Afghan Muslims were made 'refugees' directly because of the West, whereas Afghan Sikhs are made 'refugees' because of the centuries old prejudice against kafirs in this country which the West had no hand in creating. Whites therefore don't feel anywhere near as guilty about the latter as they do about the former, and this lack of guilt to motivate them to do something is why they take no action on behalf of Afghan Sikhs. 

Secondly, Middle-Eastern/pro-Muslim causes are very fashionable among certain segments of Westerners, in a way that the suffering of Sikhs is not. I'd like to hear your opinion and the opinions of the Sangat on this, but I believe certain Westerners (leftists etc) do not feel as sorry for Sikh refugees as they do for Muslim refugees, because the Sikhs with whom they are familiar are often quite wealthy (working as professionals, lawyers, engineers etc), whereas many of the Muslims with whom they are acquainted are quite poor (cab drivers, small restaurateurs). Sikhs in the UK are reportedly the second wealthiest religious community after the Jews, Muslims are at the very bottom of the list. It's hard to feel sympathetic for people who appear to be doing better than you. Obviously this is not the case - most Sikhs in the Punjab and Afghanistan are hardly wealthy, but their association with the rest of us appears to be working against them. 

I think that post is very insightful. I'd go even further and say that Sikhs (well certain SIkh men) are even considered to be a potentially dangerous nuisance by many liberal whites in the UK. Especially because of the way some of us have tried to resist the wholesale sexual abuse of Sikh girls in the UK. We all know establishment and liberal goray would have rather we ignored it than called it out. So I think they think that we have a potential to rock the apple cart that they must be careful about. I think that also plays a part in the way Sikhs are almost off the radar in this country's media, other than the usual pro-imperialist propaganda. 

I'd even argue that there is a covert antipathy towards Sikhs from many quarters in the UK. Historically, from the moment they encountered us, they saw we were a belligerent, confident people and everything they have done since annexation has been designed to tame and control (and use). They are infinitely more fearful of sullay than us now though. And they are also economically dependent on them (through oil and big arab spending power). I think it is this fear and financial dependence that drives them to go overboard with accommodating them. Whereas we are disposable and something that needs to be contained in their wider scheme of things. 

But your point about their guilt for lands they've completely uprooted is very valid. And to iterate, they aren't fools, they know sullay (because of numbers and a reckless disregard for their own safety) can cause them serious grief, as we've seen in London and Manchester recently.  

Edited by dallysingh101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how the article writters and editors deliberately did not mention that these afghan's immigrants who were smuggled into the uk were mostly afghan sikhs/hindus who are being persecuted by the islamo-fascist muslims of afghanistan.

Even well armed nato and british troops are not safe in afghanistan and get attacked let alone defenceless non-muslim visible minorities like afghan Sikhs.

punjabi islamo-apologist far left liberal marxist whoores like katy sain and her far left liberal white buddies instead of sucking off islamist palestine or syrian causes should siding and helping afghan sikh/hindu refugee causes but no they want a demographic islamic take over of the west nightmare reason aided by rich jews in key positions of power and influence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, superkaur said:

Notice how the article writters and editors deliberately did not mention that these afghan's immigrants who were smuggled into the uk were mostly afghan sikhs/hindus who are being persecuted by the islamo-fascist muslims of afghanistan.

Even well armed nato and british troops are not safe in afghanistan and get attacked let alone defenceless non-muslim visible minorities like afghan Sikhs.

punjabi islamo-apologist far left liberal marxist whoores like katy sain and her far left liberal white buddies instead of sucking off islamist palestine or syrian causes should siding and helping afghan sikh/hindu refugee causes but no they want a demographic islamic take over of the west nightmare reason aided by rich jews in key positions of power and influence.

How do you explain it?

It looks like covert, snide, subtle (and consistent) attacks on Sikhs by anglos. Who then claim we are best buddies. What the hell can we make of this? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

How do you explain it?

It looks like covert, snide, subtle (and consistent) attacks on Sikhs by anglos. Who then claim we are best buddies. What the hell can we make of this? 

 

On 7/12/2017 at 3:50 PM, dallysingh101 said:

I think that post is very insightful. I'd go even further and say that Sikhs (well certain SIkh men) are even considered to be a potentially dangerous nuisance by many liberal whites in the UK. Especially because of the way some of us have tried to resist the wholesale sexual abuse of Sikh girls in the UK. We all know establishment and liberal goray would have rather we ignored it than called it out. So I think they think that we have a potential to rock the apple cart that they must be careful about. I think that also plays a part in the way Sikhs are almost off the radar in this country's media, other than the usual pro-imperialist propaganda. 

I'd even argue that there is a covert antipathy towards Sikhs from many quarters in the UK. Historically, from the moment they encountered us, they saw we were a belligerent, confident people and everything they have done since annexation has been designed to tame and control (and use).

Think these two points of yours are very important Singh, and closely linked. Most British 'goodwill' for the Sikh people rests on our forebear's contribution during the two world wars. However Sikhs in Britain have been riding off the back off this legacy for FAR longer than we have any right to, over 7 decades, purporting to be a 'martial race' when I personally don't have a single Valaiti rishtadhar who's served in any sort of military force. Scandinavians don't pretend they're warriors just because their ancestors were, neither does any other former 'martial race'. We're literally the only ones still carrying this sh1t on. To any thinking person, which most apnaay in this day and age unfortunately are not, this history is clearly well past it's sell by date. Liberal whites may not be the cleverest, but they are clever enough to know that this bit of historical trivia means very little on the ground in 2017. 

The only major group of whites with whom the Sikh legacy of service in the British Armed Forces really resonates is a certain section of the far-right working class, because these people are living in the same nostalgic 1940's la-la-land as we British Sikhs are .

The Brits only appreciate Sikhs when we're dying for them in their wars. Currently we aren't (and I'm not proposing that we should), and yet we still strut and posture - so it's inevitable that we've come to be seen as a bit of a joke by their leaders, a group that cannot be taken seriously because it refuses to take itself seriously. If they don't take us seriously, they're not going to take our problems (like the troubles of Afghan Sikhs) seriously either. 

Say what you will about the warriors of Islam, but there is serious bite behind their bark. Cannot say the same about our 'warriors'. 

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the main motivation was to make money out of the refugees, not necessarily to help them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
8 hours ago, Premi5 said:

It seems the main motivation was to make money out of the refugees, not necessarily to help them. 

Regardless of the main motivation, helping almost 70 refugees is nothing compared to the amount of Muslim refugees come into Europe, they are damaging society, while these almost 70 have done nothing wrong. We should always try helping ourselves, because logically speaking nobody else will at the same amount we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the UK media Muslims are the protected species, any wrong they do has to deflected onto the wider Asian community but if some Sikhs or Hindus do something wrong then their religion is highlighted in the headlines. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Bhai Jaita's 'Gur Katha,' Sainapati's 'Gur Sobha,' the works of Bhai Band Lal, 'Gurbilas' all refute Caste and its Vedic roots. Prior to Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji, Gyani Bhagwan Singh, Akali Giana Singh, Phula Singh, Baba Sahib Singh Bedi all administered Amrit to mazhbis from same bata. Tragic to see you implying that the tenth master was a Casteist when himself burnt Bhai Alam Shah's Janeu. The Nihangs of today, with a few exceptions, are all nangs. This saakhi is prior to 1700s. Chibber calls himself a child when this transpired. He chronologically contradicts himself on these points.
    • What is the Punjabi equivalent word for Shaheed(martyr) ? I think word shaheed is used for someone who sacrifices his life in the way of Allah.
    • Interesting to say the least, cause this sakhi is pretty similar to sikhs of that time. In reality up until sant gurbachan singh ji’s time mazhabhis werent allowed to take amrit in the same bata amd this is still happenening in nihang dals as well.  So what do we make of the 1699 amrit samchar? If this sakhi happened in the 1700s etc then that means that what happened in 1699 was different and we interpreted it differently.
    • What about Gurbani? I never said we should change Gurbani, because we can’t. But we can remove Perso-Arabic influences from our vernacular.  And when did I say that we should all begin to speak Hindi and Sanskrit, no that’s a terrible idea. We need to revise Punjabi, and you can call me whatever you like, but I firmly stand by that. Have you forgotten that the very tyrants that killed our Gurus, the Sahibzaades, slaughtered our men, our women, and children, sold our ancestors as slaves, pillaged our land for centuries imposed Perso-Arabic influences onto our language. If we have any ounce of self respect, we should purge those influences from our language.  How am I demoting Punjabi? How am I saying we should stray away from Gurmukhi? In fact if you read any of my other threads you will realize I advocate further development of Gurmukhi and Punjabi. Why are you accusing me of things that I am opposed against in the first place?
    • The Saroop is only similar externally, ideologically there is a world of difference: https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/panj/
×