Jump to content

Tytler's confession in Sardar murders on tape

Recommended Posts

The two biggest cowardly rats who ordered the genocides were rajiv gandhi (dead) and arun nehru (still alive). Arun nehru has got away with it since day one of troubles in punjab against Sikhs.

The next rats in the packing order were sajjan kumar and jagdish tytler whom been protected for over 40years.

Whats strange that its taken about 7years to release these videos from the date stamp marked on the videos they were filmed in 2011.

Question is why were they released now and not in 2014 when it was the 30year anniversary of anti-sikh new delhi genocide and operation blue star. It would have had a greater impact rather than now where the youth are now not bothering to remember and those who are elderly but lived through that era are now dying off slowly knowing indian establishment will never give them justice.

Even if all those responsible of the genocide are convicted and executed today it is far too late now that hate for india is far too ingrained because justice was not shift and has not been forth coming there is no trust or faith left with the whole indian system be it hindu nationalist bjp or anti-sikh secularist terrorists congress.


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 6:53 PM, GurjantGnostic said:

Sometimes people get caught slippin. 

Diggin deep @GuestSingh.

You're trolling really had slipped lately. I'm glad you've gone back a week to catch up. That's the trolling excellence I expect. 

That only took like an hour for you to get them all. Lololol. 

I feel so honored to occupy 1/16th of your daily time. 

Edited by GurjantGnostic
  • Like 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

    • What a wonderful post, bro. I'm quite happy to see that you think this way. If you don't mind, could you answer: 1) Were you an atheist before? If not, did you used to think the same way your friend, and other people on the board, like @Kira did? 2) Does your friend speak Punjabi? Not limited to saying "enough" when getting langar. But really speak the language? If he did, perhaps he wouldn't be so confused as to what a "par nari" is. Also, can he read Punjabi? Or is he getting his "gian" from the English translations? And what tuks does he proffer to state that Gurbani condemns rape specifically? Understand that I'm not saying that Gurbani promotes or allows rape. I'm just interested in what he presents to say that Bani bans rape, specifically. The discussion on those tuks would also bring up interesting points which I believe would not be in accord with your friend's thought process. Also quite interesting that he managed to find a ban on polygamy, and not on fornication. What does he present to say that polygamy is banned? So he's saying that you can screw as many girls as you like, and discard them, but you can't enter into a socially binding contract (marriage) with them. That's his idea of "dharam". Agree with you. This is yet another case where the English "translations" are going to create major problems for us where some people are going to be come "lakeer de fakeer" based on erroneous translations. "par nari" does not mean "others' wives". It means "a woman not your wife". If not, Gurbani loses it real import: The atrocious English translation above says you become impure by perving on another's wife. Question: Do you not get impure by perving on your neighbor's unmarried daughter? Puratan Singhs understood the term to be "a woman not your wife". Consider rehitnama Bhai Nand Lal: OK, so according to your friend, you're supposed to call another's wife a "mother" or "daughter". But if she's unmarried, then sky's the limit? That renders the tuk basically meaningless. The Sikh dharam envisions an atmosphere of purity in regards to relations with women. Your friend's mode of thinking leads to constant sexual desire and tension towards unmarried women, which is exactly what Harvey Weinstein (and many others) were doing towards unmarried actresses in the whole MeToo thing.
    • I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him.  And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law. On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry. But: If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.
    • well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..
    • hobson's choice , if you have a preselected array who have blessing from on high by centre there is NO choice only eyewash ....even Kejriwal showed his true colours when he didn't oppose the transfer of Jaggi to Tihar Jail
    • Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ.  He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married.  Example 1:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274 ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || ਪਰ means other ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
        Example 2:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013
      ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
      Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.   Context:  Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms.    The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged.    Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share!