Hi Sara – I’m open-minded to people who make valid points. If someone is trying to pretend they know something about an issue, and winging it by making bizarre statements, then I pull them up on that.

Soso – nice attempt at justification but I’m sorru I don’t know you know much about the conflict or what the Indian govt actually did to ‘deal with the issue’. In fact the Indian govt has always been way more brutal towards Sikhs and killing off seperatism than any western govt has been towards Muslims.

Sunny – I can see that you are incredibly convinced of your arguments and understanding of Sikhism and the politics and ‘terrorism’ that have influenced a people. However, you have to be able to consider that other people may have a grasp of certain issues within Sikhism that you don’t. I have read many of your posts, and you come across as having all the answers to the many questions that Sikhs have about their past and their present. So perhaps you can give readers a break and be open-minded. A Sikh is a learner, so perhaps you can learn something from these discussions rather than portraying yourself as an expert.

Terrorism should not be tolerated in any form – however, I don’t believe terrorism (or murder) comes in one particular form. To understand a people and their actions, we must understand the context of such acts. In that way, Sikhs and Muslims are distinguishable.

Does that make it better? No, it doesn’t.

But it does make anticipating
WHO and/or WHAT will be targeted a little easier.

The appetites of Sikh terrorists are perhaps a little less omnivorous, if you like, than those of some other religions.

I’m neither defending nor apologising; I,m merely pointing out a difference that if properly exploited by the authroities could save lives.

I meant to also state that they appear to hate a great deal of Muslims to, for instance all the ones “seduced by the West”, or by their loonicidal standards, “not Muslim enough”.

The IRA had Sein Fein, what did \ do the Sikhs have? That could be considered to be the Al-Qaeda equivalant?

TFI

Well Irish terrorists used to phone in a warning and attempted to cause disruption rather than mass murder. In my books that does make them better than our Al-Qaeda fruit loops. The IRA political ends where not tied up in religion, the religion appears to be fairly incidental. Both group lay claim to land, although Al-Qaeda lay claim to all of Spain for instance.

So with the IRA there is a point at which you can start a dicussion; their political aims that are not religous, their objectives are rational and obtainable.

For these these reasons I would agree that the IRA are a far more rational, reasonable foe than Al Qaeda.

Lastly it should not be ignored that where ever there is Islamist terrorism the cries of “Al Arkbar” can be heard, this clearly demonstrates that there is a religous element to suck attacks that it is heavily tied up with matters of faith as much as politics.

TFI

A lot of the comments in the Catalyst argue ring true for the UK based Bangladeshi community. What we are seeing is an urban, educated set which is integrated into mainstream UK society, working in the professions and generally getting on things. Then we have a less educated set which blames their lack of education, status, identity, etc on the “west”, “racism” and so on. It is this set which is becoming increasingly radicalisation.

What most commentators don’t seem to be picking up on is that if you subscribe to a “jihadist” mentality for wont of a better phrase (and with it all the media connatations), then the radicalised Muslims are in fact at war with the liberal Muslims as well. It not a case of them versus us, but everyone versus us.

I think terrorists may start with a political agenda, become radicalised and then become inhuman. For those of us who are not terrorists it is important, is it not, to argue forcibly that these outrages should not influence our decision making. Lest we become completely divorced from deciding things in a peaceable fashion. You couldn’t, for instance, surrender to left wing violence and right wing violence at the same time.

I’m accusing him of not knowing much of the conflict.

He says most of those attacked were military targets, but that is rubbish. He says Gandhi was killed because she didn’t grant Khalistan, but she was assassinated because she invaded Harminder Sahib.

He says Sikhs do not invoke the name of Guru Nanak when killing, but that is an irrelevant point. What if they say ‘Raaj Karega Khalsa’? Does that make them worse or better?

He also said Sikh attacks were “rational” and targeted – I ask how exactly that was.

If any point is to be taken seriously, it should be informed….. or no?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/victims.html

Sickening. Despicable. Evil. No-one can ever try to justify such an barbaric assault on innocent human beings.

I’m not sure what the implication here is? Sikhs or Irish terrorists are better because they focus on specific targets… but Al-Qaeda terrorists are worse because they hate everyone non-Muslim?

The idea that the Al-Qaeda lot are going to take over the world and convert everyone to Islam is a pipedream that only paranoid people take seriously. These people have a bunch of stingers and C4 to their name. They’re not going to take over squat, in the same way the traditional Khalistanis are unlikely to get their pipedream. Why should I take it seriously?