kurup
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 10,563
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
You are not that much a sensible fellow, i guess.
read this part again and try slowly.
"I didnt point at india or even pointed at india's fault of training LTTE (though i have full rights to do so. ). what i meant was you cant compare the position of sikhs in india and the position of tamils in SL. So your argument that sikh is a prie minister in India doesnt really matter here. The circumstances are different. had the sikhs acted in the same way the tamils did and another country supported khalistan in a manner india did support LTTE, i am 100% sure indian gov would have taken a tough stand on it."
I didnt say pakistan didnt support Khalistani movement. But by that time India had destroyed the khalistani movement within india, so any external support had little effect. Also the amount of support khalistan got from Pakistan was very much less than to the support india gave for the LTTE.
Sikhs didnt have a Sikh nadu that was very influential in helping Khalistani movement.
You have comprehension issues .
Read the Pakistan help in khalistan before making claims like "But by that time India had destroyed the khalistani movement within india, so any external support had little effect."
Read it ....... Secrets of COIN Success Lessons from the Punjab Campaign
I didn’t ask you whether you justify the LTTE or not. I am just saying your argument that Sikh is a prie minister doesn’t suit any discussion regarding SL and tamils.
Tell that your countrymen who brought the Khalistan in post#12 .
Please read the para you quoted, they are in the past tense. I hope you have no problem with the tenses.
My point was the status of tamils before the war is not as bad as depicted in media, especially in indian media. The reason indian media and indian gover made the situation look so bad was to justify their actions of training a terrorist org.
The terrorist organisation was formed even before the Indian help and look upto why such an organistaion was formed in the first place .
I didnt say anybody contested the violence against Sikhs, though i have to educate you on that.
It simply means you have no high ground. The destruction of Khalistani movement is extremely bloody even much more than SL’s war against LTTE.
SO ??
Show me a single post of mine here condemning actions of civil war in this thread before your stupid countrymen brought the khalistan .
I didn’t ask you why that question was asked, I merely answered to your question. You really struggle at understanding , right?
Tell that your countrymen who made the claim that like Sikhs in India today Tamils occupy the highest positions in Lanka .
Ask them not to make claims that they can't back .
Presidents are selected by the government, not elected by the people. Again you frequently asking whether tamils had been elected by the people in SL is a stupid question. You can ask that question from SL the day india elects a Kashmiri Muslim as the prie minister of india.
Untill now you were quoting Khalistan but now in case of PM you have again jumped to kashmiri muslims because you already know that India has a Sikh PM ....lol
what off topic?
Read post #12