Jump to content
Gollum

Terror attack in Delhi: Man beheaded on camera, video sent to Pakistani handler

Recommended Posts

Another Udaipur like case :((

 

Bhalswa Dairy case (from last month) cracked by Delhi Police. Absolutely shocking stuff. These two men, Naushad and Jagjit Singh beheaded a 21 year old kid, lured him from a nearby park and did this act on camera to prove their capability to a Pakistani handler, some LeT guy. Apparently they were tasked to target prominent Hindu leaders and Sikhs who oppose Khalistan movement, they started off by killing some kid just because of a trishul tattoo on his arm Police saying they were inspired by  ISIS videos. Naushad has links with Harkat-ul-Ansar, Jagjit Singh from Babbar Khalsa. Both men convicted (life) for multiple terror cases, murders, kidnappings, robberies etc., both jumped parole many times...wonder why milords are always merciful to this kind of scum. Also the Pakistan-Qatar-Canada nexus....

 

IE

 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

How can you classify sardarjis based on one idiots actions though ? 

Bhai, Such a level of brutality and cruelity when you consider the lack of motive (for example torture to get info, or anger)  is simply unheard of and not part of our Hindu/Sikh culture or upbringing irrespective of what the background of this person be.

I still cant believe it. May be Jagjit Singh was one holding camera. Unless there are new breeds of Sardarji in whom there is not a iota of Hinduism left in their upbringing. I dont know how far Khalistani Sikhs have gone away from their root.

Edited by mishra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishra said:

Bhai, Such a level of brutality and cruelity when you consider the lack of motive (for example torture to get info, or anger)  is simply unheard of and not part of our Hindu/Sikh culture or upbringing irrespective of what the background of this person be.

I still cant believe it. May be Jagjit Singh was one holding camera. Unless there are new breeds of Sardarji in whom there is not an iota of Hinduism left in their upbringing. I dont know how far Khalistani Sikhs have gone away from their root.

Humans are brutal and cruel that includes Hindus and Sikhs. We just learn from our upbringing and surroundings. Even he held the camera he is equally guilty. Hindus are involved in riots as well which were bad.  I don’t like quote to Churchill but here it goes he mentioned when British were in Afghanistan he mentioned something along lines of Sikhs were more brutal in killing local afghan tribesmen than the tribesmen themselves. 

Edited by gattaca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Humans are brutal and cruel that includes Hindus and Sikhs. We just learn from our upbringing and surroundings. Even he held the camera he is equally guilty. Hindus are involved in riots as well which were bad.  I don’t like quote to Churchill but here it goes he mentioned when British were in Afghanistan he mentioned something along lines of Sikhs were more brutal in killing local afghan tribesmen than the tribesmen themselves. 

Maybe Churchill could have taught them how to kill off millions without any bloodshed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

Humans are brutal and cruel that includes Hindus and Sikhs. We just learn from our upbringing and surroundings. Even he held the camera he is equally guilty. Hindus are involved in riots as well which were bad.  I don’t like quote to Churchill but here it goes he mentioned when British were in Afghanistan he mentioned something along lines of Sikhs were more brutal in killing local afghan tribesmen than the tribesmen themselves. 

Afghans &,  Sikhs were sworn bitter enemies...  British used this animosity very well during their times. 

Also the reprisals in Punjab were quite brutal during the partition in fact they were the defining blows...  There is a reason Pakistani army & ISI rabidly hates Indian Punjab. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Under_Score said:

Generalization by many against minorities in a country like India is no surprise.....I totally agree with death penalty for the scumbag who did this heinous crime.


Many didn’t generalize though ? West has more generalizations than India. India is home to more religions for centuries than west. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gattaca said:


Many didn’t generalize though ? West has more generalizations than India. India is home to more religions for centuries than west. 

I didn't mention about generalization on ICF....I have experienced generalization myself when I lived in India during the 80s when Delhi & Kanpur burnt with anti-Sikh genocide.....How many Hindus were brought to justice for killing 3000 plus innocent Sikhs of Delhi who had nothing to do with Punjab extremism........the whole massacre was the result of generalization of Sikhs....:(( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Under_Score said:

I didn't mention about generalization on ICF....I have experienced generalization myself when I lived in India during the 80s when Delhi & Kanpur burnt with anti-Sikh genocide.....How many Congress Leaders and their paid goons were brought to justice for killing 3000 plus innocent Sikhs of Delhi who had nothing to do with Punjab extremism........the whole massacre was the result of generalization of Sikhs....:(( 

There.. fixed it for you

Edited by LordPrabhzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MultiB48 said:

Maybe Churchill could have taught them how to kill off millions without any bloodshed.

Yes, Bengal Famine. India was part of UK Territory and its citizens were subservient to Parliament and queen (Not East India Company), while India Parliament was part of British System.

Quote

Beginning as early as December 1942, high-ranking government officials and military officers (including John Herbert, the Governor of Bengal; Viceroy Linlithgow; Leo Amery the Secretary of State for India; General Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India,[217] and Admiral Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Commander of South-East Asia[218]) began requesting food imports for India through government and military channels, but for months these requests were either rejected or reduced to a fraction of the original amount by Churchill's War Cabinet.[219] The colony was also not permitted to spend its own sterling reserves, or even use its own ships, to import food.[220] Although Viceroy Linlithgow appealed for imports from mid-December 1942, he did so on the understanding that the military would be given preference over civilians.[Q] The Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, was on one side of a cycle of requests for food aid and subsequent refusals from the British War Cabinet that continued through 1943 and into 1944.[221] Amery did not mention worsening conditions in the countryside, stressing that Calcutta's industries must be fed or its workers would return to the countryside. Rather than meeting this request, the UK promised a relatively small amount of wheat that was specifically intended for western India (that is, not for Bengal) in exchange for an increase in rice exports from Bengal to Ceylon.

 

Edited by mishra
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...