They Gave Their Lives

by Guest Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:59 pm

80,000 Sikhs fought and died for Britain in the two world wars. Over 400,000 Muslims fought for King and Empire in The Great War alone. They came from present-day Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. Sikhs and Muslims, they laid down their lives fighting side by side against a common foe.
A Remembrance and Celebration event will be held on Sunday 22 Oct to commemorate soldiers from Africa, the Caribbean, and the Indian Subcontinent who fought in the First World War. The event will be hosted by the Oxford Inventory of the African Mind at the New Testament Church of God, in Between Towns Road, starting at 6 pm.
People of these backgrounds who have stories from their family helping in past conflicts are still needed.
“It’s a good idea. It will be good to remember what people have done in the past. There’s a lot of people that come here and want to know about the Sikhs and who we are and what we did”, said Amrik Shergill, the chairman of London Road’s Sikh gurdwara. “It’s nice to get all the community together. We should all work together like what happened in the past.”

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/gave-lives.html

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:20 am

Nice to hear, I wonder what some will have to say about it, though ...

by Irn Bru Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:53 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Nice to hear, I wonder what some will have to say about it, though ...

Good question Ben. Well we know what Winston Churchill thought of the Sikh's.

Winston Churchill wrote:"British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans.

Didn't count for much with Maggie Thatcher though who stabbed them in the back by agreeing to send the SAS to give advice to the Indian government on how to storm the Golden Temple. Britain had excellent relations with the Sikh population and our government had always been trusted and the request for assistance should have been denied and replaced with the offer of sending a diplomatic mission to negotiate with the Sikh's to end the stand-off. Whether the advice given was used matters not, the fact is she supported a military solution which was bound to end in bloodshed rather than a diplomatic one.

That decision when it became known caused outrage throughout the Sikh communities all across the globe and within our own parliament. No wonder she added a note on her letter approving assistance pretty much saying don't tell anyone about this and keep it a secret.

You can get the gist of what happened by reading from these links...

http://sikhsiyasat.net/2014/01/15/uk-role-in-june-1984-invasion-condemn-pm-thatchers-decision-to-assist-indira-gandhi-sikh-groups-demand-resolution-in-british-parliame/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/13/sikh-inquiry-british-1984-amritsar-india-golden-temple

They Gave Their Lives Sikh_community-23-feb-1983

They Gave Their Lives Sikh_community-23-feb-1983

by Guest Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:51 am

Oh so we see Irn being disingenuous again to a great leaders, who did make mistakes, but hey that is the left for you.
As to Maggie as seen, the evidence from the Indians themselves shows she sent an adviser to help advise, of which they did their own plans in the end of which this has been debated before.
Trust the left to turn a thread that commemorates those who have fallen into their own pathetic political agenda.

India Golden Temple: Ex-general Brar dismisses UK 'link'

Gen Brar, one of the architects of the operation, told the BBC's Newshour programme on Tuesday that it was the work solely of military commanders in India.

"I am dumbfounded and totally amazed," he said. "I do not believe that these documents could be authentic.

"As far as I am concerned the operation was planned and executed entirely by military commanders of the Indian army.

"There was no question of our getting help or advice from any foreign country - and certainly not from Britain - so as far as I am concerned [these allegations] appear to be like fiction," the 79-year-old former general said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25733823

by Irn Bru Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:59 am

General Brar wouldn't have been in the loop to see the ministerial exchanges that took place between London and Delhi which is the explanation why he is suggesting that the published documents are fake.

And perhaps you should have read that I as much as said that it matters not if the military plan put forward was acted on or not in a limited way, the fact that she offered military advice is enough to show that she was in favour of a military solution.

My take on it is that she should have taken advantage of the close ties and the trust that existed between the British and the Sikh community by offering to send a diplomatic mission from the UK to bring about a non-violent and negotiated end to the Golden Temple situation rather than an assault
that was only ever going to end in bloodshed and mass deaths.

That's my solution - what's yours?

And remember that Thatcher sent a further communication to Gandhi a month after the bloody end to the storming of the Golden Temple offering her full support for what her military were doing. Check out Operation Woodrose for details on that.

They Gave Their Lives Golden-temple-letter-p1-normal

They Gave Their Lives Golden-temple-letter-p1-normal

by Guest Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:12 am

Utter babble and why you are such a disingenuous left wing wally, that is not evidence and as seen this general carried out the attack with his own plan, nothing from the British, showing how desperate you are on this to blame the British when we had nothing to do with this.
So once again thanks for spoiling a thread with you poor lies, when this threat is bout those who served and died for this country, not your pathetic attempts to use their lives for your political platform

by Irn Bru Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:48 am

Brasidas wrote:Utter babble and why you are such a disingenuous left wing wally, that is not evidence and as seen this general carried out the attack with his own plan, nothing from the British, showing how desperate you are on this to blame the British when we had nothing to do with this.
So once again thanks for spoiling a thread with you poor lies, when this threat is bout those who served and died for this country, not your pathetic attempts to use their lives for your political platform

Who told you it was his own plan? I think you need to do a bit more research on that one as it just isn't true, Here, let me show you...

Brar wrote:
"They (Vaidya and Sundarji) were dealing with Mrs Gandhi. I was in the chain of commands. But I was told verbatim about the communication that was among them. And I am sure that there was no officer of British Special Air Service (SAS) who was ever in touch with any of them,"

That's from Brar's own book on the operation so you see, Brar was under the command of Vaidya and Sundarji who planned the attack and Brar was appointed operation commander to carry it out but he was remote from what was taking place between London and Delhi. I thought most people knew that but obviously you didn't.

And I never claimed that the British were involved in the attack so go back and read again what I said.

Anyway, you avoided answering my question so I'll repeat it again just for you.

My take on it is that she should have taken advantage of the close ties and the trust that existed between the British and the Sikh community by offering to send a diplomatic mission from the UK to bring about a non-violent and negotiated end to the Golden Temple situation rather than an assault
that was only ever going to end in bloodshed and mass deaths.

That's my solution - what's yours?

And when answering look up Operation Woodrose and tell me what you think of it.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:21 am

Listen you left wing scum, all you have is circumstantial evidence, all of which none of which you can pinpoint to Maggie, where again we have debated this before and before I showed you had no case to make, all of which one SAS officer came to advice of which he even advised against an assault you nglect to say on. You have deliberately sabotaged this thread with your disgusting claims, all of which we have been down the road of before and where you got it wrong before. Again it shows you are having no respect for those who died in the conflicts to now associate extremist sikhs, who were committing terrorist acts, where the Indian government acted against, of which they did off their own plans all of which has been stated and argued before for you. Again only a left wing twat would try to dishonour the thread about those who served our nation to then associate them to extremists in a temple who were butchering innocent lives, showing there is no connection but the complete ramblings of a left wing idiot dishonoring those who have fallen for Britain, making this as per usual a pathetic political platform. Again you are being an ignorant fuck wit as he states also that the Indian army devised that attack even more so it shows no hallmarks of any kind of SAS attack, showing how you even mow try to insult the SAS, you ;pathetic twat.

You even have the records from the British themselves that show they advised on many aspects all of which were well in advance of any attack, of which again your lack of understanding SAS strategy would not go for such a plan, of which this evidence was presented to you before to now go on about the General in charge who stated before he designed the plan for the attack, all of which you ignore you pathetic left wing scum. I hate a pathetic weasel you sets out to ruin a thread a dishonour those who have fallen to make some daft connection to Sikh extremists, you are lower than scum and insensitive to those who have fallen. The fact is this was both a disaster in the making by both the Sikh extremists and the Indians, which you disgustingly try to pin on the British, making you the lowest kind of scum.

He added: "A single UK military officer provided some advice. But critically, this advice was not followed, and it was a one-off."

Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain.

"If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them," he told the BBC.

"From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star until I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned."

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:32 am

why would someone expect a British leader to NOT screw the people that were fighting for them ???? that would be highly unbritish of them. They Gave Their Lives 3893789544

they always screwed the Aussies and New Zealanders, that's why we told Churchill to fuck off and joined the USA in WW2. Also Churchill in his days a naval Officer caused some of the highest Australian/NZ Causalities in WW1 literally fucked up then said lets use them as a 'Distraction' meaning push their boats towards the Turkish machine guns and let the British Pansy men land safely.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:38 am

Oh my, you joined US?
I think not, as how to dishonour further many Australians that served within the British armies throughout WW2. One person did fuck up, is that then right to bash all of Britain for this mistake with Gallopoli? No, it would be absurd.
The fact is there is no connection to the Sikh terrorists who were killed by the Indians, where this thread is bout those who served within the British armed forces and who gave their lives, sadly spoilt left wing wally with small man syndrome.

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:49 am

Well If we want to Accurately show history we need to point out that Britain has almost Universally fucked with every single one of it's Allies. If we want the world to be a better place in the future we need to point out Evil in the Past and say "See those Evil bastards See how they acted when they were in Power NEVER act like those Evil shit heads".

Britain may not be fair, maybe it is England After all they Also Fucked the Irish and Scottish it Being British.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:Well If we want to Accurately show history we need to point out that Britain has almost Universally fucked with every single one of it's Allies. If we want the world to be a better place in the future we need to point out Evil in the Past and say "See those Evil bastards See how they acted when they were in Power NEVER act like those Evil shit heads".

Britain may not be fair, maybe it is England After all they Also Fucked the Irish and Scottish it Being British.

OMG really? Yes Britain has made some mistakes, it has also made some very correct decisions, ones of which saved millions of lives and yes we know you hate the English and British but that is not the bases for debate or continuing to spoil one that seeks to honour people who have fought in conflicts as it dishonours what they died for.

by nicko Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:56 am

What did the British do to you Veya that you show so much hate for them?

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:28 pm

@nicko
they lie about history... study

(and I don't hate them personally, just their Institutional Racism. Plus they are the 'enemy' sports team They Gave Their Lives 2347854014

)

Like the Bullshit about 'saving lives' as opposed to Demanding those they oppressed come and save them.
They paint everyone the fought as evil when in many case they were the invader and evil one.. they then go on about others like they are Satan himself when Comparative the destruction caused by the British empire and trading companies it is 'no greater or on par'.

See didge's response above 'yes we made some mistakes' see how easy the British version of history just shrugs off the genocides it committed the cultures it destroyed the Millions of people it killed.
and even 'made some correct ones' name one? where Britain wasn't under threat, where the events weren't all about Europe(thus effecting Britain directly)?
Face it the World has been Better off under the USA than it ever was under the British Empire, for all their faults they have still ACTUALLY made choices to save lives, the events required to 'force their hand' have been less than Britain.... in part because Britain has generally been the invader.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:33 pm

No I do not shrug off anything and in fact most books I read are not even written by British historians, showing how you lack any understanding of the matter, in fact I take on many views written by a selective amount of authors, but it is very evident in many debates especially your poor stance on Napoleon that you are very anti English and British. In fact the best author I read on WW2 is German/American, showing how little you know. The fact I have had to educate you countless times on the subject is bad enough I mean even here you claimed the Australians told Britain to fuck off and joined America in WW2, which is of course a load of garbage.

Sorry did you say the world has been better off under the USA.

PMSL

I think many nations would disagree with you on that.

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:13 pm

Brasidas wrote:No I do not shrug off anything and in fact most books I read are not even written by British historians, showing how you lack any understanding of the matter, in fact I take on many views written by a selective amount of authors, but it is very evident in many debates especially your poor stance on Napoleon that you are very anti English and British. In fact the best author I read on WW2 is German/American, showing how little you know. The fact I have had to educate you countless times on the subject is bad enough I mean even here you claimed the Australians told Britain to fuck off and joined America in WW2, which is of course a load of garbage.

Sorry did you say the world has been better off under the USA.

PMSL

I think many nations would disagree with you on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin

Curtin successfully led Australia through the period when the nation was directly threatened by the Japanese advance in World War II, and is today widely regarded as one of the country's greatest ever Prime Ministers.

We look for a solid and impregnable barrier of the Democracies against the three Axis powers, and we refuse to accept the dictum that the Pacific struggle must be treated as a subordinate segment of the general conflict. By that it is not meant that any one of the other theatres of war is of less importance than the Pacific, but that Australia asks for a concerted plan evoking the greatest strength at the Democracies' disposal, determined upon hurling Japan back. The Australian Government, therefore regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the Democracies' fighting plan. Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go, and we shall exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give to our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy.

And I will think you find they don't.... the idea they do it just in British heads.
they may not like the USA but given the choice to go back to British rule... I don't think any would take it. Neutral

by Irn Bru Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:15 pm

Brasidas wrote:Listen you left wing scum, all you have is circumstantial evidence, all of which none of which you can pinpoint to Maggie, where again we have debated this before and before I showed you had no case to make, all of which one SAS officer came to advice of which he even advised against an assault you nglect to say on. You have deliberately sabotaged this thread with your disgusting claims, all of which we have been down the road of before and where you got it wrong before. Again it shows you are having no respect for those who died in the conflicts to now associate extremist sikhs, who were committing terrorist acts, where the Indian government acted against, of which they did off their own plans all of which has been stated and argued before for you. Again only a left wing twat would try to dishonour the thread about those who served our nation to then associate them to extremists in a temple who were butchering innocent lives, showing there is no connection but the complete ramblings of a left wing idiot dishonoring those who have fallen for Britain, making this as per usual a pathetic political platform. Again you are being an ignorant fuck wit as he states also that the Indian army devised that attack even more so it shows no hallmarks of any kind of SAS attack, showing how you even mow try to insult the SAS, you ;pathetic twat.

You even have the records from the British themselves that show they advised on many aspects all of which were well in advance of any attack, of which again your lack of understanding SAS strategy would not go for such a plan, of which this evidence was presented to you before to now go on about the General in charge who stated before he designed the plan for the attack, all of which you ignore you pathetic left wing scum. I hate a pathetic weasel you sets out to ruin a thread a dishonour those who have fallen to make some daft connection to Sikh extremists, you are lower than scum and insensitive to those who have fallen. The fact is this was both a disaster in the making by both the Sikh extremists and the Indians, which you disgustingly try to pin on the British, making you the lowest kind of scum.

He added: "A single UK military officer provided some advice. But critically, this advice was not followed, and it was a one-off."

Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain.

"If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them," he told the BBC.

"From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star until I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned."

One negative mention of Maggie Thatcher to a Tory and up go the hackles, rage kicks in and the insults flow out from them like there is no tomorrow. Your response is what I love about some Tories in that a response like that reveals the nastiness that lurks beneath their veneer of respectability. Anyway, on with the show.

I really wouldn’t have had any problem with anyone starting a thread commending the Sikh’s for the way they came to the aid of our country, freely putting their lives on the line for which so many died. But when I see what you wrote elsewhere previously about the Sikh’s - some of which you have repeated here - than I have no problem responding to you by reminding you of Maggie Thatcher’s offer of military assistance in putting a plan together to storm the Golden Temple. Whether the plan was used matters not, it’s the support she offered to do it that matters, the support you back up to the hilt.

You obviously know nothing of the oppression suffered by the Sikh’s in the Punjab in the way the water that they needed for irrigation of their crops was diverted away from their lands. The laws that were passed aginst them that gave the police powers to arrest them and even shoot them on sight without accountability. Thousands were murdered and thousands were locked up without trial. That’s just some of it.

From your post...

"If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them," he told the BBC.

You see, he wasn't in the loop just like I said. And he didn't put the plan together either - he says so in his book.

Anyway, you avoided answering my question so I'll repeat it again just for you.

My take on it is that she should have taken advantage of the close ties and the trust that existed between the British and the Sikh community by offering to send a diplomatic mission from the UK to bring about a non-violent and negotiated end to the Golden Temple situation rather than an assault
that was only ever going to end in bloodshed and mass deaths.

That's my solution - what's yours?

And when answering look up Operation Woodrose and tell me what you think of it.

And finaly....

Forgive Tories for Amritsar, says Cameron:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551966/Forgive-Tories-Amritsar-says-Cameron-PM-pleads-Sikhs-papers-revealed-Mrs-Thatcher-advised-Indian-government-attack-temple.html

Says it all.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:18 pm

Thank you again for proving how clueless you are Veya.
The priority of the Yanks, was the European theater, dear me.
That dopes not say the Australians told the British or Churchill to fuck off and then joined the Yanks, it shows the Australians placed greater effort to the pacific as it was the greater threat to them, but they still provided men, divisions etc to the British armies.
Seriously stop reading history wrong, it is utterly embarrassing from you.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:21 pm

To Irn the low life scum:

He added: "A single UK military officer provided some advice. But critically, this advice was not followed, and it was a one-off."

Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain.

"If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them," he told the BBC.

"From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star until I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned."

He planned the operation, thus no British involvement, I shall await your apology to Maggie for disgustingly accusing her of nothing she did wrong then bury your head in the toilet and flush it until you realise what a low life scum bag you are for still ruining a thread dishonouring the many who have fallen.
Braveheart was fictional, get used to that, I guess it has gone to that wee head of yours.

In your own time

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:28 pm

By the way I know plenty about the Sikhs, of whom those in the temple had been committing atrocities all of which you seem to ignore and were as responsible for the disaster as much the Indian army was on Sikh civilians being killed, again all of which you ignore and instead prove you are a low life by debating something we have debated 3 times before and 3 times before you have gotten wrong and still disgustingly make false claims. Nobody denies wrongs were done to the Sikh people but those following Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale were also committing wrongs.

This is why people like you are a disgrace to our nation.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:33 pm

You also ignore:

In response, an unnamed British military adviser was sent to India in February 1984, and he recommended any attack should be a last resort, MPs heard.

The adviser suggested using an element of surprise, as well as helicopters, to try to keep casualty numbers low - features which were not part of the final operation, Mr Hague said.

In other words you also insult the SAS, who as I have stated and debated with you countless times would not have advised such an ill conceived plan. Your hate of Maggie has clouded any sense you once had, and why you are incapable of looking at many things rationally.

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:35 pm

Brasidas wrote:Thank you again for proving how clueless you are Veya.
The priority of the Yanks, was the European theater, dear me.
That dopes not say the Australians told the British or Churchill to fuck off and then joined the Yanks, it shows the Australians placed greater effort to the pacific as it was the greater threat to them, but they still provided men, divisions etc to the British armies.
Seriously stop reading history wrong, it is utterly embarrassing from you.

umm show how silly you are

Churchill was demanding ALL our troops, Robert Menzies then Prime Minister was Pro British and sucked in by London Politics.

Menzies travelled to Britain to discuss Australia's role in the war strategy, and to express concern at the reliability of Singapore's defences. While he was in Britain, Menzies lost the support of his own party and was forced to resign.

so his was overthrown by Curtin who then pulled off an alliance with USA and thumbed his nose a Churchill

This historic speech is regarded as one of the most important in Australia's history, marking a turning point in Australia's relationship with its founding country, the United Kingdom. Many felt that Prime Minister Curtin was abandoning Australia's traditional ties to the British Isles without any solid partnership in place with the United States. This speech also received criticism at high levels of government in Australia, Britain and the US; it angered Churchill, and Roosevelt said that it "smacked of panic"

He also Legally Separated Australia From the British so Churchill couldn't demand any more

Concurrently, the Curtin government enacted the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, under which Australia accepted the dominion status which Britain had conferred in 1930, but which the Australian federal government had not accepted until then. The Adoption Act took effect retroactively as of 3 September 1939, the outbreak of World War II. Although politically a product of the government's policy of re-orientation towards the United States, constitutionally, this marked the moment that Australia became an independent nation with a separate Crown, no longer subject to the supremacy of British law and the British Crown.[11]

He then manoeuvred to ensure Australia was in the best position regarding the US

Curtin formed a close working relationship with the Allied Supreme Commander in the South West Pacific Area, General Douglas MacArthur. Curtin realised that Australia would be ignored unless it had a strong voice in Washington D.C., and he wanted that voice to be MacArthur's. He gave over control of Australian forces to MacArthur, directing Australian commanders to treat MacArthur's orders as if they came from the Australian Government.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:40 pm

Again all irrelevant, where again Australia was under direct threat from Japan, hence their strength had to be closer to home, where again you neglect the part American priority was not the pacific. Thus support here was still the main priority due to the Americans being in Europe.
So show me where they told Churchill to fuck off?

They did not, they took the right choice to defend their homeland and still supplied Britain with forces within the European theater, showing again how you get it wrong. If they told Churchill to fuck off, they would not have sent any support yet they sent plenty of men to help fight in Africa, through into Italy showing again how you have no clue on history, it shows they tried to accommodate both with preference given to the pacific because it was a direct threat.
Seriously did you even attend school?

by Irn Bru Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:46 pm

Brasidas wrote:To Irn the low life scum:

He added: "A single UK military officer provided some advice. But critically, this advice was not followed, and it was a one-off."

Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain.

"If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them," he told the BBC.

"From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star until I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned."

He planned the operation, thus no British involvement, I shall await your apology to Maggie for disgustingly accusing her of nothing she did wrong then bury your head in the toilet and flush it until you realise what a low life scum bag you are for still ruining a thread dishonouring the many who have fallen.
Braveheart was fictional, get used to that, I guess it has gone to that wee head of yours.

In your own time

This Day in History (7-Jun-1984) – Indian Army troops stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh shrines

Indira Gandhi first asked Lt. Gen. S. K. Sinha, then Vice-Chief of Indian Army and selected to become the next Army chief, to prepare a position paper for assault on the Golden Temple. Lt. Gen. Sinha advised against any such move and suggested the government adopt an alternative solution. A controversial decision was made to replace him with General Arun Shridhar Vaidya as the Chief of the Indian army. General Vaidya, assisted by Lt. Gen. K Sundarji as Vice-Chief, planned and coordinated Operation Blue Star.

Brar confirms this in his book - Operation Blue Star The True Story. Look it up.

And...

Speaking to TOI about the operation that left over 1,000 dead and led to revenge assassination of Gandhi and the ramifications of this document, Brar, who has survived several assassination attempts, including that in London in 2012, and still receives death threats, said, "The entire operation was planned and executed totally by the military commanders. There was no foreign support either in principle or in warfare in this military act. So, Thatcher government help is out of question."

He, however, said that the entire decision making was usually among his supervisors General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, General Arun Vaidya and Gandhi.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Margaret-Thatcher-government-help-to-Indira-in-1984-impossible-Kuldip-Singh-Brar/articleshow/28811329.cms

The only apology required already been made - by David Cameron in asking for forgiveness. You would do well to follow his lead

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 pm

Yes "usually", that word should leap out at you but here, as he states he planned it.

I shall wait your apology.

How many times am I going to educate you on this Irn where you even insult the SAS, you disgust me. This thread was about those who served, not your pathetic political platform and hatred of Maggie, I am so glad we we rule you for years to come ha ha.

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:55 pm

they literally dumped the Guy Churchill had all buttered up and agreeing to sacrifice north Australia to save Britain and the Guy who came in immediately enacted legislation to cut legal ties with Britain that could have allowed Churchill to commandeer our troops.

that's a pretty big 'fuck you'

and we Agreed to what the Americans wanted, which was to save your ass... we would have sent some anyway cause we aren't assholes.

Europe first, also known as Germany first, was the key element of the grand strategy agreed upon by the United States and the United Kingdom during World War II. According to this policy, the United States and the United Kingdom would use the preponderance of their resources to subdue Nazi Germany in Europe first. Simultaneously, they would fight a holding action against Japan in the Pacific, using fewer resources. After the defeat of Germany—considered the greatest threat to Great Britain[1]—all Allied forces could be concentrated against Japan.

Official U.S. statistics indicate that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

The UK feared that, if the United States was diverted from its main focus in Europe to the Pacific (Japan), Hitler might crush both the Soviet Union and Britain, and would then become an unconquerable fortress in Europe. The wound inflicted on the United States by Japan at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 did not result in a change in U.S. policy. Prime Minister Winston Churchill hastened to Washington shortly after Pearl Harbor for the Arcadia Conference to ensure that the Americans didn't have second thoughts about Europe First.

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:00 pm

Wrong again, you can keep posting the words of your PM, but troops and men still fought in the European conflict, right up until the end of the war, showing they did not say fuck off, it just shows they showed priority to the Pacific. So no it is not a fuck you but rightly taking preference to a real threat to their own nation as any nation would under direct threat. This is you reading wrongly as per usual.
Please get yourself an education, it is embarressing

by Irn Bru Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:00 pm

Brasidas wrote:Yes "usually", that word should leap out at you but here, as he states he planned it.

I shall wait your apology.

How many times am I going to educate you on this Irn where you even insult the SAS, you disgust me. This thread was about those who served, not your pathetic political platform and hatred of Maggie, I am so glad we we rule you for years to come ha ha.

And so the thread descends into hilarity with a little bit of 'we rule you' thrown in for good measure. Yes, I'm sure Veya and a few others will identify with your take on that.

And there is no mocking of the SAS whatsover, that's just something you made up. I have given you historical references and all you have is an interview Brar gave on the BBC in which he even admits he was not in the loop.

And still avoiding answering the question on the diplomatic option though aren't you?

Why? To difficult for you to consider?

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:08 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Yes "usually", that word should leap out at you but here, as he states he planned it.

I shall wait your apology.

How many times am I going to educate you on this Irn where you even insult the SAS, you disgust me. This thread was about those who served, not your pathetic political platform and hatred of Maggie, I am so glad we we rule you for years to come ha ha.

And so the thread descends into hilarity with a little bit of 'we rule you' thrown in for good measure. Yes, I'm sure Veya and a few others will identify with your take on that.

And there is no mocking of the SAS whatsover, that's just something you made up. I have given you historical references and all you have is an interview Brar gave on the BBC in which he even admits he was not in the loop.

And still avoiding answering the question on the diplomatic option though aren't you?

Why? To difficult for you to consider?

How the pair of you are moderators astounds me in the first place, neither of you actually moderate anything and are so badly biased as seen, proving your failings, but I am sure sucking up to him will help as he is as poor as you on debates like this as seen.
Diplomatic option is irrelevant, no advice was taken and as seen the advice was to only use force as a last resort. The fact is even now you will not admit the facts that they planned the whole operation themselves, and you hate the fact I have exposed your true intent here, one of hatred for a former PM.
He states he was not in the loop again irrelevant, because that does not matter when he planned the attack. Even your evidence shows usually he took other advice, but not on this operation, he planned this himself.
You are mocking the SAS, by claiming it was their advice that created this disaster, because if as you claim it was their advice used, then it would mean their advice was poor, thus insulting them.
Lets see if you have the ability to apologise

You admitted as much that Scotland is ruled, would you like to see what you said already tonight?

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:15 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Yes "usually", that word should leap out at you but here, as he states he planned it.

I shall wait your apology.

How many times am I going to educate you on this Irn where you even insult the SAS, you disgust me. This thread was about those who served, not your pathetic political platform and hatred of Maggie, I am so glad we we rule you for years to come ha ha.

And so the thread descends into hilarity with a little bit of 'we rule you' thrown in for good measure. Yes, I'm sure Veya and a few others will identify with your take on that.

And there is no mocking of the SAS whatsover, that's just something you made up. I have given you historical references and all you have is an interview Brar gave on the BBC in which he even admits he was not in the loop.

And still avoiding answering the question on the diplomatic option though aren't you?

Why? To difficult for you to consider?

How the pair of you are moderators astounds me in the first place, neither of you actually moderate anything and are so badly biased as seen, proving your failings, but I am sure sucking up to him will help as he is as poor as you on debates like this as seen.
Diplomatic option is irrelevant, no advice was taken and as seen the advice was to only use force as a last resort. The fact is even now you will not admit the facts that they planned the whole operation themselves, and you hate the fact I have exposed your true intent here, one of hatred for a former PM.
He states he was not in the loop again irrelevant, because that does not matter when he planned the attack. Even your evidence shows usually he took other advice, but not on this operation, he planned this himself.
Lets see if you have the ability to apologise

that's good as you're are deluded and have really fucked up ideas about right and wrong. the fact that Ben's choices astound you just shows they are probably good.

I mean you need to learn to count to get any value from an education
European theatre ends on 8th of May 1945
Pacific Theatre ends on 15 August 1945
Again you keep trying to suggest your racist interpretation of history is correct when things like the fact August comes after May PROVES you are a jackass Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:21 pm

Ben gets things wrong at times, by his choices, in you as seen where you call someone who fights against racism a racist, that to me shows he has chosen someone who is clearly mentally unbalanced.
Again you have no idea hat I do to claim I am racist shows what a child and you are and again deluded, so to me Ben made a poor choose in you as a moderator and again Irn and you both do no moderation, Eddie has done far more as a moderator and is at least fair.

The end of the conflicts further proves my point, lets see if you can figure out why.
Seriously I am going to copy some of your posts to historian friends of mine, because they will fall over laughing at your views and claims, even worse to racism.
Again races do not exist biologically, and I have argued this countless times, I have argued that Britain wrongly advanced off the wealth plundered through its expansions and many other points showing what an immature child you really are, all you do is cream racist, and it is dicks like you that make racism worse for those on the receiving end of racism. You do realise that I myself being of Irish ethnicity has faced racism?
But then because you are a clueless dick you would not have a clue.

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:59 pm

Brasidas wrote:Ben gets things wrong at times, by his choices, in you as seen where you call someone who fights against racism a racist, that to me shows he has chosen someone who is clearly mentally unbalanced.
Again you have no idea hat I do to claim I am racist shows what a child and you are and again deluded, so to me Ben made a poor choose in you as a moderator and again Irn and you both do no moderation, Eddie has done far more as a moderator and is at least fair.

The end of the conflicts further proves my point, lets see if you can figure out why.
Seriously I am going to copy some of your posts to historian friends of mine, because they will fall over laughing at your views and claims, even worse to racism.
Again races do not exist biologically, and I have argued this countless times, I have argued that Britain wrongly advanced off the wealth plundered through its expansions and many other points showing what an immature child you really are, all you do is cream racist, and it is dicks like you that make racism worse for those on the receiving end of racism. You do realise that I myself being of Irish ethnicity has faced racism?
But then because you are a clueless dick you would not have a clue.

You may think you are not racist but YOU ARE !!!!
you are not the idiot calling People names you are the academic fool that keep propping up false the Idea that Historical importance centres around Europeans.
And Your whole Version of WW2 is shown to be a one sided fallacy by the REAL start and end dates (both Japanese) and the Population of Asia and the Pacific. But your inherent Racism is literally hindering your ability to admit August comes after May.

the notion that one that has suffered racism cannot be racist is also ridiculous and easily shown to be often the opposite. And just show the ridiculously racist place you grew up in so don't really have an adequate example of NOT racist. (I'm mean seriously Irish, English or Polish fuck all difference)

@ "neither of you actually moderate anything" when you do something right they will suspect you of doing nothing at all tongue

by Irn Bru Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:25 am

Brasidas wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Yes "usually", that word should leap out at you but here, as he states he planned it.

I shall wait your apology.

How many times am I going to educate you on this Irn where you even insult the SAS, you disgust me. This thread was about those who served, not your pathetic political platform and hatred of Maggie, I am so glad we we rule you for years to come ha ha.

And so the thread descends into hilarity with a little bit of 'we rule you' thrown in for good measure. Yes, I'm sure Veya and a few others will identify with your take on that.

And there is no mocking of the SAS whatsover, that's just something you made up. I have given you historical references and all you have is an interview Brar gave on the BBC in which he even admits he was not in the loop.

And still avoiding answering the question on the diplomatic option though aren't you?

Why? To difficult for you to consider?

How the pair of you are moderators astounds me in the first place, neither of you actually moderate anything and are so badly biased as seen, proving your failings, but I am sure sucking up to him will help as he is as poor as you on debates like this as seen.
Diplomatic option is irrelevant, no advice was taken and as seen the advice was to only use force as a last resort. The fact is even now you will not admit the facts that they planned the whole operation themselves, and you hate the fact I have exposed your true intent here, one of hatred for a former PM.
He states he was not in the loop again irrelevant, because that does not matter when he planned the attack. Even your evidence shows usually he took other advice, but not on this operation, he planned this himself.
You are mocking the SAS, by claiming it was their advice that created this disaster, because if as you claim it was their advice used, then it would mean their advice was poor, thus insulting them.
Lets see if you have the ability to apologise

You admitted as much that Scotland is ruled, would you like to see what you said already tonight?

Good grief, you really have lost the plot completely with a meltdown I haven't seen in ages. All I see is insults, false claims, deflections and chaff getting chucked out all over the place to divert away from your argument that well and truly hit the buffers some time ago. But that's what you do when you have nowhere else to run - you just fire away with uncontrolled rage which really defeats your own argument.

And not once did I claim that the SAS plan was used. And the diplomatic option might just have saved lives but that's irrelevant you say.

Historical references and Brar's own words in his book proves you wrong about who planned the attack and it's time you accepted that rather than continuing to deny it.

If you want o bring up what I've said on another thread about Scotland then I suppose this is another diversion but you go right ahead and do it but it changes nothing with your 'we rule you' comment. A comment worthy of the 'little Englander' brigade.

by Irn Bru Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:30 am

Brasidas wrote:Ben gets things wrong at times, by his choices, in you as seen where you call someone who fights against racism a racist, that to me shows he has chosen someone who is clearly mentally unbalanced.
Again you have no idea hat I do to claim I am racist shows what a child and you are and again deluded, so to me Ben made a poor choose in you as a moderator and again Irn and you both do no moderation, Eddie has done far more as a moderator and is at least fair.

The end of the conflicts further proves my point, lets see if you can figure out why.
Seriously I am going to copy some of your posts to historian friends of mine, because they will fall over laughing at your views and claims, even worse to racism.
Again races do not exist biologically, and I have argued this countless times, I have argued that Britain wrongly advanced off the wealth plundered through its expansions and many other points showing what an immature child you really are, all you do is cream racist, and it is dicks like you that make racism worse for those on the receiving end of racism. You do realise that I myself being of Irish ethnicity has faced racism?
But then because you are a clueless dick you would not have a clue.

That comment reminds me of a poster named Craig11 who used to post on the Sky forum. He had friends that he claimed met up in their houses at the weekends to go through posts and discuss them. He posted well into the night and early mornings and Scrat had an image that summed him up but I can't quite remember what it was.

He (Craig11) was a real RW as well and I laughed every time Scrat did it.

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:38 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Yes "usually", that word should leap out at you but here, as he states he planned it.

I shall wait your apology.

How many times am I going to educate you on this Irn where you even insult the SAS, you disgust me. This thread was about those who served, not your pathetic political platform and hatred of Maggie, I am so glad we we rule you for years to come ha ha.

And so the thread descends into hilarity with a little bit of 'we rule you' thrown in for good measure. Yes, I'm sure Veya and a few others will identify with your take on that.

And there is no mocking of the SAS whatsover, that's just something you made up. I have given you historical references and all you have is an interview Brar gave on the BBC in which he even admits he was not in the loop.

And still avoiding answering the question on the diplomatic option though aren't you?

Why? To difficult for you to consider?

Too right.... Rolling Eyes

thinks he makes the rules Razz

doesn't seem to understand that once a war is over you can stop with the propaganda and start talking about reality, including the bit where you did the wrong things.

I think regular people can understand that neither of us blame professional soldiers doing their job and Actually consider the poor way the Sikhs were repaid and don't want to airbrush history to simplify the complex politics situations and relationships to 'goodies and baddies'.

Even the Simplifying the motives of Sikhs and Most commonwealth nationals to "King and Empire" is disingenuous, it ignores all the social and economics factors that coerced men into the armed forces. (you will find many parallels in the USA today, although generally drawn for their own poorer states as opposed to colonial possessions)
Also it plays down the professionalism of the 'colonials' that went to do a job despite the known difficulties and how easy it would have been to stay at home.

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:57 am

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:00 am

On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declares an Islamic holy war on behalf of the Ottoman government, urging his Muslim followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War I.

The sheikh's declaration of a holy war, made two weeks later, urged Muslims all over the world--including in the Allied countries--to rise up and defend the Ottoman Empire, as a protector of Islam, against its enemies. "Of those who go to the Jihad for the sake of happiness and salvation of the believers in God's victory," the declaration read, "the lot of those who remain alive is felicity, while the rank of those who depart to the next world is martyrdom. In accordance with God's beautiful promise, those who sacrifice their lives to give life to the truth will have honor in this world, and their latter end is paradise."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ottoman-empire-declares-a-holy-war

by Guest Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:40 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Ben gets things wrong at times, by his choices, in you as seen where you call someone who fights against racism a racist, that to me shows he has chosen someone who is clearly mentally unbalanced.
Again you have no idea hat I do to claim I am racist shows what a child and you are and again deluded, so to me Ben made a poor choose in you as a moderator and again Irn and you both do no moderation, Eddie has done far more as a moderator and is at least fair.

The end of the conflicts further proves my point, lets see if you can figure out why.
Seriously I am going to copy some of your posts to historian friends of mine, because they will fall over laughing at your views and claims, even worse to racism.
Again races do not exist biologically, and I have argued this countless times, I have argued that Britain wrongly advanced off the wealth plundered through its expansions and many other points showing what an immature child you really are, all you do is cream racist, and it is dicks like you that make racism worse for those on the receiving end of racism. You do realise that I myself being of Irish ethnicity has faced racism?
But then because you are a clueless dick you would not have a clue.

You may think you are not racist but YOU ARE !!!!
you are not the idiot calling People names you are the academic fool that keep propping up false the Idea that Historical importance centres around Europeans.
And Your whole Version of WW2 is shown to be a one sided fallacy by the REAL start and end dates (both Japanese) and the Population of Asia and the Pacific. But your inherent Racism is literally hindering your ability to admit August comes after May.

the notion that one that has suffered racism cannot be racist is also ridiculous and easily shown to be often the opposite. And just show the ridiculously racist place you grew up in so don't really have an adequate example of NOT racist. (I'm mean seriously Irish, English or Polish fuck all difference)

@ "neither of you actually moderate anything" when you do something right they will suspect you of doing nothing at all

An idiot only deserves to be treated as a complete idiot.
My version of Japanese history in world war two comes from the most prominent historian, are you saying they are racist now?

I do nott think so showing what a fucked up loon you really are, go and crawl up your huge fat arse you pathetic child and stop boring this forum with your left wing drivel. It is you that is saying the indigenous of your countries needs to progress to your bullshit level and will not allow for them to keep their cultural ways.
Thank you for proving why you are unfit to moderate and should be locked up in a dustbin

by Guest Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:48 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

How the pair of you are moderators astounds me in the first place, neither of you actually moderate anything and are so badly biased as seen, proving your failings, but I am sure sucking up to him will help as he is as poor as you on debates like this as seen.
Diplomatic option is irrelevant, no advice was taken and as seen the advice was to only use force as a last resort. The fact is even now you will not admit the facts that they planned the whole operation themselves, and you hate the fact I have exposed your true intent here, one of hatred for a former PM.
He states he was not in the loop again irrelevant, because that does not matter when he planned the attack. Even your evidence shows usually he took other advice, but not on this operation, he planned this himself.
You are mocking the SAS, by claiming it was their advice that created this disaster, because if as you claim it was their advice used, then it would mean their advice was poor, thus insulting them.
Lets see if you have the ability to apologise

You admitted as much that Scotland is ruled, would you like to see what you said already tonight?

Good grief, you really have lost the plot completely with a meltdown I haven't seen in ages. All I see is insults, false claims, deflections and chaff getting chucked out all over the place to divert away from your argument that well and truly hit the buffers some time ago. But that's what you do when you have nowhere else to run - you just fire away with uncontrolled rage which really defeats your own argument.
Waffle nothing to counter my points, it is no meltdown, you are not fit to moderate, because you re a biased left wing traitor to this country as seen making absurd claims you are unable to back up even when presented with the evidence and hence why you are low life scum. Traitors normally tend to be Scots so this is no surprise

And not once did I claim that the SAS plan was used. And the diplomatic option might just have saved lives but that's irrelevant you say.
Ha Ha, really? That is a complete copout so what you are saying is there is no case of the advice by the British being used. Well done I knew you would get there in the end. Of course why the SAS was called upon here is very simple based upon the success of the Iranian embassy, but then an armature of your woeful knowledge would not eve understand this

Historical references and Brar's own words in his book proves you wrong about who planned the attack and it's time you accepted that rather than continuing to deny it.
No it does not you ignorant twat, he himself clearly states he devised the plan, even your poor attempt at not understanding word, usually, is why you are so stupid it seems, because again he devised the plan, leaving you no evidence to claim onto Britain
If you want o bring up what I've said on another thread about Scotland then I suppose this is another diversion but you go right ahead and do it but it changes nothing with your 'we rule you' comment. A comment worthy of the 'little Englander' brigade.

You are the one claiming about decisions from London, these are your words, which is ironic because you have rules from within the EU, thus you need to make up your mind where you allow these rules from, butt then you were never that smart.
So to sum up you have not the decency to admit you are wrong after all the evidence and are left with some left wet view of diplomacy when Britain was asked for military advice, which shows your failings, with this advice not being used
Suggest you crawl away like the pathetic worm you are who set are to dishonor many who have fallen

by Guest Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:52 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Ben gets things wrong at times, by his choices, in you as seen where you call someone who fights against racism a racist, that to me shows he has chosen someone who is clearly mentally unbalanced.
Again you have no idea hat I do to claim I am racist shows what a child and you are and again deluded, so to me Ben made a poor choose in you as a moderator and again Irn and you both do no moderation, Eddie has done far more as a moderator and is at least fair.

The end of the conflicts further proves my point, lets see if you can figure out why.
Seriously I am going to copy some of your posts to historian friends of mine, because they will fall over laughing at your views and claims, even worse to racism.
Again races do not exist biologically, and I have argued this countless times, I have argued that Britain wrongly advanced off the wealth plundered through its expansions and many other points showing what an immature child you really are, all you do is cream racist, and it is dicks like you that make racism worse for those on the receiving end of racism. You do realise that I myself being of Irish ethnicity has faced racism?
But then because you are a clueless dick you would not have a clue.

That comment reminds me of a poster named Craig11 who used to post on the Sky forum. He had friends that he claimed met up in their houses at the weekends to go through posts and discuss them. He posted well into the night and early mornings and Scrat had an image that summed him up but I can't quite remember what it was.

He (Craig11) was a real RW as well and I laughed every time Scrat did it.

What an epic failure for a reply, you cannot remember ha ha.
Yes thanks for sharing that, anyway I am of no doubt s stated you and Veya are not fit to moderate a bunch of hamsters, let alone make an intelligent decisions on anything, hence why you are a poor wee lad suffering from small man syndrome and Veya, his waiting to be measured up for his white straight jacket . I have come to the conclusion he must only be around 14 as it would explain much about his deluded posts and rants and screaming all the time.

You try and drag scrat into this where we get on, oh my the pathetic levels a wee lad will go to.

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:21 pm

yes they are racist like you
that is the meaning of INSTITUTIONAL RACISM They Gave Their Lives 2396444674

by Irn Bru Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:36 am

Brasidas wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

How the pair of you are moderators astounds me in the first place, neither of you actually moderate anything and are so badly biased as seen, proving your failings, but I am sure sucking up to him will help as he is as poor as you on debates like this as seen.
Diplomatic option is irrelevant, no advice was taken and as seen the advice was to only use force as a last resort. The fact is even now you will not admit the facts that they planned the whole operation themselves, and you hate the fact I have exposed your true intent here, one of hatred for a former PM.
He states he was not in the loop again irrelevant, because that does not matter when he planned the attack. Even your evidence shows usually he took other advice, but not on this operation, he planned this himself.
You are mocking the SAS, by claiming it was their advice that created this disaster, because if as you claim it was their advice used, then it would mean their advice was poor, thus insulting them.
Lets see if you have the ability to apologise

You admitted as much that Scotland is ruled, would you like to see what you said already tonight?

Good grief, you really have lost the plot completely with a meltdown I haven't seen in ages. All I see is insults, false claims, deflections and chaff getting chucked out all over the place to divert away from your argument that well and truly hit the buffers some time ago. But that's what you do when you have nowhere else to run - you just fire away with uncontrolled rage which really defeats your own argument.
Waffle nothing to counter my points, it is no meltdown, you are not fit to moderate, because you re a biased left wing traitor to this country as seen making absurd claims you are unable to back up even when presented with the evidence and hence why you are low life scum. Traitors normally tend to be Scots so this is no surprise

And not once did I claim that the SAS plan was used. And the diplomatic option might just have saved lives but that's irrelevant you say.
Ha Ha, really? That is a complete copout so what you are saying is there is no case of the advice by the British being used. Well done I knew you would get there in the end. Of course why the SAS was called upon here is very simple based upon the success of the Iranian embassy, but then an armature of your woeful knowledge would not eve understand this

Historical references and Brar's own words in his book proves you wrong about who planned the attack and it's time you accepted that rather than continuing to deny it.
No it does not you ignorant twat, he himself clearly states he devised the plan, even your poor attempt at not understanding word, usually, is why you are so stupid it seems, because again he devised the plan, leaving you no evidence to claim onto Britain
If you want o bring up what I've said on another thread about Scotland then I suppose this is another diversion but you go right ahead and do it but it changes nothing with your 'we rule you' comment. A comment worthy of the 'little Englander' brigade.

You are the one claiming about decisions from London, these are your words, which is ironic because you have rules from within the EU, thus you need to make up your mind where you allow these rules from, butt then you were never that smart.
So to sum up you have not the decency to admit you are wrong after all the evidence and are left with some left wet view of diplomacy when Britain was asked for military advice, which shows your failings, with this advice not being used
Suggest you crawl away like the pathetic worm you are who set are to dishonor many who have fallen

The last anger rant was a classic but this one really takes the biscuit. Now your rambling on about the EU and coming out with a statement about Scots being traitors. You really are a wee racist right enough. You're in denial because I gave you a quote from Brar's book that the plan was devised by his superiors and even the BBC interview that your hanging on to states that he wasn't in the loop in the exchanges that took place with his superiors.

Never mind, Cameron has asked the Sikh's to forgive the Tories for what they did hasn't he?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551966/Forgive-Tories-Amritsar-says-Cameron-PM-pleads-Sikhs-papers-revealed-Mrs-Thatcher-advised-Indian-government-attack-temple.html

And it's not the first time he has had to do that, is it?

Cameron apologises for Thatcher apartheid policies

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-apologises-for-thatcher-apartheid-policies-413569.html

And. another one of her policiies

.David Cameron apologises to gay people for section 28

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jul/02/david-cameron-gay-pride-apology

Now let's see the the facts and figures to back up your statement Traitors normally tend to be Scots.

by Guest Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:39 am

Again just because the PM apologioses is more to do with PR and nothing to do with there being any fault in this where again you are clutching at straws.

The commander admits he formulated the plan and carried out the plan, thus no connectionn to the British which makes your idiotic claim just look embarressing. Even worse when you add he usually took advice but clearly here he did not in this instance. You are thus ignoring the facts given by Brar where he states categorically he devised the plan. This is damning to your claim, all of which you ignore. Even worse as seen if you think it was British inspired, then you clearly are insulting the SAS, which shows why you are nothing mroe than a little traitorous weasel.

It proves you are a traitor, you had no evidence here, where your only claim is made off a PM saying sorry, where many have to past events they were not involved in, showing how incredibly stupid you are, which is also comical. The fact is you are such a zap you are more concerned and trying to prove something wrong with Maggi, you lose sight of the point of this thread people giving their lives, which you equate to terrorists, that really shows the stupidity you live by.

He added: "A single UK military officer provided some advice. But critically, this advice was not followed, and it was a one-off."

Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain.

"If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them," he told the BBC.

"From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star until I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned."

Checkmate

It shows how desperate you are in your hate for the one woman who has risen above prejudice in this country and succeeded. Think we will have to add sexixt to your growing lists of inadequacies.

by nicko Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:47 pm

Maggie had more balls than any of the so called " men" we have now!!!!

by Original Quill Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:00 pm

nicko wrote:Maggie had more balls than any of the so called " men" we have now!!!!

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

by nicko Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:07 pm

Sorry, I don't understand American humour!!

by Original Quill Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:24 pm

I know.

by nicko Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:18 pm

Yanks really don't understand British humour.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:13 am

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:55 am

nicko wrote:Sorry, I don't understand American humour!!

Pip pip old bean, I'll be happy to oblige. It seems we Colonials once had a president by the name of Lincoln who, poor chap, was assassinated at Ford's Theatre. Being that he had a wife, one Mary Todd Lincoln, we Yanks find this hypothetical question to the dear widow to be a rather droll display of gallows humor, as it were ...

They Gave Their Lives 3893789544

by Sponsored content