Why a Sikh Regiment in our Army is NOT such a good idea

Bravo_Bravo said:
Seabass

Thanks for taking the time to come back and clear up some of my queries.

I'd initially thought that you could have been one of three types of person; a straight forward Racist ( clearly not the case, my apologies for saying so ); a Muslim - not always a friend of the Sikh - or a moderate Sikh.
Initially you called him a racist, good thing he says he is a moderate sikh because if he was some other religion he would be obviously be racist.
There is a substantial ommission from your comments, best summed up as follows:

"In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded. They all died or were wounded for the freedom of Britain and the world, and during shell fire, with no other protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith."
(General Sir Frank Messervy K. C. S.I, K. B. E., C. B., D. S. O.)
"The Sikh Regiment in the Second World War"

Sikhs have fought bravely, and died for HMG which IMO more than counters episodes from the 19th century.
So have alot of other religion/races they are not unique

You posted earlier, ""So, who in the Sikh community is pushing for a Sikh Regiment? It is the Khalistani separatist amritdharis who are proposing the idea" and when I asked - "really? says who?" suggested that I do the research.

Frankly, if you put up an argument, its down to you to back it up.
Strange that when I asked why you thought he was a racist you just said it was your opinion you didn't initally back it up.
You make various other cheap jibes about your posts being "over my head", "It is ludicrous to compare my knowledge of the subject with your 'experience' acquired by having worked in Southall." etc, but fail to grasp that I am actually standing up for Sikhs in the UK.
Just why are you standing up for them are they more deserving than any other religion/race in the uk?
Can I ask; are you actually a UK-based Sikh? The reason that I ask is that I do not see any rampant Sikh militism on the streets of the UK, but if you do than fair enough.

Like I said, you have failed to grasp that I'm actually standing up for Sikhs.

You do sound to me slightly McCarthyite by the way...

BB

My bold
 
Stacker1

The thread is specifically about Sikhs serving in a British Army Sikh Regiment, hence my data about their Service in WW2. I have ( following quite a lot of whining ) expanded on why I thought racism *could* be another reason for not wanting a Sikh Regiment - and have apologies above.

Ref your last bold, I've stood up for Sikhs because this thread is about Sikhs. Standing up here for Thalidomide victims would be worth noting.

BTW, I have had PMs supporting my stance for what its worth.

BB
 
Ok, BB
Could you answer would he be a racist if he wasn't a moderate sikh? I'm British/white/agnostic if I posted this originally would I be a racist?
This thread is about a sikh regiment not all the sikhs in the UK(as you said). Whats the need to stand up for them all? No-one has said all sikhs are bad just that a sikh regiment would not be a good thing.
 
Dunno about *would* be, but certainly *could* be.

I disagree with his point of view that a Sikh Regiment would be a bad idea. I think it would be a great symbol of integration - odd, maybe, that a seperate Regiment based on ethnicity / Religion could be a symbol of integration - but for the UK to be able to show that it is quite possible to be British, Sikh and in a Sikh Regiment would be a clear signal that mainstream Britain sees no problem with this.

True integration.

PS - this is not to say that Sikhs would have to join the Sikh Rifles oops.. but they could do if they wanted.

BB
 
Bravo_Bravo said:
Dunno about *would* be, but certainly *could* be.

I disagree with his point of view that a Sikh Regiment would be a bad idea. I think it would be a great symbol of integration - odd, maybe, that a seperate Regiment based on ethnicity / Religion could be a symbol of integration - but for the UK to be able to show that it is quite possible to be British, Sikh and in a Sikh Regiment would be a clear signal that mainstream Britain sees no problem with this.

True integration.



BB

So by the same argument you would have no problems with muslim/black/hindu/white etc only regiments
 
Too much legacy.

Muslim Regiments - current events mitigate against this. Black Regiments? The sad fact is that there remain too many black / white problems in the modern UK. White only? Too much of a whiff of white supremacy and the risk of an influx of C18 types.

The Sikhs are very well integrated into modern Britain and to the best of my knowledge there has never been any great history of Sikhs running rampage on British streets. They are renown for being a Martial people and have long served the Crown as such.

I dont think that UK plc is ready for a Muslim / Black / White only Regiment, but I'd seriously consider a Sikh Regiment.

Imagine the Ceremonial...
 
Bravo_Bravo said:
Too much legacy.

Muslim Regiments - current events mitigate against this. Black Regiments? The sad fact is that there remain too many black / white problems in the modern UK. White only? Too much of a whiff of white supremacy and the risk of an influx of C18 types.

The Sikhs are very well integrated into modern Britain and to the best of my knowledge there has never been any great history of Sikhs running rampage on British streets. They are renown for being a Martial people and have long served the Crown as such.

I dont think that UK plc is ready for a Muslim / Black / White only Regiment, but I'd seriously consider a Sikh Regiment.

Imagine the Ceremonial...

Carry on with your argument/thinking and see where it will lead. A Sikh only regiment will give us what? The important bit is the word only. I like the idea of Sikh regiment but honestly think that forming one would be a dissaster. All the reasons that you gave for not having other racial/religion exclusive units will get challenged in court by lawyers raking in millions of tax money.

How would you provide it with a chain of command right now?
 
Perturbed said:
Bravo_Bravo said:
Too much legacy.

Muslim Regiments - current events mitigate against this. Black Regiments? The sad fact is that there remain too many black / white problems in the modern UK. White only? Too much of a whiff of white supremacy and the risk of an influx of C18 types.

The Sikhs are very well integrated into modern Britain and to the best of my knowledge there has never been any great history of Sikhs running rampage on British streets. They are renown for being a Martial people and have long served the Crown as such.

I dont think that UK plc is ready for a Muslim / Black / White only Regiment, but I'd seriously consider a Sikh Regiment.

Imagine the Ceremonial...

Carry on with your argument/thinking and see where it will lead. A Sikh only regiment will give us what? The important bit is the word only. I like the idea of Sikh regiment but honestly think that forming one would be a dissaster. All the reasons that you gave for not having other racial/religion exclusive units will get challenged in court by lawyers raking in millions of tax money.

How would you provide it with a chain of command right now?

Agreed, The second there is an "only" regiment in the army you will have to give everyone else their own What would you say to the muslims "Sorry you can't have one you can't be trusted" that would go down well I'm sure.Obviously us whites can't be trusted just in case combat 18 make an apperance, I think not. There would be hell to pay if the ever the army went down a segration road.
 
The Gurkhas are not faith based and they are recruited as foriegners. (not even as commonwealth)
 
[quote="Perturbed]Carry on with your argument/thinking and see where it will lead.[/quote]

I chose my words carefully, having seen the elephant trap looming. The Sikhs RE a special case - 700 of them have allegedly said they'd sign up ( and I know that does not equate to 700 trained soldiers ) and the Sikhs have served the Crown as Sikhs, in the World Wars.

All the reasons that you gave for not having other racial/religion exclusive units will get challenged in court by lawyers raking in millions of tax money.

Quite possibly, but thats another thread.

How would you provide it with a chain of command right now?

Good question.

Off the top of my head; in a similar manner to the RGR. Officers from the existing Army, make them a Rifles Bn and cross post NCOs from the largest Regiment in the British Army until such time as there is a trained cadre within the Bn.
 
Bravo_Bravo said:

Are Gurkhas recruited in the UK now?

This Sikh regiment as described would be devisive. At least if it is raised in a way that says this regiment is only open to British citizens of a certain ethnicity. It is not that I dislike the idea of a Sikh regiment it is the inevitable consequences that will follow from forming such a unit.

700 volounteers is not nearly enough to warrant an exclusive unit in any circumstances. An effective battalion would take over a decade to create. Why not just join anyway? Nobody makes them lose Sikh identity while serving.
 
Perturbed said:
Are Gurkhas recruited in the UK now?

No, but you did say "the second thgere is an "only" regiment".

We are oozing towards consensus, I think, and I'm oozing towards a glass of wine and bed.

Nite
 
Bravo_Bravo said:
Perturbed said:
Are Gurkhas recruited in the UK now?

No, but you did say "the second thgere is an "only" regiment".

We are oozing towards consensus, I think, and I'm oozing towards a glass of wine and bed.

Nite
Actually it was me that said "the second there is an "only" regiment" (please stop giving perturbed the credit, his head will swell.) The Ghurkas are not British and are not faith based so there is a world of difference between them and us having a "only" regiment drawn from certain backgrounds.
 

Rayc

RIP
RIP
Bravo_Bravo said:
There is a substantial ommission from your comments, best summed up as follows:

"In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded. They all died or were wounded for the freedom of Britain and the world, and during shell fire, with no other protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith."
(General Sir Frank Messervy K. C. S.I, K. B. E., C. B., D. S. O.)
"The Sikh Regiment in the Second World War"

Sikhs have fought bravely, and died for HMG which IMO more than counters episodes from the 19th century.

Are you suggesting that those who achieved great successes in the history of warfare would still be doing so, irrespective of the changed economic and social conditions of today?

If so, many Moslems also died for the Empire and the first VC of British India was Khudadad Khan, who received it in 1914. Therefore, by your analogy, there is no grounds to not have a Moslem Regiment.


You posted earlier, ""So, who in the Sikh community is pushing for a Sikh Regiment? It is the Khalistani separatist amritdharis who are proposing the idea" and when I asked - "really? says who?" suggested that I do the research.

Frankly, if you put up an argument, its down to you to back it up.

You have worked with the Sikhs. Are you suggesting you do not know the agenda of the Khalisthanis? It is most surprising for someone who claims to know the Sikhs well is not aware of it!


You make various other cheap jibes about your posts being "over my head", "It is ludicrous to compare my knowledge of the subject with your 'experience' acquired by having worked in Southall." etc, but fail to grasp that I am actually standing up for Sikhs in the UK.

This much is for sure, is that Seabass has more knowledge of the Sikh religion, history and the fractures in the Sikh society.

Like I said, you have failed to grasp that I'm actually standing up for Sikhs.

I and many others also stand up for them, but then Nelson's Eye is not something I would subscribe to.
 

Redshaggydog

War Hero
Bravo_Bravo said:
RSG

Go and sniff some dogs arsses you small minded idiot.

Apart from trying to slag me off when I point out how dim you are, you have said three times now that you won't post again.

All you have done is to whine like a schoolgirl; you have failed to do anything except make yourself look a cock. You have failed to respond to any one of my points, you bleat because I actually have some experience of a multicultural Britain and cannot grasp that what I have done is question SBs motives. He has expanded: I'll reply to him shortly.

What you have done - for which I thank you - is to allow me to show how dim you are compared to me.

You are a bit like a genital wart; we all know you are here, you are not wanted and everyone wishes you'd go away.
To sum up, thicko: fuck off.

:D

Lets put this stright you stupid twat. I did not start the slagging, that was you. As you so like to say, READ THE THREAD. I challenged you on your opinion (which you did not like), you reacted like a spoilt child... I am right coz I must be seems the general string of your initial threads. It was only after repeated posters asked you that you deemed yourself worthy to answer, stuck up Cnut.

You did not question Seabass's motives to start with, not until the last couple of pages; you just called him a racist... in your (very experienced) opinion. Some of us decided that you should either give your argument or show you as a bigot. You eventually responded, true to form it is you that has shown yourself to be stupid, ignorant and down right hostile to anyone who does not share the same view. You join the clan of... I have said what I think therefore I am right!

If you want to pick up spelling, go through the thread and look at yours... what a conceited prat you are. Not an officer in the ACF are you?

Jog on fella, go post some more drivel to bounce up your post count.
 

Redshaggydog

War Hero
I'll tell you what fella, so as not to bore everyone else, if you have a problem lets take it off line.
 
Rayc said:
[. Therefore, by your analogy, there is no grounds to not have a Moslem Regiment.

There is a bit of an issue with Muslims right now, Rayc.



You have worked with the Sikhs. Are you suggesting you do not know the agenda of the Khalisthanis? It is most surprising for someone who claims to know the Sikhs well is not aware of it!

I am aware in outline of the Khalistani agenda - and what an orange turban signifies -( does not mean the wearer is a Dutch Sikh... ) - but Seabass clearly has a more intimate knowledge of the issue. It just seemed to me to be a very cynical view of one section of British Sikhs. I questioned why, felt that there was a need to challenge his reasons for posting and he has expanded / clarified his basis.

This much is for sure, is that Seabass has more knowledge of the Sikh religion, history and the fractures in the Sikh society.

Without doubt.

I and many others also stand up for them, but then Nelson's Eye is not something I would subscribe to.

Good point; but everybody just posting in agreement would be dull.

Being challenged raises the level of debate ( and gives RedshaggyDog a chance to spout via his Japs' eye )

Regards

BB

( check your PMs, by the way. )
 
Top