Kobojunkie:

@Nolongtime, did you, or did you not make the above mistake earlier in your post ? I saw it and responded complaining that I did not INCLUDE the line on Obama's Brother in any of my posts, nor in the posting you quoted.

Oh! This is a communication problem!  

Well I can state here on NL that Mr Kobojunkie at no time made any reference towards the incumbent president of the United States Mr Barrack Hussein Obama's brother being wanted for rape in the United Kingdom.  I therefore declare that I mr Nolongting simply put the heading in bold to ram the point home.  

davidylan:

So if i provide you with an invite letter i am now responsible for whether you choose to break the law by staying in this country?

Millions donated to Obama's campaign, how would he know his illegal aunt was one of them?

Sorry but there is no connection with both cases.

The point is not "responsible". The point is "claim of ignorance". It seems ejaish (i.e. fishy).

I repeat, Adeniran cannot possible know as much about his son's crime than Obama would know about his aunt's.

He is an adult, He is responsible for his actions, He committed the crime, He didn't need his fathers consent to do that, Its our govt that is being represented , If we think he is a suitable Nigerian representative  despite His son's allegations,  then THE U.S SHOULD BACK OFF!!, when did they start applying that kind of family linked morality stands in appointments

debosky:

So in essence you are speculating. His son could simply be a permanent resident or even a citizen of the US if born there or have other status.

I do not know the status of the son.

debosky:

Why deal with a president whose aunt is a criminal and whose brother is an alleged criminal? Can't you see the double standards here?

Regarding your last statement, the premise of this thread is that his son's ALLEGED crime is the reason, hence it has every bit of relevance. Ambassadors are not casually rejected in the manner you suggest, except for serious reasons affecting the relations between the countries or the appointee's ability to do the job.

Actually the US does not require a reason to reject Adeniran. If they used the son as an excuse they even tried.

mandiiee:

He is an adult, He is responsible for his actions, He committed the crime, He didn't need his fathers consent to do that, Its our govt that is being represented , If we think he is a suitable Nigerian representative  despite His son's allegations,  then THE U.S SHOULD BACK OFF!!, when did they start applying that kind of family linked morality stands in appointments

that's rubbish, there is a reason even the US ambassador to Nigeria has to present his credentials to the president of Nigeria. He cant just walk in to Abuja and start working as an ambassador. Yar Adua reserves the right to reject him and America cannot tell us to back off.

davidylan:

I do not know the status of the son.

Actually the US does not require a reason to reject Adeniran. If they used the son as an excuse they even tried.

the problem is not "rejecting him", it is the REASON that they are giving that is not justifiable.

Sagamite:

The point is not "responsible". The point is "claim of ignorance". It seems ejaish (i.e. fishy).

I repeat, Adeniran cannot possible know as much about his son's crime than Obama would know about his aunt's.

Adeniran didnt need to know . . . if you're going to be ambassador make sure you come with very clean hands. Too bad, Adeniran has only his son to blame.

mandiiee:

the problem is not "rejecting him", it is the REASON that they are giving that is not justifiable.

I said in my earlier post, they dont need a reason to reject him . . .

davidylan:

I said in my earlier post, they dont need a reason to reject him . . .

well exactly, they shouldn't give the silly reason, its very upsetting!

davidylan:

Adeniran didnt need to know . . . if you're going to be ambassador make sure you come with very clean hands. Too bad, Adeniran has only his son to blame.

Well Adeniran does appear to have clean hands.  

What is even funny is that according to the story cited, the US didnt even give a reason for rejecting Adeniran, we are the ones assuming they rejected him because of his son.

mandiiee:

He is an adult, He is responsible for his actions, He committed the crime, He didn't need his fathers consent to do that, Its our govt that is being represented , If we think he is a suitable Nigerian representative  despite His son's allegations,  then THE U.S SHOULD BACK OFF!!, when did they start applying that kind of family linked morality stands in appointments

Wait a minute! He did not rape a girl in Nigeria for our government to decide if he is good enough to be the Nigerian ambassador to the united states. The son raped the gal in the U.S. That sort of takes it out of the hands of  the Nigerian government, and puts it in the hands of the US here, don't you think? Not saying that this is the right way, but I sort of see why this would be a problem for his appointment.

davidylan:

What is even funny is that according to the story cited, the US didnt even give a reason for rejecting Adeniran, we are the ones assuming they rejected him because of his son.

lol, ok that is hilarious if they didn't really state His son's issue as a reason for His disapproval. Then the argument is not even valid.

davidylan:

What is even funny is that according to the story cited, the US didnt even give a reason for rejecting Adeniran, we are the ones assuming they rejected him because of his son.

Good point.

But we can easily figure out as there is no other glaring and reasonble reason.

His last post was Embassador to Germany. They did not reject him.

Sagamite:

Good point.

But we can easily figure out as there is no other glaring and reasonble reason.

His last post was Embassador to Germany. They did not reject him.

That's the prerogative of the US government.

davidylan:

What is even funny is that according to the story cited, the US didnt even give a reason for rejecting Adeniran, we are the ones assuming they rejected him because of his son.

That is true - my issue here is with those saying the US is 'correct' in taking such a decision, if those were the grounds.

I do not dispute the prerogative of a receiving country to reject an appointment, what I am against is using this particular case as a justification - it makes no sense whatsoever to effectively penalise the father for the crime of his child, especially when the child in question is an adult.

debosky:

That is true - my issue here is with those saying the US is 'correct' in taking such a decision, if those were the grounds.

I do not dispute the prerogative of a receiving country to reject an appointment, what I am against is using this particular case as a justification - it makes no sense whatsoever to effectively penalise the father for the crime of his child, especially when the child in question is an adult.

That is true but we have to understand something - Adeniran is not a US citizen, the US can choose not to have any official dealings with him as a representative of Nigeria over his son's criminal offence.

davidylan:

That is true but we have to understand something - Adeniran is not a US citizen, the US can choose not to have any official dealings with him as a representative of Nigeria over his son's criminal offence.

But the crime was committed in the US.
I think that effectively puts Adeniran's dreams of becoming an ambassador in jeopardy.

4 pages of back and forth and the reason for the back and forth was even injected into the discuss and not part of it. NL sha

Roflmao!!!!

Roflmaostc!!!!

must_a_far:

4 pages of back and forth and the reason for the back and forth was even injected into the discuss and not part of it. NL sha

Thats what you call a debate 

debosky:

my issue here is with those saying the US is 'correct' in taking such a decision, if those were the grounds.

I do not dispute the prerogative of a receiving country to reject an appointment, what I am against is using this particular case as a justification - it makes no sense whatsoever to effectively penalise the father for the crime of his child, especially when the child in question is an adult.

I second that!

davidylan:

What is even funny is that according to the story cited, the US didnt even give a reason for rejecting Adeniran, we are the ones assuming they rejected him because of his son.

Come on its Obvious!!! But the State Department officials told Saharareporters that Professor Adeniran has two wives in the US bearing his name, which effectively makes him a polygamist. So if he was gay, he would have been ok  In the west if you have two wives you are a BIGAMIST! and its a criminal offence.  So he needs to divorce his wives, proove the son is not his own with DNA and re-apply 

And finnally, @Kobo you should know that the US law stinks when it comes to justice for black men, he's son (or maybe not his son) is innocent till proven guilty.

Come on its Obvious!!! But the State Department officials told Saharareporters that Professor Adeniran has two wives in the US bearing his name, which effectively makes him a polygamist. So if he was gay, he would have been ok In the west if you have two wives you are a BIGAMIST! and its a criminal offence. So he needs to divorce his wives, proove the son is not his own with DNA and re-apply

in that case dem suppose don round up all the mormons for Utah wey dey marry more than one wife and sometime the wives might be sisters sef.

must_a_far:

    in that case dem suppose don round up all the mormons for Utah wey dey marry more than one wife and sometime the wives might be sisters sef.

Hey! you are injecting another dimension into the thread again!!!! Nairalanders Sha

must_a_far:


in that case dem suppose don round up all the mormons for Utah wey dey marry more than one wife and sometime the wives might be sisters sef.

They already tried that. Didn't work! Mormons are a cunning group of folks. The women denied the claims and so the officials couldn't really prove anything there and so had to let them all go.

Kobojunkie:

They already tried that. Only that mormons are a cunning group of folks. They couldn't really prove anything there and so had to let them all go.

I don't think so! I think it was a case of opening a can of worms and realising they had bitten off more than they could chew!

nolongTing:

I don't think so! I think it was a case of opening a can of worms and realising they had bitten off more than they could chew!

What can of worms? How do you prove that a man is LEGALLY married to more than one woman when you have no documents but hear say to go with? In this day and age, if a man has a wife, and a woman on the side, would you interprete that to mean the man is married to two women? How would you go about differentiating between a man with more than one wife and a man with one wife and on-the-sides?

_{horriblekeyboard!!}

Kobojunkie:

How do you prove that a man is LEGALLY married to more than one woman when you have no documents but hear say to go with? I mean if a man has a wife, and a woman on the side, would that mean the man is married to two women?

I thinks its more a case of oops! the welfare bill! And who will be a parent to all of the children?

must_a_far:

in that case dem suppose don round up all the mormons for Utah wey dey marry more than one wife and sometime the wives might be sisters sef.

They are just tolerating them.

It is normal to discriminate against them in the US and their multiple marriages are not recognised or registered otherwise they would be locking their arse up.

Also, they are not recognised under the welfare system if you are claiming welfare.

i no inject anyting o. i was just saying my own.   the reason i think they dropped it or run away from it is that mormon have a strong base in american politics.

must_a_far:

i no inject anyting o. i was just saying my own.   the reason i think they dropped it or run away from it is that mormon have a strong base in american politics.

denial, denial! look at what you have caused!  but on a serious note that is what I am saying they had to drop it fast!

Sagamite:

They are just tolerating them.

It is normal to discriminate against them in the US and their multiple marriages are not recognised or registered otherwise they would be locking them arse up.

Also, they are not recognised under the welfare system if you are claiming welfare.

That confirms my point 

must_a_far:

i no inject anyting o. i was just saying my own.  the reason i think they dropped it or run away from it is that mormon have a strong base in american politics.

You sure? Tell that to the mormon dude who was rejected because he was mormon. Do you think he would have made it that far, had it been revealed that he had two wives?

Kobojunkie:

You sure? Tell that to the mormon dude who was rejected because he was mormon. Do you think he would have made it that far, had it been revealed that he had two wives?

Can you proove Romney was rejected because he was a Mormon?