₦airaland Forum

That comparison is discredited by the fact that the KKK never had the popularity to be transformed to a political party of any national standing. Hamas, on the other hand, is the party to beat in Gaza.

The comparison pressuposes a situation where they did. In many ways, this used to be the case, though the KKK never ran for election under its banner. Could you say that any of the members of the KKK or people who had sympathies for it were seeking for their voice to be included in inter-racial dialogue?

Today, Hamas is to Palestine, what the Democratic Party is to the United States!

The Democratic party is a historic ally of Israel, what a crass analogy. I told you to read up on your history.

Also, we must learn to separate theoretical concerns from practical realities. Hamas must not be judged by western interpretation of it's documents, same way that Jews must not be judged by non-Jewish interpretations of the Torah!

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." -- Hamas Charter

No sensible interpretation of the above statement would result in "Hams wants to destroy Israel".

The statement is a belief statement or assertion, not an active statement of intent. Similar to person C making the following statement:

"A will exist and will continue to exist until B will obliterate A, just as B obliterated X, Y and Z before it."

No logical interpretation can conclude that C intends/plans to destroy A.

If the above was the full extent of the evidence behind claims that Hamas is theologically opposed to co-existence with Israel, then your sophomoric analysis might have some foundation, however shaky.

However, Hamas' position has been stated and re-stated without any element of vagueness left.

Per Hamas Charter:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

To even debate this issue is absolutely absurd. Even members of Hamas will find this mutilation of their position by you as sacrilegious

RichyBlacK:
Common, even Western observers hailed the elections as "free and fair"!


Why the double standards when it comes to Hamas? The IRA has deployed violent means to push its agenda (just like Hamas), however, Sinn Féin is a recognized political party today.

Do you really want me to list elections some observers have hailed as free and fair. The 2005 elections in Iraq was hailed by many in the West as free and fair too.

Richy, let me tell you something from the bottom of my heart as someone living in the UK. Anybody who finds as homological Hamas's objectives compared to the IRA's is obscenely ignorant.

If some recognition had been given to a party that played by the rules and won an election in the middle-east, the Palestinian people (who voted for Hamas) would have had some confidence that their voice is also important in whatever discussions/deliberations the Western powers were having.

Hamas is pledged to the total destruction of Israel and is theologically opposed to the 2 state solution. Anybody who votes for an organisation that is against peace cannot be said to be yearning for peace.

It's like saying that people who support the KKK are looking for their voice to be recognised in inter-racial dialogue.

RichyBlacK:
Why are talking as if the EU is not influenced by the US?

If some recognition had been given to a party that played by the rules and won an election in the middle-east, the Palestinian people (who voted for Hamas) would have had some confidence that their voice is also important in whatever discussions/deliberations the Western powers were having.

I thought you were claiming that it was just the Bush administration when it's a bi-partisan policy that is shared by the EU.

Party that played by the rules? An armed organisation that went around intimidating other parties and you call that playing by the rules? Do you know that a lot of the other smaller parties were prevented from campaigning by Hamas?

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=178854.msg2899056#msg2899056 date=1223250068]ruby,how many of such stories about Nigerians make it to the London news?
That's what makes it unique.
All the stories about our people is about crime and more crime and for major Newspapers and TV stations to carry this is a big deal even though we know it's common.
How many good stories have you heard here in the USA about Nigerians.
Besides 419 and militants in the NIger delta,what other Nigerian stories have you heard on CNN or ABC[/quote]Abeg, there are even more astonishing examples of rags to riches stories amongst the Chinese/Indian community, never mind the Jewish community. Do you want the newspapers to spend their time chronicling these stories?

RichyBlacK:
Why did George W. Bush refuse to have dialogue with Arafat?
Has his strategy so far produced any meaningful results?

There are fewer suicide bombings and the current situation is better than the 2nd Intifada that Bush inherited. What were the meaningful results Clinton acheived for all the time he spent in the dying days of his administration on this issue? Let me tell you what he got - suicide bombings(unheard of during Bush 1) and the 2nd Intifada

Why wasn't Hama recognized by the Bush administration after it handily won the 2006 elections described by Western observers as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence"?

Does the EU recognise Hamas? The EU has designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation, so blaming the Bush administration when this is a bi-partisan policy shared by the entire Western world is hopelessly uninformed opinion.

RichyBlacK:
Simple. RRR members do not understand the concept of dialogue and diplomacy.

Diplomacy does not solve all problems, but it gives the achievement of a goal some probability of success.

Recall, that the idiot George W. Bush came into power declaring that he will not have any meetings with Yasser Arafat. That attitude is classic right-wing approach to conflict resolution - don't talk to the enemy - however foolish the process of determining who "the enemy" is.

Clinton came into power and inherited the Madrid negotiations, Israel was coerced into it by Bush 1 with threats of aid withdrawal, and left power with Palestine in a full blown intifada, suicide bombings and the peace process in tatters.

Talking is a means to an end, if the end is intifada and suicide bombings then any sane govt reserves the right to try other measures.

RichyBlacK:
Please stop posting old irrelevant pictures!

Can you tell us when that picture was taken?

What a red herring, it was published May '08 but I can display even much more aesthetically pleasing Gaza pictures from 2008.

Republicans and elements of the RRR are genetically not predisposed to bring people together! Their strategy and tactics can be summed up this way: divide and rule!

I asked for specifics, because I despise vacuousness, and you respond with the mother of all vacuity.

Under which administration did the Madrid negotiations leading to the Oslo peace accords start?

RichyBlacK:
Presupposition of the future actions of a government not yet in power, is an exercise I'm not interested in. However, history tells us that Democrats, e.g. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, pursue a more balanced road to the "two state solution". Bumbling buffoons like George W. Bush, Condi Rice and D.ck Cheney, are too anti-Arab and too pro-Israel to make any meaningful headway towards the two-state solution.

So you were relatively happy with the state of affairs in the Clinton era. That was the era Palestinians started the 2nd Intifada.

Stop using vacuous talking points. . .  .what is the difference between the Bush administration's concept of the 2 state solution and the means of getting to it compared with Clinton's? Go on, prove to me that you haven't just made an emtpy point.

Gaza city, not exactly like Goma, DRC Congo.

@RichyBlack

If it's all a question of right-wing elements, how does Obama/Clinton's position on Israel differ from Bush's position? You would see that the US's position remains fundamentally the same no matter which Govt is in power.

Wenger promised that his side would find "internal solutions" to compensate for the absence of Cesc Fabregas – by which he meant that he already had the personnel to deal with the club captain's four-month absence. Potential signings in January are more likely to be young, relatively inexperienced players such as Steven Defour, the 20-year-old captain of Standard Liège; his 19-year-old team-mate Axel Witsel; or Blaise Matuidi, the 21-year-old St Etienne midfielder.

Steven Defour, Axel Witsel and Blaise Matuidi . . .  . . .great names.  

Stop pretending that you don't know what I was talking about. I made it abundantly clear. The claim that you thought this was about a Muslim gene just makes you look like even more of a cretin than you are.

So abundantly clear it was that nobody else but you, neither David nor Huxley nor I, thought you were advancing a view other than the existence of a religious gene. This guy's imbecility is obviously congenital.

The claim that I thought this was about a Muslim gene? That is hardly a claim for you quoted my queries about a Muslim gene in your very first response citing the Moors link. The question of the religious gene was put to you at least on 8 occasions only for you to re-emerge with resounding stupidity later to proclaim it was a u-turn, a mendacious Arrow that you are.

I would say that you've been very clever manipulating my posts in the way that you have, but the quotations that were made a couple of days ago proving that I was not talking about a "Muslim gene", show that you are nothing but an out and out liar. The fact that I didn't address the question every single time was because it was irrelevant and when I did address it with denial (early on and at least three times) and the answer was ignored, shows you are just making another pathetic attempt to sidetrack this topic.

What a craven slowpoke. The first time you addressed the question of a religious gene head on was on page 6, when you made the remark of a total u-turn. Until then, every time you were asked whether you thought a Muslim gene existed, your stupid response was to copy and paste a web link. I then asked how your copy and paste job proved the existence of a Muslim gene.

Like you did with the question of the historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture, it was only later, stricken with the cowardice and mendacity that you have embodied on NL, that you tweaked your argument and made the dishonest claim that my views represent a total u-turn. Like I have asked before, a total u-turn from what? Bloody idiot.

I would suggest that Huxley saw your posts making the ridiculous claim regarding a Muslim gene and was replying to that. Funny how you will stoop to anything, even quoting your worst enemy (an atheist) in your rush to blur the lines. Go take a look on the timing on my posts. You will see that I refuted the idea of a Muslim gene a couple of days ago. Why ask questions if you ignore the answers, cretin?

You are a dishonest cunt. You suggest Huxley saw my post? you must be a bastard. Huxley quoted your post in his comment and remarked that he had never heard of the view you were advancing before.

Huxley's comment is telling. If everybody who posted then, no matter which side of the divide they are on, was convinced you were advancing a particular view, why are you now claiming it was clear which you view you were advancing? All this shows is that you are a liar!

You are still talking bollocks about addressing the question of the Muslim gene when you only did so after tweaking your argument.

Even the biggest retard can see that I was not arguing the idea of a religous gene.Your posting of my quote with the link is manipulative. The fact that I posted a refutal of a Muslim gene and then got back on topic by posting an article that shows the "influence" of religion means what exactly? Oh yeah. It means I was right. You are a cock.

The only retard here is you. Huxley,David and I saw your comments as astonishing. You then re-emerged later with a new line, a line nobody but you can attest to, and claimed this is what you have been talking of all along.

What do you understand a ''refutal'' to mean? You must be an under-educated oik. You responded to a question about the existence of a Muslim gene with abuse and a web article about Moors.

Question:Do you believe in alchemy?
Bastage: You cock, the conversion of metal is technologically feasible, here is a link - www.conversionofmetal.com

Is that what this oik calls a refutal? It doesn't address the question and leaves any reader, whether Huxley or David, with the impression that you share the premise embodied in the question. You grammatically challenged idiot, no wonder you responded to my comment about Stalin not pursuing religious ideals with the most idiotic comment

Statement: Stalin is not known to have pursued capitalist ideals
Bastage: Rubbish, Stalin was pursuing capitalists

This unlettered creep should quickly return his school fees to the mediocre university he attended, probably one of these former polytechnics.

There is absolutely nowhere in this thread where I use the words "religious gene", "gene for religion" or "Muslim gene" except to refute their existence or describe them as irrelevant to this topic. If, as you claim, I was arguing their corner, don't you think I would have at least argued in their favour using those words at least once!!!!?Huh? According to you, the fact that as long ago as a couple of days ago I told you that a "religion gene" was not an issue here proves that I was arguing for the idea, beggars belief. Logic shows you to be a complete and utter liar.
Let's look at that logic.

Hang on, what led Huxley, David and I to think you were advancing a particular viewpoint? Hang on, any chance it might be because of your own posts? You have accused Huxley of selective blindness and accused David and I of dishonesty. Newsflash: If you and you alone made that judgement, it is either you are a liar or an uncommunicative prick

You told me a couple of days ago? Again, you only embarked on the new line after David and Huxley had stopped posting. Until then, you were asked the same question about a Muslim gene ad nauseam, from David and I with Huxley expressing astonishment, and you glibly carried on with a copy and paste job,idiot.

Again you have completely and utterly taken my words out of context. I stated that everything was a result of religion in reply to a list of actions given in a question. But again, if it suits your purposes to lie, cheat, swindle and twist, it's no matter as you only screw up later down the line for all to see. Saying that though, I would argue with you that everything in society is influenced by religion in some way. I have no problem arguing that corner although I'm sure you'll find a way to twist the subject.

You mendacious slowpoke. You said, complete with capitalised and bolded letters, that ''everything'' is as a result of religion. Now you are claiming it is out of context, stupid Arrow. The context argument is the famous refuge of the lying scoundrel.

Your reply was in reponse to a post were I raised the hypothetical scenario of an atheist inventing a HIV vaccine. We were examining the causative factors of human behaviour, not a restricted list of actions ,you stupid liar.

If everything is a result of religion, you have contradicted yourself because every genetic make up, without exception, would be as a result of religion. You can't make p your mind where you stand because like the lying piece of feaces that you embody, you keep tweaking your argument as you go along with reckless regard for honesty.

This lying toad who tried to pull a wool over my eye after constantly claiming there were no historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture. . . you have form, dickhead. This is not the first time.

So how about finally answering the million dollar question that I have asked you eight times and which you have deliberately avoided? Now that you claim to understand the context in which the question has been asked, any refusal just shows that you are continuing to run scared - whatever bulllshit and bluff you would like to use to claim otherwise.Has religion had an influence on genes?

What about this lying sack of sh*t ending the moronic red herring he is deploying, which has no relevance whatsoever with the topic, and being honest for the first time?

You have resorted to the tact of blithering infantile vermin asking repeatedly the same question, a question you only adopted belatedly. Who are you fooling. . .you are an unbridled slowpoke

LOL. Bullshit. I've repeatedly refuted the question regarding the "Muslim gene". There can be no mistaking whatsoever that I have been talking about the "influence that religion had on genes". To suggest that I should have been trying to answer "Is there a religion gene" is pathetic. Stop backtracking. I haven't been answering the wrong question. Trying to hide behind that is probably the lamest thing you've done so far.

You are an idiot. You didn't refute the question of the Muslim gene until your subsequent afterthought. Instead, you quoted the posts asking you whether there is a Muslim gene and then posted copious web links about Moors that were non-sequiturs.

How can you claim there can be no mistaking what you were talking about when even Huxley, having seen your posts, claimed the point you were making was new to him?

To refute a point is to address it. If one asks you about whether a religious gene exists, a refutal will be to make it clear that this is not your position, not to refer them to weblinks addressing another matter which leads everyone to believe you think a religious gene does in fact exist. These questions were put to you repeatedly and you kept on responding with copius references to links that failed to address the subject.

There can be no mistake over my use of the word "influence". I didn't say that genetic make up was "created" by religion. I didn't say that it was a "product" of religion. I stated quite clearly that religion was an "influence". I count dozens and dozens of times where I've specifically used the word "influenced" or "influence".
Let's take a look elsewhere at all the times I've refuted the claim that I was talking about a "religious gene". This was yesterday (hardly, as you claim, a change of tactic today then is it?):

You must be stricken with senility. The posts of yours that you have cited only came after your ''nirvana'',after you made the claim of a total u-turn. Until then, your standard response to every question about a genetic make up unique to religion was to cite articles. My first such question was made here

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up?

Your ''refutal''

LOL. What a cock. Every single person on this planet has a unique genetic make-up - only identical twins don't differ.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion

If you answer a question about a gene for religion by citing the above link, that suggests that the premise of the question is shared by you. The only other rational response would have been to say you don't think there is such a gene, however, you do think religion may have some influence in a community's gene pool.

There can be no mistake that this topic had turned into a debate about the "influence" of religion. There can be no mistake that it was not about a "religious gene".
Let me remind you of the question I asked over half a dozen times but which you still refuse to answer.

How can you make a claim that there can be no such mistake when you are the only person on this thread who now claims that this is what you have been talking all along.

Far from it being a mistake, it is similar to what you did the last time when you kept talking about no historical mention of Jesus outside scripture, only to revamp your argument by claiming that you are talking of contemporaneous mentions.

Had you not done it before, I would have thought it was an honest mistake. To cite your responses after you decided on a new spin is idiotic.

And you can see from my quotes above that I answered repeatedly that  the question is totally irrelevant as I have not for one second suggested that there is a gene with a unique religious element. To try to squirm away by suggesting that all of this was ever about a "religious gene" just makes me laugh all the more harder in your stupid face.
Stop trying to wriggle out of the hole you've dug.

So you never saw this:

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up?

or this

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors?

You are a craven liar reeking of unbridled stupidity. Answered repeatedly? Sure, by referring us to Moors which had nothing to do with the question. To show show you stupid and grammatically challenged you are, you answered this David's question

Does religion define your genetic make up?

by stating thus

In certain cases, it obviously has

Not only were you contradicting yourself in regards to your new opposition to a religious gene but that response is a contradiction of your earlier claim that everything is as a result of religion. If everything is as a result of religion, every genetic make up is as a result of religion. Bloody idiot.

We're back to the "Muslim gene" game again aren't we? Tell me just what the feck that has to do with the topic? I've never suggested for one moment that there are unique genetic make-ups. How many times do you want me to refute it before you'll stop asking the question? I know for a fact that Palestinians share a gene with Jews. They had a common bond before the former's conversion to Islam. So why the feck would I suggest otherwise? The question here is not wether or not there is some unique gene in relation to religion. The question is wether there is a genetic change present in a population that would not be present if religion had not had an influence. In the case of the Spaniards - no Muslim invasion, no chromosome. In the case of the Crusades, no Christian Invasion, no chromosome. Which part of that don't you understand?

So your answer to David's question should be no instead of prattling on and suddenly realising you are answering the wrong question.

As for the question of relevance; what the hell does religious influence on genetic make up have to do with understanding the impact of religion on man's conduct, whether Mao's or Stalin's? It is nothing but a complete and utter red herring that leads me to believe you are clinging to it in an attempt to save face

congoshine:
I'm sorry I'm not cut out for such. I guess our dialogue ends here ! Bye !

Obviously, you have nothing else to add:

All talks of legality withered away by your failure to demonstrate a governing legal regime

All talks of your concern for the rights of Gitmo's inmates withered away when you claimed that you would prefer for them to be sent back even though they will most likely face worse abuses

At the end, you were contradicting your opening points. Could there possibly be anything sapient you can add to this issue?

busybein:
chineke,david and 4play on one thread,ndie ocho okwu 1 of nairaland

Nne, Tope no treat me well this Xmas o, I'm very dissapointed but that's for another thread.

davidylan:
RichyBlack . . . wouldnt you want to live like a Gaza "refugee" in their "camp" than a free Nigerian in Lagos?

See all the amenities "refugee camps" enjoy . . . she's complaining about using kerosene stoves when millions of free citizens in Nigeria will be relying on wood shavings to cook.The meaning of hypocrisy shld be redefined as "Gaza".

I've told this story many times already but it's very apt. A few years ago, back in Naija, I was listening to the BBC World Service on a transistor radio and a Palestinian was complaining about water and electricity no longer running 24 hours. . . meanwhile I was in darkness as NEPA hadn't brought light for a few days. Water supply was from a privately contructed borehole.

I don't mind being innundated with reports about the conditions in Congo DRC where 3.7m have died but Gaza/West Bank?  Please, some perspective is called for as there are people dying in other places with virtual media blackout.

davidylan:
Wey the "category of thinkers" dey?  ;Dthese people love to make a fool of themselves.
You can't prove that my thoughts exist and you call yourself a thinker?  Which ajegunle school admitted you?

This is what I find hilarious with these people. . .  . they think that the mere fact that they subscribe to a certain viewpoint makes them ''thinkers''. 

Bastage:
Would you like to explain to me how a gene that is only present in a human-being's body due to religious influence (as in the cases I've posted above) has not defined the make-up of that person's genetics?

What a clumsily constructed question.

David's question:does religion define genetic make up; is merely asking you whether there are unique genetic make ups in relation to religion, whether Ethiopian Christians share a common genetic make up with Indian Christians.

That is quite apart from the question of whether events inspired by religion may affect breeding choices, this is obviously the case, without the need for links, because every day babies are delivered at hospitals in circumstances where the parents' decision to hook up was because they shared the same faith.

The former is obtuse, the latter is blindingly obvious. Problem is, all our queries has been in regard to the former. To think I've been debating a grammatically challenged buffoon.

In certain cases, it obviously has.

He has started again! It's obvious Bastage is grammatically challenged, I noticed this when he responded to my question about the pursuit of religious ideals by telling me that Stalin pursued religious people.

The question Bastage has been asked:

Does religion define your genetic make up?

is the same he proclaimed not to even countenance. It's as good as asking whether there is a gene for religion. By claiming that this is so in certain cases, this idiot is repudiating what he has said earlier.

Chrisbenogor:
I thought only imbeciles do what I do Why are you on my case, did you catch it too?

Calling an slowpoke out is a worthy cause and joyful pursuit. You started by claiming that omniscience excludes free will, olodo. If you continually post stupid comments, especially when you claim superiority in intelligence, one has to wonder what makes this cretin thick.

Bastage:
Why won't you answer the question 4-Play? What are you afraid of?

I have referred this blind oaf to my previous post.

Anyone can see what I originally wrote and it was most certainly not the drivel that you've just posted. There's no spin in my posts - plenty in yours. I welcome anyone to read through this thread and give any example where I have either said that Stalin was influenced by genes or that there is a specific gene in Islam.

Anyone? Even Huxley was bamboozled and claimed he was hearing your then spin for the first time. I asked you a question innumerable times as to whether genes have a unique religious element, you often cited my question in response only to claim later in the middle of the night that I have made a total u-turn, bloody idiot.

No spin? Even your repetitive infantile questions is a daft obfuscation because it lends nothing to the debate and represents a craven attempt to save face. Is your gene influenced by religion. . . .  .the real question is how this slowpoke thinks this relates to the topic.

Chrisbenogor:
Na you be correct human being abi, and you dey argue with slowpoke

See this self-contradicting oaf. Given that you spend an inordinate amount of time here debating people you see as deluded by religion, isn't it time you filed a claim for your excremental brain?

davidylan:
[size=28pt]NO![/size]
I work with genes and so i shld know . . . when you start doing more than just googling for silly, misinterpreted articles then we can listen to you.

He came back in the middle of the night with a new spin. That what he actually means is a that a person's genes is influenced by religion in so far as that at some point, events inspired by religion affected the choice of partners in procreation.

He has been reduced to a blithering oaf posting repetitive infantile questions to save face.

One unhinged rant after the other, is this inbred or acquired? Legal route for compensation can be sought for your imbecility.

Bastage:
Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

The refuge of a lying scoundrel is repetitive infantilism. To function at your level I have asked whether your dishonesty and imbecility is congenital or acquired? Simple answer will suffice.

Your brain power is sadly reflective of your progenitors .  . . .  one shudders at the thought of an army of imbecilic Pa Chrisbenogors and Ma Chrisbenogors.

Another imbecilic rant from the colossally doltish Chris. If there is a Jesus Christ, it wouldn't be within my remit to defend him and the moral obligations on me are no more onerous than the ones on you.

Talking about refunds, you need to file a legal claim against whoever is responsible for the excremental content you have enclosed in your skull.

See. . . not only has the predicted imbecility manifested itself but it has become self-duplicatory. This does not preclude Chrisbenogor's free will.It is merely his choosing to be an slowpoke.

Choice is not illusionary because one knows the outcome of the exercise of choice. I know for instance that Chrisbenogor will choose to make future posts reeking of imbecility that does not make his choice to make slowpoke posts illusionary.