₦airaland Forum

For those who watched the Netflix docuseries on FIFA's corruption and how Qatar won the bid for the world cup in 2022, you'd have noticed some inconsistencies that were never addressed and how they tie into the world politics surrounding that region as a whole. This documentary here marries all the facts together in a very interesting way and is IMHO the best explanation on almost all the events.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with everything mentioned here.

It is a part 1 to 5 all of which are about maximum 21 mins long per episode. It is on YouTube as 'The Qatar World Cup Explained'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITKOCKpEca8

Expert17:
So live long and prosper is a Prayer Point not just a username/moniker.

What a wow.

Some Hanks Anukuing going on here.

DeadPresidents:
V.S.O.P and Banana.

I need to try that combo this weekend

Banana and Dodo look the same sometimes.

IYKYK

My argument was that the DOJ felt it was plausible - not that I believe it or not.

Nobody is joining you on any Haaland debate when Mike -does-not-know-squat-about-Manchester-City Keegan is being quoted. Was Guardiola not supposed to retire in 2020 for Pochettino according to that same journalist? Hahaha.

Totally makes sense. Pay Erling £45M per year extra when he is not up to Kevin Debruyne's left leg.

Abeg just dey your dey.

Haaland's salary conspiracies. Gone too soon (September 2022-November 2022). IYKYK

Pep Guardiola never coached Alex Song.

A001:
Stop quoting me to type nonsense, onigbese.

The irony.

A001:
You get money, you no fit pay a debt of around 30k and had to abandon your account because of that. You no get shame at all.

Rich ko reach ni.

As you rich ni, pay the money for me.

"The definition of being rich is giving someone money after they have insulted you"

- Broke intelleshual with H-factor.

A001:
So says a debtor that can't honor his words. Lols

Better a rich debtor than a pseudo-intelleshual living la vi da broka

A001:
Hypocrite. The same Christianity taught you to run away with another person's bet and not to honor your words abi. I didn't expect a reasonable answer from a religious slave anyway.

You are a failed agnostic. Should I treat all agnostics as failures just because you are one? How can you expect a reasonable answer from me when you are beneath my level of reasoning?

A001:
You can pretend not to know the actitivies of the Portuguese that took many Yorubas and Ibos as slaves.

Senseless debtor. The Portuguese introduced Roman Catholicism in Iboland long before the reign of the British.

Should the British government not have super-imposed Anglicanism on Catholicism since it was a tool of control?

Or maybe. . . Just maybe they realized religion was counter productive to their control agenda which is why they restricted missionaries from crusading in the north like someone else posited to you.

It is possible that intelligent people (even if they may be colonialists) can realize that the tenets of Christianity (which teaches that everyone is equal in God's eyes) will work against a subjugator's world view on such and therefore not be a tool of control?

How I wish this post was responding to an intelligent person.

A001:
Before you make a fool of yourself further, show me where I told you that GB established Christianity in Iboland.

Omo ode. While the Great Britain that brought the Anglican doctrine into some parts of Yorubaland, Portuguese missionaries introduced catholicism into Iboland.

Whether Protestant denominations or Catholicism, it's all Christianity, and the religion was a key aspect of the campaigns of colonialists in Africa as many historical facts have shown.

The religion that spread to the Igbos during the colonialist rule of GB was Roman Catholicism. If your argument is that governments usher in religion as a subjugatory tool, does it not follow that GB ushered in Roman Catholicism to control the igbos?

Of course, to make your vacuous argument even slightly tenable you have to throw a blanket over Anglicanism and Catholicism. The only major issue that pokes out is that pesky word called British which no sensible person will ever relate with Catholicism. But you are not a sensible person so. . .

A001:
Dumbo. Show me where I stated the highlighted concerning catholicism in any of my posts. Brainless debtor.

The fool must be among the shallow thinkers that think the Britons funded costly missionaries to Nigeria because they love the Yorubas and for charity purpose.

Simpleton!

You are arguing that governments institutionalize religion to control the denizens. Someone challenged you by demonstrating how within Nigeria, Roman Catholicism pervaded the Igbo nation and even made them more insubordinate to the British colonialists. You disagreed by using the blanket term "Christianity" to cover for the gap in your logic whilst forgetting that British missionaries who were almost entirely Anglican, could not have been responsible for spreading Roman Catholicism or any religion especially when it was counter productive to what the colonialists would have needed to subjugate their colonies.

So if the Igbos became predominantly catholic under British imperialists, it is nonsensical to blame the imperialists for their catholicism.

Mr. Intelleshual.

British government in connivance with Anglican church used Roman Catholicism to control the Igbo tribe.

Once I read it in a book I am biased to believe (regardless of facts) it must be true.

Religious agnosticism on the beat again.

Theflint1:

Why you dey laugh ni? Does the logic not check out?

Android17:
This is my issue. I thought people queried why an "innocent" man will forfeit 460K? Where was this logic then?

1. If the money was proven to be from narcotics, he not only would have forfeited the 460k he would have done jail time, agree?

2. If they could not tie the money to narcotics even when they knew it was impossible to make the money from his occupation, why still withold that part?

I am referring to the 460k part that was "forfeited".

Itsrm:
I see what you are doing but I won't take the bait.

We are not referring to the 460k here. We are asking where the 1.8m came from. Do you have any idea or you agree with BAT that it came from salaries and bonuses

I already said here in the past that I suspect BAT laundered narcomoney but he was not a drug baron. My aim is to show that the DOJ still felt it was plausible to earn that amount of money based on his occupation.

FYI I know truck drivers who earn $120k per annum. Imagine telling that to Nigerian truck drivers and see if they will believe you.

Itsrm:
No, they know its impossible but cannot conclusively tie the money to narcotics

We are not on the same page.

This is my issue. I thought people queried why an "innocent" man will forfeit 460K? Where was this logic then?

1. If the money was proven to be from narcotics, he not only would have forfeited the 460k he would have done jail time, agree?

2. If they could not tie the money to narcotics even when they knew it was impossible to make the money from his occupation, why still withold that part?

I am referring to the 460k part that was "forfeited".

Theflint1:
If he had $2,000 only from the entire money, he was still within his right to say he was part owner of the monies being investigated. Nowhere was the talk of them believing the money was from his work mentioned, they could have as well assumed that the money was from him playing Lotto or any other thing.

You are right as well. The only issue is, they did not randomly discover his account. They did not randomly subpoena him for questioning. He was indicted, right?

Theflint1:
You're spinning and turning, BAT said the money belonged to his adopted mum, Habibatu Mogaji, himself and one K.O. Tinubu, nowhere was it mentioned that he received any bonus from Delloite in the DOJ case report.

Yea, they bought the narrative that some of the money could be his abi? From which occupation?

Itsrm:
They don't need to believe him before returning the money to him.

You do know that having probable cause to believe the money was from narcotics is not the same as proving it was from narcotics.

Yea, when I said "believe" I was speaking colloquially. My point was that they did not think it implausible to have that money from his occupation. Are we on the same page?

izzou:
[color=royalblue]Don't assume he believed him.

Show me where the DOJ said he believed him.[/color]

I thought I had posted the penal codes under which the money was confiscated by the DOJ in the past? Of the 1.46M they confiscated 1M was returned to BAT abi? Do you remember that part?

izzou:
[color=royalblue]Where did it say that the DOJ believed him?[/color]

Correct me if I am wrong but did BAT not adduce that as justification for the money in the account that was flagged for money laundering? The DOJ had to have believed him because they witheld 460k for issues on tax penalties and remitted $1M+ back to him abi?

izzou:
[color=royalblue]$20k dey get $850k bonus in the 80s

[/color]

Why did the DOJ believe him?

Trevor012:
This is nothing unique to Manchester city alone. Your club and dozens of other clubs have fallen victims to shady betting asian companies too.

https://theathletic.com/3029318/2021/12/28/revealed-the-obscure-gambling-firms-with-untraceable-employees-working-with-your-football-club/


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/question-marks-over-manchester-united-deal-with-betting-partner-hth-9h7fn366x

Like City will go through that length for chump change.

izzou:
[color=royalblue]I am not talking about the past. I wasn't either. Na una carry GEJ and Buhari come here.

My point initially is that it needs to go. We can't pretend like we can pay it anymore.

That's my own reality. [/color]

I agree with your underlying point my guy. I am just showing you how complicated it is in the contraption called Nigeria.

Segedinho:
Did they factor d calculated daily theft of crudes,money stolen by animals....

All these are just agenda to exonerate d so-called hardened general who swore to be brutal...

How much has he borrowed for infrastructure?what stop him in building refinery to his name from the borrowed bucks

The subsidy is a scam and Bubu has come to realised how much could be moved in a second......reason he became d minister of pet

If I reply this comprehensively it will read like I am defending Buhari. Like I said before and do not feel the need to regurgitate; building refineries is not the job of the government. It should be the job of the private sector.

izzou:
[color=royalblue]Like i said, your analogy is exonerating him the more.

GEJ wanted to stop it
Buhari protested.
Buhari became president and continued paying it.

So if you are telling there's a cartel, it should be among the person that stopped his bread from being taken away.

Buhari deregistered and re-registered any marketer doesn't change the fact that Nigeria is paying trillions for subsidy, and we are deeply in debt because of it.

Just leave GEJ and Buhari out of this discussion. I was not even referring to them in the first place.
[/color]

I accepted that Buhari himself failed but you are asking why the tree was not planted in his administration and I am showing you why the tree was better planted "20 years ago".

Nigerians protested subsidy removal under Jonathan. My guess is it would have been better accepted under an OBj administration. If you want to give a child injection knowing it will hurt them, you have to be a nurse they trust.