₦airaland Forum

That is why i still insist that there are other ways to get him down from power other than making the mases suffer under severe economic sanction.

What severe economic sanction? Please detail it.
And what "other ways" would you use to remove him from power?

I find this to be a pretty distasteful way of justifying that what is taking place is not rape. Also the other couple of passages you posted.

]Deu 22:23-24(CEV)
(23)  If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn't screaming for help, they both must be put to death.

How many rape victims "scream for help"? The first thing a rapist will do is silence his victim. Even if it refers to screaming after the event, statistics show that a large number of rape victims do not report the crime.
Back then, in an even more male dominated society, it was probably pretty unthinkable for a woman to report the fact that she had been raped.

One can see from the verses shown in different versions(KJV and CEV)that the sexual relations involved were consentual;there was consent from the female,so it cannot be branded as rape.

Or one can look at other different versions and see that "laying hold on" specifically refers to rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Today's New International Version)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels [a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version - UK)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (The Message)

28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and rapes her and they are found out, the man who raped her has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver [shekels], and she must become his wife because he violated her. (A) He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

Then you've got the versions that show that it isn't referring to consensual sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Young's Literal Translation)

28`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,
29then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New Century Version)

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and forces her to have sexual relations with him and people find out about it,29 the man must pay the girl's father about one and one-fourth pounds of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has dishonored her, and he may never divorce her for as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Amplified Bible)

28If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found,
29Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not divorce her all his days.

Even taking into account the two versions that you posted, they contain the words "lay hold on". When you "lay hold on" something it is passive and you are reactive. You are "grasping" or "seizing". Therefore, even with those couple of examples it's easy to see that it doesn't refer to consensual sex.

Promised land or stolen land? why must an all powerful God lead people on a 40 years journey to a promised land that was already inhabited by other people?

You can only base that statement on Biblical and data and in that case, the land belonged to the Hebrews.
They had left it temporarily when they were enslaved in Egypt.

Historical data shows a different story though, with the ex-Hyksos semites from Egypt (the proto-Hebrews) slowly integrating with and assimiliating the Canaanite inhabitants once the Egyptians had kicked them out. There is no concrete evidence of a war-mongering tribe of Israel wandering around the Holy Land conquering everyone in the name of their god. Evidence shows that back then, they probably weren't even monotheistic.

When the Bible was compiled during the Babylonian exile, it was written to make it look like the Jews were a powerful force who had conquered all of their enemies. The probability is that this was mere fabrication made to give justification for their new god and cement their ownership of the land.

Well this is a case of marrying a rapist but because the lady might fall or fallen in love with him but he happened to be a rapist.

Yeah. That would be the explanation.
Rape victims fall in love with their attackers all the time.

I've heard justifications for the tyrannical God of the OT many times from religious freaks but that one has to rank amongst the most stupid.

What a load of utter crap.

WHITE PEOPLE CANNOT STAND YOUR ARSE!

I have many white friends. They love my arse.

white people BELIEVE ALL AFRICANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AIDS!

From what I can gather, the white view of AIDS is "shit happens". The uneducated amongst them who play the blame game don't blame the Africans, they blame homosexuals.

when are you going to stop licking white people assholes and STAND UP LIKE A MAN and TAKE what yours?

Like someone here said: you live in a white country. You probably lick way more white asshole than anyone here. Idiots like you don't play the game as you claim. You're merely the ball.

This your "weeping for the bereaved" has gone to professional levels o, you even defend UN decisions now? Bravo!

There is hardly a country in the world where the UN hasn't defined it's borders. The list of countries that it has created is almost as long.

Also, when Israel was created, the UN presented the plan to both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Israelis saw it as a bad deal but they accepted it anyway. The Palestinians totally refused to acknowledge it and stated that they wanted everything. Then on the day that Israel was given independence by the UN, 5 Arab states declared war and attacked it. They were soundly beaten even though many of the Arab officers had fought in the British Army. All of this took place whilst the Jews were under sanctions and embargoes from the West.

And the poster declares that Israel was "given" to the Jews by their Arab brothers? No. It was given to them by the UN. The UK and the West tried to block it's creation and then supported the Arabs when they invaded. Only to see them get their asses kicked.


Of course, we can live in a dream-world and pretend that Israel was created by the US, UK and the West which thought it was a great idea. But the fact is totally to the contrary. Or we can look at the truth and see that the UN was only doing what it has always been doing since it was created.

What is Christmas?
It's a pagan festival
Based around the Winter Solstice,
Which used to be known as
the feast of the god Sol Invictus.
Which Constantine the Great,
the famous "protector" of Christianity,
was a follower of.


Merry Sol Invictus Day.

How are the Belgians responsible for AIDS?

When did they kill over 5 million Congolese?

I think most religious avoidance of pork is based on a metaphysical (ie spiritual) reason, not necessarily the physical aspect.

It probably had everything to do with the physical aspect and not the spiritual.

One has to realise that the early Jews and Muslims were nomadic desert tribes with no access to refrigeration.
Pork is one of the most dangerous meats to eat if stored or prepared incorrectly.
The last thing any tribe needs (especially if it is on the eve of a battle) is a severe dose of food poisoning running through it's ranks. Hence it was simpler to just ban the meat.

Take a look at the other foodstuffs that are "banned" and you will see that likewise they too are very dangerous to eat if not handled correctly - ie: shellfish.

Easiest way to keep your people healthy and get them to stay away from something - "God says so".

You should read the "washing of hands" narrative with a great deal of skepticism.  Most scholars of the NT think this is theological and political sleight of hand  (pun unintended).  If we assume that such a trial took place, then some of the details of the story appear implausible

Your question had to be taken in the context of the gospels and from that context one can only infer that the Romans were innocent.

Further statements using outside sources may give you the result that you've stated but in this instance, that is irrelevant. It's not possible to base one piece of speculation upon another and then state that this is what the gospels say.


For the record though, looking at historical evidence, I believe that if Jesus did exist and if he was crucified, the Romans were probably the sole guilty party and the Jews, at the very most, onlookers. As one of the biggest buyers of the new religion of Christianity was the Roman Empire, it's only logical that a "white-wash" would occur, even though evidence points to their culpability.
One cannot assert that the gospels "present" this theory though. It's only after studying other historical writings and placing them in conjunction with the gospels that one can come to a conclusion. Just as with your claim.

Not that I'm in the habit of defending the religion-drones of Islam, but Sura 9.11 says absolutely nothing of the sort.
The claimed passage is just a complete and utter fabrication.

Also claiming that there is some spooky connection with the number 11 is totally crap. Why not go for a connection with the letter "A"?
The planes were owned by American Airlines. They crAshed into the World TrAde Center. One of the terrorists was called Atta. They were supposed to have followed the religion of IslAm.

See where I'm going with this? Anyone can make a bullshit connection if they look hard enough.

The gospels present the Roman authorities, in consort with their Jewish subjects as responsible for the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

Actually they don't. The gospels absolve the Romans of any responsibility for the death of Christ with the symbolism of Pilate "washing his hands". Although the execution was carried out by the Roman authorities, the Bible makes it clear that they were unwilling participants who were only following the demands of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
The blame was all placed upon the shoulders of the Jews. Hence the reason why they were persecuted for centuries as "Christ-killers".

The Holy Ghost is meant to be the spirit of God.

As part of the Trinity, Christians believe it is one and the same as God and Christ.

The word "ghost" in this context does not mean spirit of the dead. It was only much later that this meaning became attributed to it. The original meaning of "ghost" was "soul" or "spirit" - hence why it is also called the Holy Spirit.

If you are a believer in the Old Testament as a lead up to Christianity, then yes - Jesus is the God of the OT. Christians will always tell you that God and Jesus are one and that they are indistinguishable.

When you look at what the OT god got up to it kind of screws up the theory that Jesus was a loving and compassionate guy don't you think?
In fact it makes Jesus look like a complete and utter hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches.

But it's not all doom and gloom. When you study history and look at how things worked back then, you can see that the OT and the NT are two different books with many different gods in them. The OT has no relevance to the NT other than to sell the religion of Christianity to those who wanted to make the crossover between old and new.

Afam wrote:

Typical liar. I would readily believe that you learnet how to lie from your parents.

Then Afam wrote:

For the records I never insulted your parents.

To anyone with half a brain the first sentence looks like an insult to his parents.
Either you're the liar in question here or you don't understand anything that you write yourself.

Zimbabwe with just $4.5B debt is in trouble but the US with over $10Trillion debt is calling the shots and currently is facing a serious economic crisis coupled with monumental frauds and big organizations going bankrupt while others are looking for free money in the bailout plan.

You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of economics.

When you own the bank, you can run up as much debt as you like. Most of the US debt is owed to guess who? Yep - the US itself. It's basically a bank that lends money to itself. Then there is a large proportion of the money that is owed to US business. About 20% of the debt is owed to non-US interests and of that 20% none of it is owed to the IMF. That debt is made up of US Treasury Securities held by foreign governments.

There's also a huge difference between big organisations going bankrupt in a democracy and people dying of cholera under a dictatorship.

Then take into account that in the two examples you've given, one has a huge export market and the other can't even afford to feed itself and you can see that it has nothing to do with hypocrisy but everything to do with economics.

Seems I need to continue watching Jack Bauer in Season 7 of 24 instead of reading this crap posted above.

Maybe you should stick to watching fiction on TV instead of writing fiction on a discussion forum. Lose yourself in the dreamworld of TV but try not to bring that fantasy over into the real world.

@princekevo

Do you know what those sanctions are?

I'll tell you shall I?

They take the form of an embargo on the sale, supply or transfer of arms and technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, and an embargo on the sale and supply of equipment that could be used for internal repression in Zimbabwe.
They also include a travel ban on "persons who engage in serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly in Zimbabwe". The 95 persons on the sanctions list have also observed a freezing of their funds, financial assets and economic resources in the EU (basically, cash that they've stolen from their country). Britain is also said to be considering the widening of a travel ban to include relatives of Zanu PF members, preventing children of officials from attending schools in EU/US.

Would you like to tell me how these sanctions "target to kill or injure infants, children, the elderly, and the chronically ill"?

Please think before making blanket statements that make you look stupid.

Don't tell me you are that naive. It's no news how Americans interfere with other countries' penal systems when their nationals are involved in crime in those countries.

Are you being stupid on purpose?

"The Summary Court issued its verdict after hearing evidence from the girl and examining a medical report.
The verdict has become final since no party raised an objection and no appeal would be made."

It specifically says that there was no interference. It specifically says that there is no way of stopping the punishment.

I just noticed that the "criminals" in question here have Arab-sounding names

No you didn't. You noticed that one of them has an "Arab-sounding name".
But so what? The US is made up of people from all over the world. The fact remains that whatever they are called, they are US citizens.

I'll say it again, the Saudi and Egyptian governments would never dream of punishing an American. Believe what you want.

When confronted with proof, you throw it away. That's what makes you an idiot.

ee oga, go back and start from David's 1st mention of FOX reporter,

Either way it doesn't matter a jot.

The fact is that you stated Americans aren't punished by the Saudis or Eyptians.
I've shown that they are.

Must have missed that post!

It seems you miss a lot.
Let me post it again.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008112623040

"JEDDAH – The Summary Court in Jeddah has sentenced a 23-year-old Arab national and an 18-year-old American girl to one year in prison and 100 lashes each after they were convicted of adultery."

http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/us-asks-egypt-to-settle-rights-hb/

"The arrest in Cairo of democracy advocate Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a U.S. citizen, has prompted demands from the U.S. Embassy for a quick decision on his release and charges from human rights groups that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government is cracking down on political activity in advance of fall parliamentary elections."

But anyway. You're talking crap.
I've proven that you are wrong and that the Saudis and Egyptians do punish US citizens

Can you read? Read back through the thread properly.

Regarding the UN.

Did I say the UN did not give the land? What gives the UN any right to give Palestinian land away to anybody?

Me: No they didn't. The UN gave them the land.
The Palestinians and the Arabs did everything they could to take it away from them. Some still are.

You: Hear yourself. Does the UN own land that it gives to wandering nations?



Regarding the Saudis and Fox.

And what makes you think i think all FOX reporters are American?

Note that I wasn't even referring to an American. I was referring to a reporter.

Me: If the above happened in Saudi, the reporter would probably be tortured and then executed.

You: By whom? Definitely not the Saudi government. Saudi and Egyptian governments will never dream of punishing an American.

Me: So all Fox reporters in the Middle East are US citizens?

Notice the question mark? You're the one that stated that Fox reporters are US citizens.
Or perhaps you can't read your own writing?

He his more popular than Bush in south america go there to see.

Not for long. Sadly, Chavez is going down the same route that all military strongmen who take over a country go down - the road to dictatorship.
His economy is in a mess, there's civil unrest and parts of the country want independence. It would be nice to think that Chavez will bring something to the table but unfortunately he's just surviving on being an enemy of the US.

With oil prices going down the pan, Chavez has major problems. His whole economy is based on oil. Wiith the weak price of oil, Venezuela can't afford to fund any of the things that Chavez has promised. How long then before his people turn against him?

They are all tending towards Chavez's Socialism

Unfortunately, Chavez version of socialism is a recipe for disaster. Any form of socialism is a recipe for disaster (and I tell you that as a big fan of Socialism). No society is advanced enough to make it a success.

Where's Bastage?
Are you running from carmelily? This carmelily girl dey destroy your points now.

Don't be a retard. I don't run from people making false claims.

Saudi and Egyptian governments will never dream of punishing an American.

So all Fox reporters in the Middle East are US citizens?
But anyway, you can be easily proven wrong either way.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008112623040

"JEDDAH – The Summary Court in Jeddah has sentenced a 23-year-old Arab national and an 18-year-old American girl to one year in prison and 100 lashes each after they were convicted of adultery."

And Egypt?

http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/us-asks-egypt-to-settle-rights-hb/


As for this:

Hear yourself. Does the UN own land that it gives to wandering nations?

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

"After World War I, the League of Nations (the forerunner of the UN) approved the British Mandate of Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people." In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab."


I accept your apology and your admission that you are an idiot.

Their brothers the palestinean gave them land when no one else was willing to accommodate after Hitlers madness

No they didn't. The UN gave them the land.
The Palestinians and the Arabs did everything they could to take it away from them. Some still are.

He's totally correct in his assertion.

Most African leaders won't even openly condem what he is doing to his nation. Let alone remove him.

People whine on about sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Even if there were sanctions could someone please explain how the white regime of Ian Smith which was under real sanctions from the West after UDI, was able to build a prosperous country whereas Mugabe's Zimbabwe is crawling in the dirt?

People also claim the cause of this problem was that the UK did not recompense Mugabe for his land reform program. Would someone please explain why they should? The white farmers were not paid for the farms taken from them so why was money needed? What for? The UK also did not recognise the white government of Zimbabwe so it's not a case of paying for independence - independence from the UK was long before Mugabe came into power and it was a UDI. They also gave the Mugabe regime millions and millions of dollars in aid which dwarfed any amount that was supposed to be received for land reform. Not only that, but they're still paying!!!! The UK is the third largest supplier of foriegn aid to Zimbabwe in the world after the US and the EU and even now still gives Zimbabwe £40 million a year.

Add to that the fact that the UK has prepared a plan to give Zimbabwe a billion pounds a year in even more aid and take the fact that Mugabe has even turned down the offer of rescue packages in the past and one can see that the argument that the problems in Zimbabwe are due to the West are a total and utter joke.


As for Zimbabwe having roads? So what? Having roads and nice scenery doesn't mean a damn thing if your people are dying of starvation and cholera or being hunted down and murdered by the government.

1. Who told you that Iraq was not a relatively peaceful country before the war monger bush and his tag-along got in there?.

LMAO!!!

Two wars against his neighbours - Kuwait and Iran.
Genocide of the Southern Shias.
Genocide of the Marsh Arabs.
Genocide of the Northern Kurds in the Anfal campaign.

"Who told you that Iraq was not a relatively peaceful country"?

Over one million people were killed by the Saddam regime!!!

I laugh in your face.

How many Ameraicans or british are investing in Zimbabwe after US and britain have had restrictions on trading with zimbabwe and even threatning to sanction them from UN.

There are no trade restrictions and UK and US companies do still operate in Zimbabwe.  At least 18 of the biggest 50 companies in the UK (and possibly as many as 30) still operate there. That number doesn't even take into account the number of smaller firms. And as already pointed out, there are no sanctions against Zimbabwe - just travel and financial restrictions aimed at members of the Mugabe regime.

The link you've provided is written by a pro-Zanu PF supporter. They claim that there are sanctions and then end up admitting that there are none but that the problem is down to "US influence". This is not true. The problem is because Zimbabwe's major economic income was dependent on agriculture. When Mugabe initiated his program of land reform, he took the farms from the whites but instead of giving them to people who would farm them properly, he gave them to his cronies and people who didn't have a clue how to grow crops. Coupled with a couple of droughts, the economy imploded. Instead of trying to sort out the problem, Mugabe immediately went and played the blame game and then went and mismanaged the rest of the economy. Inflation then soared and foriegn investors realised that putting money into Zimbabwe was a very risky deal. The IMF does not need "US influence" to force it to with-hold loans to Zimbabwe. It can see that under the current circumstances, there is no way on this Earth that Zimbabwe would be able to pay anything back and that it would just be throwing good money after bad. Anything it gives to Zimbabwe is likely to be mis-used or end up in the ZANU-PF pocket.

Mugabe can't be blamed for the weather. But he is totally to blame for destroying the infrastructure of the largest provider of money to the Zimbabwean economy (agriculture). He's then guilty of wrecking the rest of the economy by trying to fix the problem with breath-taking mismanagement.

The UK and the US are not to blame. Perhaps the only other culprits are the ANC who have blocked every attempt by the West and other African nations to convince Mugabe to give up power.

You said zimbabwe in not under any economic santion? that is really funny.
Only those who donsnt understand the world politics today would believe that.

Only those who wish to white-wash the Mugabe regimes terrible mis-handling of the Zimbabwean economy and want to blame yet another one of Africa's problems on the West "don't understand the world politics today".

If a FOX news reporter threw his shoes at King Fahd, the Saudi government will make him an honorary member of the royal family.

You're joking right?

If the above happened in Saudi, the reporter would probably be tortured and then executed.
Then you can add the fact that the whole Muslim world would probably be on the streets demonstrating and burning US flags.

If the reporter tried to do the same in the US he would probably be shot by the Secret Service before he could throw the second shoe. If he managed to survive, he would be jailed for assault.

Again, there would be loads of flag-burning in the Muslim world.