₦airaland Forum

Just from a purely scientific viewpoint, educated people living in Jesus' time would have a pretty wide view of the world.
The Roman Empire took in much of Africa, nearly all of Europe and a lot of Asia. Archeology also shows people have been travelling to and fro between Europe/Asia and the Americas since long before the birth of Christ.

Although the Biblical passage in question is not pertinent to my statement, give credit where credit is due. The geographical knowledge of the people back then wasn't confined to a narrow strip of land.

To concentrate on the passage itself, it's not meant to be taken literally. It merely shows how Christ could not be tempted even when offered the greatest physical thing of all.

Learn good history and stop lying about reality.

And when was the last time that the US sentenced someone to death for treason?
I would also remind you that your statement was that most liberal socities will seek the death penalty. Apart from the US (which I don't consider to be a "liberal" society anyway) give some examples where the death penalty has been applied for acts of treason. In fact, give some examples where it's been applied to acts of treason in the US. I'll even give you 30 years leeway so that you have plenty of room to manouevre.
The fact is, you won't be able to. Those examples exist only in your muddled, brain-washed head.

You talk utter idiocy and trash when you tell some-one to learn about good history when you obviously know nothing about the subject yourself.

LOL@ "Go back in history". Yeah? 2000 years ago to Roman times for your example? Pathetic. Wake up fool, this is 2008AD not the year 30AD.

Justify your bloodlust and yearning for murder all you want with foolishness but there are those of us out here in the real world who see you for what you are. Why not just say "Anyone who leaves Islam should be killed" and leave it at that? Basing your arguments on shallow, illogical idiocy makes you look even more of an extremist fanatic than you already are.

then the most liberal society will seek death penalty on his life!

I don't know which planet you live on, but here on Earth that simply isn't true.
Very, very few liberal societies have the death penalty on their statute books for treason. Of those that do, few use it.

A total and utter falsehood used to justify murder.

First duty, save YOURSELF, and YOUR family from the blazing fire.

And therein lies the problem.

This statement sums up religion as a whole as it is practiced in the world today. Not just Islam, Christianity is just as guilty. You could say all religions are guilty in some way.

It's save yourself and those close to you. Not "Worship Allah/God for what He is and let Him do His job".
It's "I will worship so that I don't get hurt" or "I will worship so that I'm rewarded".

When you start worshipping for you and yours, you are taking part in something called "Self-service". You're worshipping because you want something.

And who are we really worshipping when we do that?

Where did I get the 3500 time period from? Check your history books. Look online. It's not hard to find that fact.

Who lived there prior to 3500 years ago? Again, it's simple to check up on.
The land was made up of different tribes. Read your Bible, it names them for you. The land itself was known as Canaan. The Canaanites, themselves had absorbed and assimilated the features of many cultures of the ancient Near East for at least 500 years before the Israelites entered their area of control. But the main tribes that the Hebrews came into contact with were nomadic hunter gatherers. There were no nation states, no national identities there.

Please don't be ignorant and try to say that they were Arabs. Going back to the iron age, there was no such thing as an Arab and  they didn't appear as an identity until around 850BC - babies when compared to the Hebrew timescale.

If you kill my brother and then run back to your house, why should I not follow you to your house to kill you if your family or neighbours will not bring you to justice?

If Pakistan doesn't want raids on it's territory it should stop attacks being launched from it's territory. Period.

Don't confuse facts with fiction. If Israel has existed for 3,000 years, then why was there any need to establish a state of Israel in 1948? Did the state of Israel exist in 1947?

Actually, Israel has existed for closer to 3500 years. In that case it's more commonly known as the "Land of Israel" and still inextricably linked to Judaism. It can't be argued that the "State of Israel" usurped the the "State of Palestine"as there was no such thing and large numbers of Jews were already present well before the creation of the "State of Israel". They were also already in a state of seige. In 1936, the British Peel Commission concluded that Arab-Jewish coexistence was impossible and recommended partitioning The British Mandate of Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. The Jews accepted the principle of partition while the Arabs rejected it.

The modern state was created in 1948 with the exodus of Jews from Europe. But this was not a "first" - there were large influxes in 1881 and 1904.

At the very worst you can say that the land belonged to "nobody". Historically, if you rely on an argument of "He who was there the longest" then Israel can't be said to belong to anyone but the Jews. They've had a continual presence there for 3500 years.  Even though there have been continued attempts by both Muslims and Christians to wipe them out.

This shows the height of naivety.

No one not even NATO would attack China let alone Russia.

Russia supplies gas to Europe cut gas to the EU and see what would happen. They would be on their knees particularly during winter.

If Russia attacked a NATO country, Nato would have no choice but to respond militarily. Do you understand that? It's not a case of they wouldn't want to - they would have to. It's the whole point of NATO's existence. To state otherwise is actually the height of naivety.

True, a lot of gas comes from Russia to Europe, but you don't seem to understand how that is irrelevant.
Firstly, Europe is working harder and harder to get away from Russian energy supply. Secondly, gas would not be an issue in a war.

Russians are Ruthless people check history. Remember Beslan, The theatre hostage taking, Fall of Berlin

Chechnya? What happened. This Georgia case what happened. When Dick Cheney said that the Russian aggression on Georgia would have consequencies. Putin almost had an heart attack from laughter.

Being ruthless does not equate to being a military super-power. Beslan and Chechnya are not NATO - they don't compare. As for Putin laughing? If you believe the sensationalist media reports you must be naive. Russia is far, far more integrated into the global market than the old Soviet Union was. It is not self-sustaining and can be hurt far more easily. Do you think that Putin was laughing when the Russian stock market crashed after the Georgian invasion. Do you think he was laughing when billions of dollars of foreign investment was pulled? Please. Learn about the real facts and don't rely on sensationalist media to forment your comments.

Merkel and Sarkozy are not on the same page with US and UK don't you get France and germany would rather go with Russia and EU than be an ass kisser to the US which is the specialty of Britain.

Totally and utterly wrong. This comment is just a joke. Europe has far, far more in common with the US than it does with Russia. Anyone stating otherwise is living in an alternative reality. 
Where do you want to start with that comment? Economically, socially, politically? Tell me how Europe prefers Russia? Simple answer - they don't. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Putin, cheeney,Rice and Bush know better  So PALIN was just showing her naivety.
From the Bering straits, Half of the US is covered by Russian Missiles from Moscow the other half is covered.

Totally irrelevant. If Russia attacked a NATO member, NATO would probably respond conventionally. Nuclear weapons would not be a deterrant. Russia knows that if it used the nuclear option, it would be wiped off the face of the Earth in response. Or do you think NATO doesn't have nukes as well?

Double standards.

Arab nations sit on much more Palestinian land than Israel does. Jordan alone has annexed 3 times the amount of Palestinian land than makes up the entire country of Israel.

Give Palin her due, she answered the question truthfully and logically.
If Russia attacked any NATO country, the US and the whole of NATO is obligated to defend it.
One should also be aware that although Russia recently flexed it's muscles in Georgia, it is absolutely no match for the US militarily. Conventionally, the US would crush Russia like an ant. Nuclear-wise is a different story. Remember also that European nations have armies, navies and air-forces and that they too would be involved in any war with Russia due to their NATO membership. Russia simply wouldn't stand a chance - numerically it is at a disadvantage and technologically it is beaten hands down.

That said, Palin has commented on one of the only foriegn countries she knows anything about - it being close to Alaska. But my feeling is that she is vastly unqualified to speak about foreign affairs. It's quite unbelievable when you realise that she is less well travelled than the vast majority of US citizens and to only have made one trip outside of North America makes one wonder just how she can relate to the rest of the World and have any understanding of it. And it should also be remembered that she lied about that trip!!! It was stated that she went to Ireland and Iraq, when in fact Ireland was only a stop-over to refuel the plane and Iraq was a trip to the border checkpoint.
How can a politician in such a powerful postion (potentially) help to run US foreign policy when she doesn't even know about the World out there!!!

The more time progresses, the more Palin is looking vastly under-qualified for the job of VP. Those who have picked on Obama's relative lack of experience are now looking like idiots.

It's been known that he is ill for the last few months when he bought in doctors from China.
So well done US Intelligence for telling us something we already know.

@kobojunkie

The first debate: http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080821/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_debates

@Outlaws.

Maybe you need a reality check, you retard.

Obama is campaigning to be President of the USA. Not Nigeria.

He was raised in a white system.
Is politicking in a white system.
If he's elected, will run a white system.

Do you really think he could manage that without being put there by whites? He chose to be there? Maybe. But try running for any serious position in a white dominated society and see if you can get there without the help of white people.

LOL. You say you live in the US. Wasn't it a white person who signed your application to stay there? Or was your Visa approved by the Crips and the Bloods?

You seriously are one dumb mugu.

Hang on a sec,if you agree that tabs are not kept,why presume that these figures are conservative? They could go either way;it can be an overestimate as well as an underestimate.

I can't give you that one.

Think about it. If a woman enters the clinic and says she is from Ireland it's likely that she's telling the truth, isn't it? Therefore the 7000 is not going to be an underestimate. Why say you're from Ireland when you're not? And how many English women do you know who can do an authentic Irish accent and keep it up for hours?

Yet an Irish woman can easily enter a clinic and give a UK address and nobody will know the difference.

Therefore, logically, the figures are far, far more likely to be conservative.

Now I'm off to bed too!!!

If they are "not forced to give an Irish address",how the hell do you keep tabs on who is Irish and who isn't? I hope that site isn't an abortion lobby site.

No. To the contrary, it's actually an anti-abortion site. Which is why I would tend to think it's figures would be either accurate or conservative.

And yea, as you say, how do you keep tabs? This, again would seem to point out that the figures I've given are conservative.

Do you see what I mean now when I say that Ireland is a bad example to use?
Or are you going to carry on fighting me over this one? 

Heck dude. No reason why you can't argue for the Palin anti-abortion lobby. Just drop the freaking Irish angle.

Before we start,I think it's good practice to link were you get your figures from.

I managed to find a more up-to-date link. The one I did my calculations from was dated 2003. Granted the figure is down to roughly 7000 but please take into account that the woman is not forced to give an Irish address by the NHS, so 7000 is probably a very conservative figure. Living in the UK, you'll know that many Irish people can give UK addresses because they have relatives living here.
Also take into account that with my last post I did not factor in back-street abortions in Ireland itself nor the fact that Irish women are now travelling to the Netherlands for abortions in far greater numbers, where it is 50% cheaper to have it done privately in than in the UK.
Also be aware that although the number of abortions in the UK has risen by 10,000, I did not compensate for my rough estimates by removing the Irish figure so that increase should already be accounted for in my calculations.

Here's the link.

http://www.irishcatholicdoctors.com/documents/AbortionintheUKMay2007.htm

The reduction of 1000 does seem to fit in with figures presented elsewhere: it does seem that Irish abortion rates have dropped over the last 5 years. But the problem there is that we can't really read anything into that unless we go hunting for birth rates per head of population and wether or not they've increased or decreased. And wether we hunt up figures for abortion rates elsewhere in the EU.

And to tell the truth, I'm a bit too tired to do that right now!!!  

Finally, I'd also suggest that a drop in the past 5 years isn't really relevant to this topic when you consider the length of time that Ireland has had it's anti-abortion laws in place.

You admit that not all Irish women looking for abortion go to the UK but that many do.That is a tacit admission that some don't

OK. Let's do the math.

The abortion number in the UK is roughly 180,000. Of those, 8000 were from Ireland.
That means that roughly 4.5% of all abortions in the UK were to Irish women.

Now let's go to populations:

The UK has roughly 60 million people.
Ireland has roughly 4.5 million people.

So Ireland has about 7.5% of the UK population.

That would mean that roughly, Irish women are 60 to 70% as likely to have abortions in the UK as UK residents themselves.
Factor in the amount of Irish women who travel to elsewhere in the EU to get the procedure and you'll see that, although abortion is illegal in Ireland, if an Irish-woman wants an abortion, she gets it.

The Irish anti-abortion law is therefore a waste of time.

Therefore Ireland is not a relevant model to use as an example in your argument.

If we are to assume that the consequence of having children raised by single mothers is that they are net economic burden to society,we have to conclude that African-Americans and Caribeans are a net burden to the US & UK respectively

The whole statement is misleading because it isn't relevant. We're not talking about black people, we're talking about single mothers. And although there may be black single parents, they have to be included in the same bracket as the white single parents. Not compared to other Africans or Caribbeans.

I seriously do not see how you can make that leap or what relevance it has. Please explain.

I'd also disagree that children are a burden to society. If the parents can afford to have them, they pay. But statistics do show that the children of unmarried mothers are more likely to face poverty and require state handouts. And this is the section of society you will be hitting the hardest if you ban abortion.

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml

I find these statistics frightening:

* Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers. i
   * Seventy-five percent of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single parent families. ii
   * More than half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children. iii
   * Sixty-three percent of suicides are individuals from single parent families. iv
   * Seventy-five percent of teenage pregnancies are from single parent homes. v
   * Children living at home with both parents grow up with more financial and educational advantages than youngsters raised by one parent, as US Census statistics have long shown. vi
   * Seventy-two percent of the US Populations believes that fatherlessness is the most significant social problem America is facing. vii
   * Children in single parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems. viii
   * Children who lived with only one parent had lower grade point averages, lower career aspirations, poorer attendance records, and higher drop out rates than students who lived with both parents. ix

As for the answer to your Irish question. It would be churlish of me to state that every Irish woman who wants an abortion comes to the UK. But again, the fact remains that many do. I also restate my claim that Ireland is not of relevence.
If it were, I could state that until relatively recently it was a 3rd world country and that this was down to the fact that abortion is illegal but that because Ireland is in the EU it's whole reason for having a high standard of living is due to the subsidies and handouts that it receives.

Regarding this quote:

If you are unaware that there are many people,lots of them teens,who get pregnant precisely to get benefits,you are being naive.

That was my whole point. Teens know they're going to get a handout. With banning abortion and still offering the handout, what incentive is there to not have a child out of wedlock?

Obama is not the anti-Christ.

That job is already taken by this guy:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/Dancing_Banana.gif/120px-Dancing_Banana.gif

Well whose gonna vote for crusty old McCain without a hot chick by his side?

Even if she is mental.

@Tayo-D.

You cannot stop teens from getting pregnant by cutting off their benefits. It's just not going to happen in a modern society. Maybe it should, but it won't. The State will always provide.

As for the fathers? Yes, they go after them. But statistics show that mostly to be a waste of time. For the paltry £8 million that the Chiild Support Agency pursued through the legal system, it actually cost the UK taxpayer £12 million!!! Yet more to add to the economic burden.

Where is the evidence that unwanted babies are a net economic burden? Don't use beer parlor analysis for me.

Factually. The majority of abortions are to unmarried teens.
Factually. If they are forced to have children, somebody has to pay to raise those children. Who? Does the single mother pay? If you honestly believe that most single mothers pay for the raising of thier children without financial help from the state then I have to call you a liar for claiming that you live in the UK.
The benefit system here actively encourages teenagers to have children out of wedlock. They know they'll get a house and a state income. To pretend otherwise is just an utter joke.

And you keep spouting on about Ireland. As I've already told you - Irish woman who want abortions come to the UK. Literally thousands upon thousands travel to the UK each year. To use Ireland as an example is totally and utterly irrelevent.

Tell him to go to Tottenham, Peckham, Brixton, any of these. . . .

Bro, I daren't tell him that.
He'll go there and report back that the streets there are paved with gold!!!

He obviously lives in a different UK to the rest of us.

Aren't you bothered though, that African products- manufactured goods, don't command the same brand power that European, Asian and American goods have.

A lot of it has to do with advertising and marketing. European and American goods will sell because, generally, they are of good quality. Asian goods sell (if they're Japanese or Korean) because of innovation. Chinese goods sell because they're cheap,

But what are African goods known for? They don't have a niche in the market.

I wouldn't say Chinese control of the African economy is inevitable, but they will definitely have major influence. But Africa is not alone in this - the Chinese have recently got involved in the European economy in a big way. They've bought everything from major car manufacturers to banks. Fighting them off in Africa (if it becomes necessary) is going to be very, very difficult.

As the old saying goes - Money talks. Bullshit walks.
Na da Chinese dey got da moneys!!!

There is no iota of evidence that the products of unwanted pregnancies are a net economic burden. Not one.

LOL. And you claim to be living in the UK. A country where single mothers are a dozen a dime. And where they cost the state a fortune. And you're telling me there's no evidence!!! If single mothers here weren't granted abortions the system would be totally bankrupt within a year. And get this: America is no different!!!

LMAO. I'm in the UK too, dude. Don't try to tell me that a problem doesn't exist when I see it every day!!!!

The answer is simple;American babies are not an economic burden,to the contrary,they are an economic blessing.

Not if their mothers don't want them. They tend to be the sort of children who cost the state.
The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are to single teenage mothers. They cost the state a fortune.

Ireland today enjoys a better standard of living than most European countries,including Britain,notwithstanding the presence of "unwanted babies".

Because the majority of Irish women who want abortions travel to the UK to get it done. Are US women who don't want their babies going to travel to Mexico to get an abortion?

what is the difference between allah and the god of the old testament? The answer is nada, they are both the same.

You've got it in one, brother.

They are exactly the same god.

Christianity used the Old Testament god to sell it's new religion to it's prospective followers and Islam did exactly the same.
The difference is that the Christian god adapted and changed whereas the Islamic and Judaic god did not.

Pathetic. Still you balk, yet I've made it absolutely clear which policies I'm referring to. You've even managed to find a definition that clarifies it for you yet still you can't answer.

. a principle, plan, or course of action, as pursued by a government, organization, individual, etc. foreign policy

I can only assume that you don't have any answers.

I can only assume you're joking with both comments.

If you've read the Old Testament you see a god who encourages the Hebrews to destroy cities, kill every man there and take away and rape every woman. Damn girl, he even advocates the killing of children. So he's not a murderer? Those are the acts of a "sane" god? You want the passages, no problem, I can post them. There are a lot of them though so I'll just give you a few.



Kill Children

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.  (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

Kill Men, Women, and Children

    "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."  (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

God Kills Babies

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed.  Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.  (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Kill Old Men and Young Women

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD.  "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms.  With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer.  With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens.  With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers.  "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD.  "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth!  I am your enemy," says the LORD.  "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights.  When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble.  You will be desolate forever.  Even your stones will never again be used for building.  You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.  (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

More Rape and Baby Killing

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

And that's just for starters!!! There are pages and pages of literature that show the Old Testament god was a slavering maniac.



As for translations!!! Yes there have been many translations (I've already said that) but changing one English word to another is not a translation - it is a modification.

What particular policy do you seriously think you state above?

OK. Now you're just acting dumb. You're well aware that I'm referring to US foreign policy in those areas. Do you expect me to dissect every single policy regarding each particular issue? Are you incapable of giving a general overview? If you aren't then you clearly haven't listened to a word of any of McCain's speeches. Either that or he hasn't spoken of policy, in which case you're prepared to vote for someone who has made even fewer policy statements than Obama!! But then that would smack of ignorance wouldn't it?

Want me to narrow it down even more so you can skirt around the issue yet again?

Here goes:

Republican US policy in Afghanistan was to remove the Taleban, Since then, there has been no clarified exit strategy, hardly any reconstruction and the installed government has shown itself to pander to warlords and corruption. The strategies used by US forces are fuelling extremism to the nth degree.

Just so you can't wriggle out with yet more inane small talk, I'll clarify again:

Dealing with and supporting a corrupt government.
Fighting a losing battle against an enemy that is gaining ground and influence.


What would McCain bring to the table that is any different? Or would it be more of the same?

Now. Do you understand that? Stop playing petty semantics and answer the question. Otherwise don't bother challenging me on an issue you seem either unwilling or unable to reply to.

Bbng.

First and foremost this is a discussion forum and this topic is regarding the US elections. What are you doing here if you don't care?

Secondly, it's true US policy is primarily aimed towards it's own interests but it also benefits or hurts the international community.

Without US involvement, the world would probably be under the Nazi or Soviet jack-boot just as, at times, without it, it could possibly be a more peaceful place.

US policy affects everyone.

I would say you're the one skirting around the facts.


OK. Stated fact.

Iraq is in a mess.
Afghanistan is in a mess.
Israel is in a mess.

All deeply involved with US foreign policy.

Do you need it any more clearer or are you just going to state that this is an opinion?