₦airaland Forum

GenBuhari:
@ideylaff and Claus,
Whether or not you made numerous visits to Zimbabwe, does not automatically give you an insight to the motives of Mugabe nor does it mean you have an understanding of the reasons that lead to Mugabe's decision to start reclaiming and re-distributing land.

I need to ask you this question: Are you a black African?


What saddens me is that most people on this thread have simply adopted the view of Mugabe that the western white man nations want them to adopt.

I know that none of them have taken the time to research and understand Zimbabwean history and why Mugabe suddenly became evil overnight because he decided to stop listening to the dictates of his former colonial masters.

I have so much respect for the man.

Please take the time and do the research and form your own conclusions and opinions instead of being spoon-fed you opinions by the western media.

Let us start thinking for ourselves.

Hahahahahahaha

There was a time I was actually taking GenBuhari seriously. Now I know it's all a joke!

GenBuhari:
@ texazzpete,

Mugabe is for me the greatest living African, yes even greater than Nelson Mandela.

Because he is man enough to refuse to be dictated to by the white man / the West and has managed to remain in power despite their efforts.

Abacha was also a great leader as is General Buhari both of whom also defied the west, but paid the price, unfortunately Abacha paid with his life.

I repeat:

form your own opinions do not just adopt the whatever opinion the West wants you to adopt.

Have you wondered why it was only in the late 90's that Mugabe decided to start standing up to the West; why it was only in the late 90's/early 00's that the forceful and disorganised reclamation of white owned farms started? Understanding these events would help you see that Mugabe's rhetoric is selfish, hypocritical and highly vindictive.

Thankfully, my opinions weren't formed by the West, but by my numerous visits to Zimbabwe and interaction with Zimbaweans both within and outside the country. Most Zimbabweans outside of the Zanu-PF clique hate Mugabe with a passion and would be surprised that there are people hailing him as a hero or "greatest living African".

GenBuhari:
Reading some of the replies on this thread , I could not help wondering if some of those that replied are not racist whites instead of black Africans.

For any black African who does not see any merit in what Mugabe says and what he stands for, I would ask you to immediately pause and have a good look at yourself.

We need as Africans to gain ability for independent thoughts and views.

Many of us would need to stop adopting the Western perspective on all international affairs and adopt a stance or position best on our own best interests as Africans.

First off, start to question what ever you see on Western media about Africa and Africans.

In my opinion what makes Mugabe the greatest living African alive is that he had stood up to western bullies in much the same way as great African leaders Thomas Sankara,  Patrice lumumba and our own Abacha in the past  have done.

They came to enslave ivory coast, we said nothing because we were not Ivorians, they came for Libya and we said nothing because we were not Libyans.
When they come for us, would there be anybody left to speak up for us?

Africans think wisely, we need to unite abeg!

There may be some merit in what Mugabe has said, but when a man like that starts speaking about his ideas, you need to go back to his country to understand how those ideas have worked out for his people.

Of the African leaders you mentioned, only 2 of them (Lumumba and Sankara) stood up to the West IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PEOPLE. Abacha and Mugabe stood up to the West for their own selfish reasons. Their moves did not benefit their people at all. Lumumba and Sankara continue to be idolised by their people while Abacha and Mugabe continue to be hated by their people.

If standing up to the West is your only criterion for greatness, then Idi Amin should be your greatest non-living African!

xcolanto:
The rate at which NLers divert from the article and topic at hand is quite shameful. The subject of the article reads "Mugabe at the African union: Let`s stand up to the west". Yet most people are here blabbing about the local politics in Zimbabwe and farmlands! if anyone does not have anything to say relating to the content and the subject of the thread why not read and pass by than attack the personality of Mugabe rather than discuss the message his trying to pass across.  In my own opinion Africans and the A.U should find ways to handle their affairs rather than having the western countries pork-nosing in the affairs of the African continent.

Lol! In the process of accusing NLers of diversion, you spend 3 lines on the so called diversion and 1 line on the actual topic.

Mugabe, the man behind the words, is part and parcel of the discussion. If he feels free to share how Africans should stand up to the West, we should also be free to explore how his methods have worked out for his own country.

Kenyanstar:
Zimbabwe was considered the food basket of south & central africa but due sanctions it has left it in absolute destitution.

It was not sanctions that caused Zimbabwe to stop becoming the food basket of south & central Africa. It was the random, emotionally driven and disorganised seizure and transfer of productive farms to unqualified Zanu-PF supporting "farmers" who chopped down the trees for firewood, sold and ate the livestock without thoughts of replenishment and generally left the farms run down.

Let us not refer to some generic sanctions as being the cause of Zimbabwe's downward spiral. Please list the sanctions on here for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.

Yes, mickey jag has some good points. I personally believe the west have been rewarding themselves too heavily compared to the amount of value they actually create. They have also been living in a huge credit bubble, both as consumers and as governments. There will be some serious re-adjustment needed for them. However, I do not believe the sun has set on the west. They have recovered from much worse.

On the Mugabe front, someone needs to ask him what's happening to the natural resources that he's pretending he wants to protect from the West. Recent diamond discoveries in Zimbabwe are being monopolised by Zanu-PF officials and cronies and sold to *deep breath*, THE WEST.

The reason I am so fixated on this thread is that I know that Mugabe has used this same anti-white rhetoric to whip up sentiments amongst his people and against his opposition. It has caused irrational, emotionally driven revenge crime waves against white Zimbabweans and has ruined their economy.

We certainly need to address African relations with the West especially with regards to trade agreements. However, I pity Africa if the emotionally unstable Mr Mugabe has anything to do with that process. His activities in Zimbabwe must NOT be replicated across Africa.

Long One:
Speaking of African unity, you’all cannot even unite on a public forum; talk less of a country.

The west use that age-old trick of ‘divide and conquer’, apparently, it still works for them as you cannot for once lay down your grievances and agree that the man said something right.

We can agree that there is some truth in what he says, but we do not have to agree with all he is saying. We cannot also ignore the man's motives nor can we ignore his hypocrisy (Mugabe's lifestyle is awash with British influences) and wickedness towards his own people.

Family members disagree with one another all the time, it is not always a symptom of some external "divide and conquer" force.

If we are still divided, let's not kid ourselves that it is some puppet master in the West that is doing it. Many other regions have been let loose into the world economic and political playing field and are faring way better than we are. Why is the West not dividing and conquering them?

Kenyanstar:
Most of you guys criticiszing mugabe are ignorant of zimbabwe internal affairs. First, zimbabwe is one of the most beautifull, scenic cleanest countries in africa. You cannot even compare it with Nigeria. A visit to harare, capital city is like a walk in newyork. Its not only breathtaking but orderly. One of mugabes policies is to unify the country, but resistance from white minority group who still maintain apertheid role. Town like francistown r strictly white inhabited. The issue of tribalism is non existent. What is really hurting zimbabwe is sanctions not mugabe.

The people criticizing Mugabe are not ignorant of Zimbabwe's internal affairs. Two have mentioned that they lived there and I visit regularly. If you say Harare's is like New York, you are only referring to the grid system of the streets that was laid decades ago.

Harare is not as beautiful as it used to be. Zimbabweans themselves testify to that. Zimbaweans have run across their borders in their millions into South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique etc.

Mugabe does not have any policy of unifying the country, unless you mean he wants everyone to be united in their fear of him. You go and mention "gukurahundi" (killing of over 20,000 Ndebele in the 1980's by Mugabe's military) in Matabeleland and see the reaction you get.

The list is endless. No amount of PR can change the colour of the blood on that guy's hands.

People that know the real workings of Mugabe will never praise him. I don't even know where to start regarding how destructive his actions have been against his own people (apart from a selected group of Zanu-PF supporters).

The only good thing I can pick out of his general statement is that by now Africa should be at a stage where it can deal with the likes of Libya internally without the use of NATO. However, for whatever reason, Africa refuses to be at that stage. That's why NATO has the courage to come in and meddle. They CANNOT come and meddle in a place that is well organised and united.

If you look at it objectively, Mugabe is actually speaking from self-preservation. When tyrants like him are being eliminated, of course he is not going to support it. Mugabe is NOT a hero.

I have been to Zimbabwe 3 times in the last 4 years. The things you see there will cause you to cry. Do not be fooled by Mugabe. He does not care about anyone except himself and his supporters.

Sagamite:
Which one be fear? You chose that word to make it be like our masculinity is challenged?

True dat! An aversion to commitment does not equal fear.

Out of curiousity, for the ladies that are in relationships, do you intend to give your male partner anything?

In summary, one major (but not the only) aspect of this topic is that many guys are no longer interested in women that just want to "marry up".

The issue is not so much that women don't work (most of the ladies I know work). It's more to do with the fact that either by design or coincidence, a majority of women marry men with significantly more economic resources.

It's been tempting to turn this into a men vs women argument.

Taking a step back, I do see a trend of guys not wanting to get married. I have about 5 male cousins in their late 30's/early 40's who have never been married. That would have been unheard of a generation ago where all my uncles were married by their early 30's (most before 30).

So the sentiment the poster is sharing is real with many guys. I can see why a lot of ladies here have become defensive, but that defensiveness just smothers what many men consider to be a real issue.

Awon boys have wisened up and are no longer ready to settle for just a pretty face.

From what I'm seeing, the guys on here aren't really saying marriage isn't worth it. They just want the standard of the babe to be much higher than average. Boys are getting very picky, just like women have been for centuries.

Marriage is definitely still worth it.
From a family perspective, a happy marriage is the best environment to raise children.
For the couple, if they are both the selfless types, they can really add value to each other's lives.

Where wahala starts is when one or both go in with a very strong sense of entitlement, where one spouse believes it is the other's duty to make sure they are always happy.

^^^
Excellent example of why we should always read around a verse by ourselves. Nice one.

Nice topic, but the whole idea about settlers is a misconception.

Why settle if you truly believe you can do better (based on whatever criteria you want to use)?

Simply put, "settling" is just another word for "REALITY CHECK"!

The relationships I've seen in this generation where the woman earns more than the man have been quite good. It's probably because they still accord each other with respect.

However, I do know of someone who says her man must earn more than her. I get the impression she can't respect a man who doesn't. Not good!

Those in the know have pointed out that it is likely to be used illegally. That's all you need to know!

hercules07:
Kanu is a good man, though he is approaching 50, he is one man with a good heart (pardon the pun)

LOL!!!

East:
dare2think@just to add to an answer already given to you.

1corinths 9:11, if we have sown spiritual seeds among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?

1corinths 9:12, if others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?.we didnot use this right. on the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

1corinths 9:13, Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered at the altar?

1corinth 9:14, in thesame way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should recieve their living from the gospel.You can read all of 1corinth 9 to have a clue of the rights of the apostles or men of God.
Hope this answers your question.
Thanks and be blessed.

How do the above verses account for the EXCESSES that we see today, and how many pastors do we know that show the same discipline that  Paul showed in exercising those rights?

It is now quite clear why Paul also gave some requirements in 1 Timothy 3 that anyone aspiring to be an overseer should "not (be) a lover of money".

The combination of lovers of money and access to all those rights mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9 is what has led to the proliferation of millionaire/billionaire pastors even in impoverished countries like Nigeria.

Splitting hairs. Funny.

It's obvious that the term racist pertains to race, and for those to whom it is not obvious, it is now.

OP, surely you mean prejudiced, not racist.

Mrs, Chima:
When I said THE WEST, I was speaking of geography because of the title.  I wasn't speaking of culture.  

I thought it was self explanatory since I didn't mention western culture.

As a final word so I don't detract from the thread. When people talk about the West e.g. "Western Woman" as it was used in the title, they are referring to western culture (as is evident from the issues she described). It is used in everyday speech. Most Europeans (including Swedes) are Western.

I'm out!

Mrs, Chima:
Explain what?  Google isn't working on your computer?  

It does work, although I didn't really need it. Swedish culture would be considered western culture. The West is not actually defined just be geography. Most of Europe would be considered the West, some would even consider Australia while referring to the West. If the West is purely geographical, then Mexico, Nicaragua etc would count.

I wanted to understand why you said it wasn't considered the West that's why I asked you to explain.

Mrs, Chima:
Kafe, ARE YOU WHITE FOR REAL?

By the way Sweden isn't considered the West, but I got you.

Sweden not considered West? Please explain.

From Wislet:
Lol. Hope u ain't one of dem? De ones dat put down their women? [i][/i]

Nope. Yours truly is a black man married to a black woman. Although I'll admit that black women SEEM to have more attitude than white women, I've always been more attracted to our black sisters.

DAYUM!!! That'll teach her.

@daves2ng, my guy, my advice to you is similar to pro01. However, I would also add that you should first ask her straight up "I've noticed you've been a bit distant lately, is anything the matter?"

If she says "nothing", there is a strong chance the matter has to do with you, and she is just trying to hide it. In that case you can pretty much do what pro01 said. I would only say that if the change in her mood continues for an unreasonably long period, then you can walk away.

Relationships are supposed to make you happy, not stress you out.

The prevalence of prenuptial agreements (in the West) shows a big failing of the judiciary in relation to marriage laws.

It clearly shows that most wealthy people (men or women) do not trust the legal system to deal with them fairly in the case of a divorce.

I still shake my head at the woman I saw on one year's Forbes rich list, source of wealth: Divorce Settlement.

The men in the original post clearly showed some arrogance.

Other posters have helped to balance out this arrogance thing though. Clearly in the Naija setting, the propensity for arrogance rests with the one with the power.

Pre and during toasting, the power rests with the ladies so that's the likely source of arrogance.

Post toasting/marriage, the power rests with the man which is where the arrogance has come from in this post.

nlMediator:
I didn't attack you for mentioning the wikipedia link I provided. I was only trying to confirm its utility, despite relentless attacks to the contrary.

I don't think the crminal aspect is relevant to our discussion. So, I'd rather leave it out.

On whether the girl consented, the truth is that nobody knows, without additional facts. Which is what I've hearped on since the start. Those who presume to know what the girl consented to or what usually obtains in that church are free to continue in that direction. Although I can see some softening in accepting that it may be different if it was a private deliverance session. We never heard such distinction earlier, even when opportunities to do so presented themselves.

Another thing is that I see you bought into the subjective standard diversion.  The reality, however, is that you guys are misstating and misapplying the subjective standard. The principle is that if you know of danger and walk into it, you’re responsible. It’s not that if you know there’s danger, but you do not expect the danger to apply to you, you’re free of blame and the other party is responsible for the resulting danger. If you have a church (not saying Oyedepo’s church is one) that believes in deliverance by occasional slaps, advertizes the same on TV and you walk into that church for deliverance and are slapped, it would be ridiculous to claim that even though you knew of the deliverance slaps, you’re too reasonable to expect that to happen to you. However, if the church does not usually administer slaps or you did not know of that, or the practice is so unreasonable, and so you did not reasonably expect a slap, volenti will not avail the defendant. That’s the proper application of the subjective standard. If you have authorities to the contrary, please provide. And I’ll provide at least 20 authorities to support my own position.

For a start, there's this fairly recent case in New York. A prison inmate was injured in an indoor basketball court. He fell into a hole in the floor, that he likely did not even know existed. Subjectively, he could not have consented to it. But the court still held him partially responsible, relying on volenti. The case is Braithwaite v. State, 26 Misc.3d 1239(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 435 (Table)N.Y.Ct.Cl.,2009 (June 26, 2009). I'll provide more facts on it in a separate post for those interested.

The girl was slapped in anger while trying to explain her "witchcraft" and we still say nobody knows whether she consented to being slapped!!!

The case of the prison basketball player is clearly different. I skimmed the details you provided and it clearly says the players may not remember that particular hole in the court, but they knew the court was defective and had a number of holes. The players clearly knew and accepted the risks of playing on the court, so your statement about him falling into a hole he "likely did not know existed" is misleading. In any case, the verdict clearly shows that the defendant was also partially responsible, so it's perhaps not the strongest case you could have brought forward. I commend your resourcefulness in this matter though.

I'm not so sure where you got my "buying into the subjective standard diversion". Ironically, my one word response was to stop me from being diverted into an area I knew I didn't have enough information to defend, but to you that one word itself was enough to conclude that I had been diverted.

Also not sure where you "see some softening, if it was a private deliverance session". I suspect that in responding to both Enigma and I, you attribute responses to the wrong person.

I'm jumping off the carousel at this point. Enjoy Christmas!

I'M OUT!!!