₦airaland Forum

Krankhead:
stupid yourself
Everyone is free to support who he or she wants.
I supported Tinubu and I will still support him in the next election.
Anyone that doesn't like my choice can jump into the Lagoon

No wahala, a people get the leadership they deserve afterall.

nerde:
Buhari was a tactician after all

This has become painfully obvious.

tctrills:
Let me give you a very extensive season on Apartheid in Palestine. This will be the best you will ever get.
Now read and learn.

You should credit the source of this article. Where did you cull it from?

tctrills:
Again you are wrong, Palestine did not exist as a state under the Saladins, or the Ottoman, or the Romans. And if the state existed but belonged to the British, What rights do your Arabs have over the Jews? The British are free to divide the land as they deem fit and that's exactly what happened. They allowed the UN to make the decision.

If you read carefully, you will see that I am not wrong, but no matter: the division caused a war (naturally) and we have had eight decades of conflict as a consequence.

Where does any of this justify the apartheid being practiced by the Jews?

None of the previous rulers of that space practiced that on them.

All these are distractions. The fundamental question remains if it is right for the Jews to perpetuate apartheid and genocide and enslavement in today's world.

Thats the question. Especially against a population indigenous to the land for a thousand years.

tctrills:
What are you talking about?
The Arabs never created the state of Palestine. It was created under the British Mandate by the British. It was not an independent state. It was the property of the British. Neither the Arabs nor the Jews were responsible for it. So why accuse the Jews for not creating a state as if your Arabs created any? How do you even reason?

Independence was the not the question. The existence of a state was the question. And that state had existed under various rulers and divisions and forms from the time of the Romans through to the time of the Crusades, through to the Ottomans, through to the British.

tctrills:
Please what is the UN's position on the annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China in 1951?

Inconsequential: this is whataboutism. It appears the point was lost on you when I said whataboutism does not affect legal matters. Let me break it down to your kindergarten level.

If you are accused of stealing and taken to court, the fact that you say -"whatabout Deepsight who also stole" will not make you innocent. If there is evidence that you stole, you will be found guilty even if Deepsight uses his political connections to avoid being prosecuted.

Your "whataboutist" query can only go to the fairness in the system, and never the legality of your own conviction.

This also shows up how you fail to understand the distinction between law and morals and repeatedly conflate them.

tctrills:
1. Why did the 70% not establish a state either?

There was already a state. It was called Palestine.

Why did the Palestinians never fight for a state in Gaza and the West Bank between 1948 and 1967? Stop asking questions your side can't answer.

The fight continues till this day.

2. The 30% agreed to land sharing but your 70% went to war to take everything. They lost and wars have consequences. Without the 1948 war, these would have been two peaceful neighboring nations

You know very well it was an amalgam of the surrounding Arab countries that went to war. Yes, they lost and wars have consequences, but you act as though that was the end of the matter. Several conflicts and rapproachments have happened since in the period from then till now, several agreements and disruptive events: at all events the international community agrees that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and even Israel's uncle, the USA agrees.

tctrills:
You claim you did not say that but just repeated it in your last paragraph. Your point is that according to UN law, China is free to invade Tibet and Turkey to take over northern Syria because the UN did not establish those borders. I am really enjoying your thought process.

Not my point. Your confusion.

DeepSight:
1. Why did 30 per cent not establish a state, why did it take the returnees from Europe to do so?
2. How do 30 per cent establish ownership over 70 per cent?

Let me add that even that 30 per cent represented returnees gradually over the preceding centuring.
Moslems had been the vast majority there for several vcenturies already.

As of circa 1700 the Jewish per cent would have been single digit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_%28region%29

tctrills:
A negligible remnant is not decisive according to UN laws or your own made of laws. please explain this one, my boy. Anyway by 1947, Jews made up at least 30 percent of the population of Palestine, is that negligible?

1. Why did 30 per cent not establish a state, why did it take the returnees from Europe to do so?
2. How do 30 per cent establish ownership over 70 per cent?

tctrills:
Read your history oga there have always been Jews in the land of Palestine even under Arab rule, Ottoman rule, and the British mandate so the idea that the Jews completely left is false.

A negligible remnant is not decisive in these matters, be serious. Or I know you will be so extreme as to claim that even if there were two Jews left there, then it was the presence of a nation. Be serious for once.

They left as a nation and thats why the people who came back to establish the state of Israel came from Europe, and were not the remnant there.

tctrills:
Ok, you mean the UN laws only apply to countries founded by the UN right?

I didnt say this.

Generally, they apply to signatories.

But jurisprudentially, laws on crimes against humanity apply to everyone, signatories or not.

My point was regarding your reference: the U.N is not in the same unique position regarding the borders of China or Turkey as it did not establish those borders.

Please stop reading X and seeing Y.

tctrills:
Oh you mean they were not supposed to return back home after 2000 years but your arabs should return after 76 years. Is that also a UN rule or have you just invented this one?

They never left.

tctrills:
Good, my boy so it is completely stupid to depend on the UN in explaining what is legal or not. This is a body that turns a blind eye whenever it wants. I would not look to the UN to determine what is and what is not because I would end up as confused as you are right now. The Un is ok with Turkey and with China but not ok with Russia and Israel does that make any sense to you my boy?

Israel's matter with the U.N is actually unique because neither Turkey nor China was founded by the U.N. And before you start repeating the same tired line as to whether that means Israel must be a slave to the U.N, no, it means the U.N is simply in an eminently suitable position to discuss the matter of its borders and give historical pointers thereto.

I mentioned the ICJ, is Israel not bound by that, despite being a party?

tctrills:
That's exactly what you did. You have clearly stated that Israel lost their right to the lands they lost in 70 AD.

By dint of remaining in Europe for 2000 years, not for any other reason.
Returning two millenia after to claim exclusivity is a problem.

And mind you, I didnt say I have a problem with returning. So long as it is done with consideration of those who have then become indigenous in the intervening time, without practicing apartheid on them and oppresing them.

tctrills:
Why was there no UN resolution against the Arabs for their 1948 land grab? They started a war with the sole purpose of taking over all the land the UN gave to Israel and your UN turned a blind eye. Please do your research. You have much to learn

You havent even properly read what you are responing to here. I will help you by emboldening one word therein. Go back to it.

tctrills:
Was there any UN resolution when In the 20th century, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia. Primarily a consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the mass movement mainly transpired from 1948 to the early 1970s, with one final exodus of Iranian Jews occurring shortly after the Islamic Revolution in 1979–1980. An estimated 650,000 (72%) of these Jews resettled in Israel.
How come the UN is not asking that these lands be given back to the Jews?
Please explain.

This is "whataboutism" and it never speaks to questions of legality.

That teh UN has been inactive in other crimes against humanity does not answer the fundamental legal questions at play with Israel's international crimes, its apartheid and its crimes against humanity.

It also does nothing to address the indigeneity of Arabs in Palestine which is the fundamental question of this thread.

tctrills:
That's your entire explanation. According to you, it was ok to displace the Jews before the UN but now the Arabs are protected by the UN.
As I said, you only get more foolish as we discuss.

I never commented on the morality of displacement of populations prior to the present international order. I commented on the legality as accepted. Let this sink in.

tctrills:
I have have answered you in my post above but to summarize your point, you believe that if I took your land from you before 1945 when the UN was founded, it's mine forever and you will be wrong to fight for it after 1945.
You keep getting more stupid.
So let's assume Nigeria stole land from Niger in 1944, in 1946, Niger will no longer have claims to that land under your law.
Do you think before your type?

If this is what you got from my explanation you are truly hopeless.
Suffce to say this is not what I was communicating to you.

tctrills:
So you are saying that any land taking before the UN came on board should not be given back right?
Is that your entire point because you are looking more foolish with your explanation.
If the UN hold all the power and decide who owns which land then why did your Arab bros reject Israel in 1948 and go to war in a bid to claim the land given to Israel by the UN?
Please answer this.
What did the UN do to protect thousands of Jews kicked out of the communities by the Jordanian government in the West Bank in 1948.
Did the UN sanction Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and co for kicking out over 800k Jews from their country?
Can you see that you are not making sense.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, how come no UN sanctions?
When China took over almost 10% of Bhutan's land, how come no UN sanctions.
When China took over Tibet, how come no sanctions.
Do you see you are not making sense?

I have told you what international law is, I have neither asserted that conflicts do not happen, nor that genocides and illegal occupations do not happen, or that international crimes and crimes against humanity are not committed. For heavens sake we had South African Apartheid until the 1990s.

You really suffer from a serious problem with common sense and basic understanding such that it is strenous trying to communicate basics to you. This is why I joke with you so much, because serious discussions with you are almost impossible and are always very painful on account that you are near retarded.

Your assumption that one has ever claimed the UN to be some school prefect or global policeman with any powers of enforcement of its own is so misfooted one does not know where to start. And that arose and stuck in your mind simply because I informed you that on the subject of its borders, the UN is instrumental to Israel on account of the role it played in its establishment.

You keep shouting that Israel is not bound by this, and not bound by that. Yes it is not bound by the ICC as it is not a party to that treaty, but it is certainly bound by the ICJ as it is a party to that. And yet it ignores the rulings of that. It has always ignored all rulings and violated all international law with impunity. And that is simply because it is assured of US backing. The day that goes, perhaps they will behave.

So you are saying that any land taking before the UN came on board should not be given back right?

And if this is all you derived from my explanation, then you are truly hopeless.

tctrills:
Loooool.
We both know you made a fool out of yourself and now you are looking for excuses.
Oga answer the question if dem born you well.
Why are the Jews not allowed back to their home after being forced out but you think the
Arabs have a right to the lands they lost.

I have since stopped being befuddled by your sheer irrationality. It used to really shock me but not any more.

Now listen up. After the second world war, an international order was established. It was the first time you had the concept of international law actually existing. That international order had the United Nations as its centre and citadel. That organization created the legal framwork for the establishment of Israel through the British Mandate for Palestine.

Prior to this time, and throughout history, might was right. Anyone who could conquer another did so, and "rightfully" seized his land/ colonized him/ enslaved him and expropriated his resources. That was the law of the jungle under which mankind lived. It took the horrors of the world wars for humanity to say no to this, and set up the international community and the international legal order. From that time, it became, by consensus, legally unnaceptable for one state to seize the land of another state by force. This became an international crime.

This is why the Russian attack on Ukraine is legally unnacptable. This is why Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait was also unnaceptable. Other instances can be cited, but even you should catch the drift. That which formerlly obtained as the law of the jungle had been displaced. And legally so, for law is made by people and groups of people in concurrence.

As such, the wars which involved Israel and the Arabs, despite being fought, did not truncate that new international order. Nor did those wars banish the Arab population of Palestine - indeed not even Israel claimed so, so please school yourself properly. Israel claimed land, yes, and in some areas it returned lands it had claimed - for example, to Egypt. In no case was a banishment of the Arab population the result, so what are you saying? That simply never happened. Therefore your qustion falls flat on its face. It also is a non starter in light of what I have explained to you in terms of the law of the jungle (which operated at both at the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D and the time of the crusades which involved Saladdin - who, by the way, did not kick Jews out of Jerusalem) being replaced by the international order of the latter 20th century.

This answers your question in exact terms, and I neednt have had to explain it but for your painful ignorance and irrationality. I also have no doubt that the explanation will still be lost on you on account of your irredeemable fanaticism. So I only render it here for posterity and the the causal reader of my posts - and certainly not for you, for I know that would be a waste of time and energey.

tctrills:
My boy. Nothing you have said explains your earlier stupidity or justifies your point.
Please read my question and stop being disorganized.
Let me ask it again since you are confused.
If the Jews don't have a right to their home after being forced out, why should your Arabs have a right to it.
Focus on the topic my child

You cant seem to read. The key question in the OP was this -

DeepSight:
How long is a group required to dwell in a place before being considered indigenous thereto?

tctrills:
Loool
You just made a fool of yourself as always.
You are the same boy who thinks Israel should always be slaves to the UN because it was founded by the UN mandate but you don't think Nigeria should answer to the UK even though we were established by the British mandate.
You are confused.

Obviously you dont know the difference between a state with uncontested borders and a state in a state of war, over internationally created borders. Furthermore you dont understand the difference between the roles of the UN as a multilateral global body and that of a singular colonial authority. I have long since known you are dense, I will not worry myself. You are unteachable, which is the worst thing a teenage discussant such as yoruself can be.

Please make sure you take the meds and report to the psych ward by six a.m.

Otherwise we may have to deploy force to evacuate you from the streets.

tctrills:
You believe the Jews have no right to their home after being forced out but the Arabs should have the right to the land after being kicked out in a war the started. Continue

I said have you taken the meds? ? ? ?

Answer me!
A group of military nurses has been dispatched to contain you.

Cooperate.

tctrills:
Confused as usual and you have zero understanding of history.
But by your logic, if the Jews have no right to their home after being forced out, why should the Arabs be granted such a right.
My boy, you have a long way to go.
Talking about both groups reaching a peaceful resolution, it was your Arabs that rejected this in 1948 and in the Oslo accords and even the Trump peace plan.
My boy, your journey is only beginning.

Have you taken the meds?
The shrink is really disturbed by your condition.

Ananias and Sapphira

Acts 5 vs 1- 11

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events

Meteng:
The cane used on the first wife is behind the door, waiting for the second wife

This reminds me of the treatment provided by Peter the Apostle to Ananias and Sapphira -

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? "Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

tctrills:
Have you heard of King David? Why do you believe that the Jews are not the indigenous people of the West Bank?

I have addressed this question in detail in posts you said you were not minded to read.

And my position has been simple, being away for 2000 years it is absurd for them to return and claim exclusivity over a land others have occupied for 1000 years. However in light of the wars which have transpired since 1948, both sets of people ought to reach reasonable compromises which recognize one another's human and national rights devoid of the apartheid, segregation and colonialism which currently obtains.

PS: I hope you have taken your medication this morning and afternoon. We are very concerned because the psychiatrist has been looking for you.

GUNITGuy:
They get knack easily one guy can knack almost half the Ladies in a class ......I still have friends who have never knack Since they were born in their 30s as for me I don't think I have done more than 5 and am in my 30s ...I stopped 3yrs going and want to remain so it's not worth the stress women put you through and the sacrifices that comes with it....I barely call no Matter what ....if you visit me I would just entertain you with food and gist and you go
I stopped spending money on Oloshos

Five? In your thirties? This is alarming. Apostle, Imam, Village Head and Mafia Boss must all hear this. We need to launch a recus mission to save your sexual life. We will hire an entire strip club if necessary.

ValCon888:
The girl child matures faster than the boy child. And that's why she's first exposed to sex. There's a reason why when you see a group of teens interacting together, you hear the females insultingly call the males "small boys".

It's because those girls are no longer virgins. They've eaten the forbidden apple and their eyes are now open. At that age, their brains are not fully developed, but their lust and horniness is at its fullest potential.

The young girls of today sleep with married men without inhibitions. The older girls have slept with the married men of 20 years ago.

That is why you can get the younger girls to do whatever you want in the sexual arena, while the older girls are saving the leftover scraps for her husband.

The depreciation of her body is directly proportional to the maturation of her brain.

The older women (Evening Newspapers) are the wisest sages because they've seen it all and done it all. It's highly difficult to get into their pants without concrete evidence of marriage intentions. They still have their Hot, lustful side, but it's strictly reserved for the men willing to put a ring on her finger.

However, except she fully commits to religion, these older ladies will continue to find the sneakiest and most devious ways to satiate the lust that was unleashed in her youth.

I could go on and on but I will stop by saying one last thing; the cycle of whorishness and promiscuity can only stop through the proper education and empowerment of the girl child.

Men and women knack, period.

Saladdin:
@Deepsight, bulk of the current Jews in Israel today are only Jews by association, not by ethnicity. Any wonder why they have no respect for the Holy City of Jerusalem. What many fail to realize is that most of the real Jewish people (by ethnicity) do not support Satanyahoo.

Only in Nairaland will you see people supporting others (who hate them) just to spite the others. Being a Christian in Israel means debasement, being an African means doubles debasement.

Saladin (May God Bless Him) was one of the most noblest Generals from his time down to the modern day. (I chose his name as my moniker). He understood the significance of the Holy land of Jerusalem to Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Hence, he tried to preserve it's sanctity.

While the Europeans Crusaders we're rulling the city, they killed, raped and punished the Jews.

When Saladin the great conquered Jerusalem, he did so without destroying the city, nor seizing the properties of others, nor raping nor shedding innocent blodd. He treated his PoW with the highest respect and courtesy and even forgave many of his enemies, despite their atrocities. He also allowed Non-Muslims access to it while he could have claimed it alone, and rightfully so.


This is what the current barbarians in Israel and their supporters on Nairaland needs to know. Anyone or group of people organizing gay parades, commiting murder and desecration can only be of the devil, not God.

Satanyahoo and co will definitely be disgraced.

May you be blessed for this post.