Flows001: If we are judging the "ownership" of a place based on who has lived the longest, then THE JEWS own the land.
I am aware of all the history you have given so far, but you failed to take the history farther backwards to the very beginning, of course in a mischievous bid to cover the actual truth!
How about I take you farther a bit?!
The quran mentioned the Jews over 40 times and even emphatically stated that they own the land of Israel.
In SURA 5:21, the quran records Moses speaking to the Jews thus:
"O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”
There are many other evidences in your own quran that clearly talks about that, mind you, no SINGLE mention of "Palestine" was made in the entire quran. In fact, even Muhammad never mentioned nor made ANY trip to Israel during his lifetime, as ARABS practically had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do on that land.
Now let's go back to the Old Testament of the Bible which is thousands of years older than the quran.
The Bible mentions more detailed account of that land, starting from the exodus of Jews from Egypt, down to how they wandered for 40years in the wilderness before finally settling on tge said land, which was apparently the promised land thaf YAHWEH had promised to their father JACOB.
Any angle you come from, your argument is flawed. Trying to IMPOSE Arabs in a land they never had any strong historical and cultural connection to is an effort in futility. The places mentioned in the Bible are still in Israel till date, which further shows you that the JEWS are historical owners of that place. The site of the temple of King Solomon, the places where virtually all Biblical events happened on the land can still be traced till this day. The burial sites of the Jewish ancestors and Prophets are still present till date. Archaeologists have uncovered so many artifacts connected to the JEWS that date thousands of years ago.
Now I ask, what cultural or historical connection do the ARABS have on the land??
History bears witness that the ARABS own ARABIA (present day Saudi Arabia), none of them ever existed in the land throughout the days of Moses, King David, Solomon, down to Jesus Christ and his disciples!!
The Land belongs to the JEWS, and no amount of propaganda or hatred can take that away from them!!
By the way, you never addressed my point on who actually started the unrest, you had initially tried to blame Israel for beginning the conflict, but after I gave you a summary of how the whole ARAB/ISRAELI wars began, you deviated into half baked history..
+ If you really want to go as far back as possible then answer the following questions.
1. Where did Abraham come from? That's right. Iraq.
2. Were there not Canaanites living there before the Jews came along and started committing genocide against them to steal their land such as with what happened at Jericho?
seunmsg: People can share their experience about a person they know and even speak well of them without necessarily being in the same political camp with them.
The UK state visit of President Tinubu is an historic one and it should normally be a moment of proudness for every citizen of Nigeria. You don’t have to be bitter and negative about everything.
+ How is a state viist an acheivement?
In his personal journey as an individual, yes, as Sowunmi said, it is a remarkable point to arrive at, considering his history in exile there.
But it does nothing for Nigeria as a country, indeed it remains a shame that we can have someone of such dubious character before the world.
House niccas without the benefits of living in the big house
Social media has worked a real number on us
+ Benalvino3, I strongly recommend that you listen to this clip every morning and evening for the next seven days and meditate on it. Same recommendation goes to tctrills, basilico and raumdeuter. Indeed to all African / black Trumpists.
budaatum: Golly, your knowledge is very limited indeed.
Ancient Rome was very diverse in culture. The went to Greece to learn about law culture, and that contributed to their becaming an empire.
Ancient Britain and modern is a nation of diverse cultures. People migrated there from all over with their own cultures and added to what helped create the British Empire with its diverse cultures on which the sun never set.
Ancient and modern China is a nation of diverse cultures. They even adopted what of the culture of USA that they could adopt after the Treaty of Wanghia, having found how inferior to USA they were. So was ancient and modern Germany, France, Italy, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Malaysia, UAE, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mexuco, Venezuela, etc etc etc. All had and continue to have people of diverse cultures living withing their borders.
Every nation on earth has diversity of culture. Even we Yorubas don't all have the same culture, nor do the Igbos and Hausas have one culture. I'd even go as far as claiming siblings may have different cultures, but I'd need to educate you on what culture is for you to understand, and you haven't paid schoolfees for me to bother. The sum of it however is that not everyone in the same place may necessarily have the same system of behaviors, beliefs, values, customs, and norms that define a group of people, and the diversity enriches, as USA with its diverse cultures from all over clearly shows.
+ This is superb and deserves a crate of well aged wine.
Nevertheless, giving this to benalvino3 you fall foul of Matthew 7:6 and Proverbs 23:9.
bemeruca: Using racial slur at one person does not make you a racist. To be a racist you have to be consistent with the ideology, it has to apply to everyone in that group not just one person you have issue with.
Even Ibrahim X kendy sees this.
Once you use killing to contrast racial act the way you guys are doing, your analogy becomes laughable.
The N word is a slur in context. If black calls each other the N word it is okay, whites do it then it is not. For murder, that debate is not there.
+ At all events, Trump has been consistently racist for decades.
bemeruca: I didn't say that's what you said, but it's a valid argument against what you said to deepsight. Your argument is flawed, so It flips the script perfectly.
+ Being racist to one person makes you racist just as murdering one person makes you a murderer, and just as surely as stealing from one person makes you a thief.
You don't need to be a serial killer to be a killer and you don't need to be a career thief to be a thief.
In the case of Trump however, there is an entire career load of corroborative evidence of that racism.
basilico: *As for the blue' America is a nation of immigrants. Which worked out to make it the greatest nation in history... Not everyone believes this.
+ Opinions are free, facts are sacred. It is a nation of immigrants and that is exactly what has made it so great.
I believe nations should preserve their culture, identity,traditions and values.
+ America's identity is not limited to one specific culture as it is an amalgamation of many cultures. However its values are as enshrined in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution and these are essentially the values of freedom. Virtually no immigrants are against those values except certain Islamists and I agree they need to be rather cautious of the influence of Islam. Europe also needs to be cautious because in the day that Muslims become a majority in Europe, all the hard won liberties of Europe, fought for through centuries of blood will be lost.
America as a nation should not take in people who want to destroy it from within
+ No nation should do this and no one suggests that America should.
Prosperity doesn't come from diversity and that's why I pointed out the Asian tigers.
+ There are obviously many different templates for prosperity.
You can't keep taking in immigrants from wherever because they built the nation.
+ It will remain ironical and hypocritical for the children of immigrants to say no to immigration. In many cases it is actually absurd, as you will see actual immigrants vigorously being anti-immigration. Its simply the story of the crab who gets out of the basket and fights to make sure no other crab does, or the man who climbs the ladder and then destroys it. Its nauseating. Just look at Trump and Vance, both married to foreigners and screaming against immigration. In the case of Melania they actually gave a stripper an Einstein Immigration Pass. Imagine that.
benalvino3: My point is trump can use derogatory or racist trope directed at one particular person because he 8s that particular person, because he wants to hurt the person. That does not necessarily mean Trump is a racist.
Also, the original video I cited has nothing to do with racism too.
When you are close-minded, you want to get out of that little box of yours.
My point is about the essence of the nuance I've been highlighting throughout this discussion. a specific derogatory or prejudiced remark even one drawing on a racist trope, can stem from personal animosity, a desire to wound a particular rival, or situational anger, without the person holding a broader, ideological belief in racial hierarchies. That isolated act can still be called racist because it leverages racial prejudice to inflict harm, but it doesn't automatically brand the person as a racist.
When you used a derogatory trope on me, I did not accuse you in a broader context, I knew your specific insult was directed at me.
+ Desperate. Only shows the absurd extent you will go to defend the man.
You think your one-sided view is how the world operates?
This is why studies have shown that people like you get skoin skoin. For una head
You are hurling racially charged insults at me specifically because i refused to label the Trump video as proof of blanket racism, and because I am defending nuance around intent againsg isolated acts.
Oga, again, you are using racist tropes/slurs to attack me and my opinion on a discussion about racism. The irony is glaring here, you condemn rightly or wrongly any perceived racial dehumanization in the ape video as unforgivable racism yet you immediately turns around and deploys your own racial insults Uncle Tom/Rukus to demean and delegitimize me as a Black person for the sin of wrongthink.
This is a textbook hypocrisy in full display: racism is only bad when the other side does it. When it's convenient for attacking a dissenter, suddenly racial slurs become fair game abi?
You demands 0 tolerance for even isolated/targeted racial image or tropes when it targets people you like but freely uses racialized attacks when it suits your agenda against a person you disagree with. that's a tribal weaponization of race as a cudgel coupled with your emotions. If you truly cared about combating racism, you wouldn't stoop to racial insults to win argument.
Calling me Uncle Tom/Rukus doesn't refute my point about intent or isolation it just proves you're willing to sling the same kind of derogatory racial mud while pretending moral superiority.
+ You are wasting your time. I am not interested in engaging a person such as you. You are not worth it.
benalvino3: Do it na. I provided the link which shows the input is from a fresh chat. I encourage everyone to just take that input or prompt and put it in chatgpt, grok and Gemini and see how petty deepsight is.
Flows001: Do you mind educating me on that please?
The last I checked, this whole fighting started when Israel got its independence in 1948. The Arabs just simply wanted to "erase" the Jews at all cost, for merely existing.
+ Let us take a walk down the demographics of the area through history to understand the issues better.
The history of the matter is that roughly two thousand years ago, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews into diaspora. They went into Persia but mostly into Europe where they suffered much persecution through the middle ages, the renaissance, the enlightenment and all the way through to the 20th century where they suffered the holocaust.
In the intervening time, Islam had arisen in the 7th Century AD, and by the turn of the millennium the crusades had begun in which troupe after troupe of Christian armies generation after generation sought to displace the Muslims from the "Holy Land." This went back and forth over a couple of centuries and the land would alternate between Islamic and Christian authority - all the time retaining a small Jewish population. The long and short of it is that the presence of Arabs in that land dates back at least one thousand years now.
Now, moving on, by the time the second world war ended, I hope you know that the British had made promises to the Jews via Zionists that they would create a homeland for them in Palestine. At that time, the place was mostly occupied by Arabs like I said, for about a thousand years already. It is unreasonable to claim that it was not home to them. Besides, the European Jews who were returning had been so adulterated that one cannot really claim that they are necessarily of the same ancestry as the Israelites of old. Frankly, most of them today are noticeably white.
At the end of the 19th century, the Jewish population in Palestine constituted a small minority, making up about 5-7% of the total population. The majority of the population was Muslim (around 80%) and Christian (around 10%)."
Please look at the table of demographics in the link below which sets out the percentage of population of each group (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) at various points in history.
1. From 1517 to 1882 through the rule of the Ottoman empire, the Jewish population varied from 1.7% to 8%. Thus it is clear that the Jews were a distinct minority throughout that period.
2. By the end of the 1st World War, they had become 9.1%.
3. Throughout the period of the British Mandate they grew from 11 percent in 1922 to 32% in 1937. This was the period of the first wave of significant Zionist migration from Europe, and so it is obvious that the majority of Jews in the land were now migrants from Europe.
But hang on, the evidence gets worse -
4. Between 1947 and 1948 - a period of one year only - the year of the creation of the State of Israel, the percentage of Jews jumped from 32% to a staggering 82% - in ONE year only!
This shows conclusively two things -
a. That the migration from Europe formed almost all of the population of Jews by that time as compared to the negligible percent prior to the British Mandate
b.In the same period of ONE year the poulation of non-Jews fell from 1.3 million people to 156, 000 people!
The foregoing discloses conclusively what had transpired. A mass migration of Europeans had flooded the land and there was a mass evacuation/ removal of non-Jews.
Please note that these figures are from the Jewish Virtual Library, lest you claim they are biased.
The above is the historical background and the bold red discloses what the so called proxies of Iran are reacting to aside from the fact that the Israeli State has practically imprisoned and enslaved the Palestinians in an open air Concentration Camp called Gaza while still stealing their land in the West Bank up till today through illegal settlements.
The desperation and corruption of the Frog are so total that it is very unlikely that he can lose any election in this country even if no one votes for him.
benalvino3: Na. I just Input what I said and what you said. This is an example of you not accepting reality. You are too emotional
+ Trash.
The issues go far beyond those single posts. As I said, I can frame an input with any result I desire in mind as well. Grow up and learn to make your synapses connect.
This exchange highlights a classic clash in how people define "racism"—specifically the divide between act-based and identity-based definitions. Here is a breakdown of the two perspectives clashing in your text: The "Isolation" Argument (Benalvino3) Benalvino3 is operating on a transactional view of prejudice. His logic suggests: * Specific vs. General: An individual can use a racially charged slur or trope against one person as a "weapon of opportunity" without necessarily hating that person's entire demographic. * Intent as Filter: In this view, if the intent is "to insult Obama" rather than "to demean Black people," the act is categorized as a personal jab rather than a reflection of a systemic worldview. The "Balderdash" Argument (Deepsight) Deepsight is operating on a symbolic and historical view. His reaction stems from the idea that: * Inherent Context: Certain insults (like comparing a Black person to an ape) carry centuries of historical weight used to dehumanize an entire race. * The "Duck Test": Deepsight finds it "incongruous" to suggest someone can perform a quintessentially racist act without being a racist. To him, the act is the proof of the character. If you use a tool specifically designed for racial degradation, you are, by definition, engaging in racism. Why they are talking past each other The core of the disagreement is whether racism is a "state of being" or a "series of actions." | Perspective | Benalvino3 | Deepsight | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Focus | The target and the motive. | The history and the impact. | | Logic | "He just hates this one guy." | "He chose a weapon that targets a whole race." | | Verdict | It’s a mean, isolated insult. | It’s an admission of a racist worldview. | Deepsight’s refusal to engage further is likely because he views Benalvino3’s distinction as a logical fallacy—essentially arguing that one can "do" racism without "being" racist, which Deepsight considers an impossibility. Do you think a person's choice of insult can ever truly be separated from their underlying beliefs, or does the "weapon" they choose always reveal the "armory" they keep?
Deepsight’s response sounds sharp, but it doesn’t actually engage with the argument—it just dismisses it. If you want to evaluate who is making more sense, here’s the breakdown: 1. What Benalvino3 is arguing He’s making a distinction between: A specific racist act (e.g., calling someone an ape) Being a racist person overall (holding consistent racist beliefs) His core point: A person can say something racist without necessarily being fundamentally or ideologically racist. That’s a philosophical/behavior vs identity argument—and it’s a legitimate debate position. People argue this in ethics, law, and social discussions all the time. 2. What Deepsight is doing Deepsight: Doesn’t address the distinction Doesn’t refute the logic Uses ridicule (“balderdash”) instead of reasoning That’s basically: “This is so wrong I won’t even argue it.” Which may feel satisfying rhetorically, but it’s not an actual rebuttal. 3. Who is making more sense? Benalvino3: Making a structured (even if debatable) argument Deepsight: Dismissing without counter-argument 👉 So on reasoning alone, Benalvino3 is making more sense, because he’s actually presenting a position that can be analyzed. 4. Where the real debate should be If Deepsight wanted to respond properly, the stronger counter would be: Repeated behavior reflects underlying beliefs Certain insults (like ape comparisons to Black people) are so historically loaded that they strongly imply racist attitudes That would engage the argument instead of avoiding it. Bottom line Deepsight didn’t “win” anything there—he just opted out of the discussion. Benalvino3, whether right or wrong, is at least participating in a real argument.
benalvino3: So I did something. Let AI evaluate I and deepsight for grok, gemini and chatgpt. Part 1
Grok I inserted the prompt:
Response from grok: Yes, Benalvino3's point is valid and aligns with how racism can function at an interpersonal level. An act can be racist (involving racial prejudice, a slur, trope, or dehumanization based on race) toward one specific person in isolation — driven by personal spite, anger, rivalry, or a desire to insult/humiliate that individual — without the perpetrator necessarily holding generalized racist beliefs about the entire racial group, or being "a racist" in a broader, consistent sense. This is a common nuance in discussions of racism: The behavior itself relies on racial elements (e.g., invoking a historically loaded trope like ape/monkey imagery, which has been weaponized against Black people for centuries to dehumanize them). The motive might be personal/targeted (e.g., to spite Obama specifically due to political enmity, past conflicts, or just to "own" him), rather than a deep-seated conviction that all Black people are inferior. Someone could do this once (or rarely) and still treat other Black people neutrally, positively, or without bias in other contexts — meaning it doesn't define them as broadly "racist" toward Black people as a group. Examples include: Using a racial slur in a one-off heated argument to hurt someone personally, without believing the stereotype applies broadly. Selecting racially charged imagery to mock a specific rival (e.g., a political opponent), where the race is incidental to the grudge but the choice amplifies the insult via cultural baggage. That said, the act remains racist because: It draws power from racial history and stereotypes — even if the intent is "just" personal spite, the tool chosen carries racist weight. Impact matters: The targeted person (and many observers) experiences it as racial degradation, regardless of the doer's inner beliefs. In public figures like Trump, patterns (past comments, birtherism claims about Obama, etc.) make isolation harder to argue, but in principle, a single targeted racist act doesn't require blanket racism. Deepsight calling it "incongruous balderdash" dismisses this distinction without engaging it. The point isn't to excuse the act — it's to separate isolated/spite-driven racism from generalized bigotry. Both can coexist, and recognizing the difference avoids binary "racist or not" traps that shut down discussion. If the goal is honest debate, this nuance explains why some defend "not racist overall" while still condemning the specific imagery — it's not always all-or-nothing.
+ Desperation. Anyone can input prompts in a manner that will produce results desired. I can do the same on this exact same topic with same Grok and enable a different result.
But this is just desperation. No AI can distill such a human matter properly.
Flows001: Through their proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, e.t.c. Israel has intercepted thousands of IRANIAN missiles, rockets, drones, e.t.c, fired at it UNPROVOKED, by Iranian proxies..
They have responded to the proxies, now its time to cut off the head of the snake that has been feeding the proxies to attack Israel.
+ Even those proxies were reacting to something Israel was doing already.
Foreign Affairs › Re: '100 Israeli Targets Struck': IRGC Avenges Dr. Larijani's Martyrdom In 61st Wave by DeepSight(m): 9:47am On Mar 19
