₦airaland Forum

chidichris:
Easyy,
the four points i raised here are just part of the whole issue and of which they are the points i keep on looking at whene ever i want to know reasons for attacking places and people.

the first issue here is terrorism- and by simple definition i want to see this as a legal and violent act or advanced level of rebel on government and individual which know no bounds it is unfortunate that most people have tied this act to islam but i still have my reservations on this as most terrorists have been sentenced to death by certain governments headed by muslims too so i think the act is beyound religion.

if we want to know who and who that are involved, one will definitely see indidual businessmen playing the lead roles here. i still feel that sponsorship is vast and most are based on force. we are having a reported case of sponsorship in nigeria where funds were traced to an account of a nigerian businessman by a terrorist group.

on the third issue, i look at their interest. in most of their campeigns they preach religion and occupation. they call it Jihad but the Jordianian president proved this wrong when he was condeming a suicide attack in a wedding in jordan. the wedding was organised and attended by muslims so whose interest was to be protected. the 9:11 attack was in such a public place that almost all the religions of the world were involved. several suicide attacks on mosques in iraq and other places. hamas and fattah who is fighting who. i wouyld expect u to see or consider on your own what their interests as in the midst of these problems, Pakistan and Afghanistan under the control of the so called terrorists move well with their business which is Drugs and the issue of drugs traficking becomes a minor and it is obvious most of us know that the leaders of all these terrorists groups are drug barrons and are well made money wise and can spend any amount to make the war go on and aid their businesses to flourish.

do let me know any of these issues you would need further clarifications and i will surely reffer you to places and issues to read.

Well, i suoppose it's only in the U.K. where people who are semi - illiterate with truncated education who delight in wallowing in their ignorance can be described as being celebrities.Unfortunately these idiotic programes and people are here to stay. The only good thing that has come out of this is that the international community can see how base and primitive the U.K has become/ is becoming.The incidents have only whetted the appetites of the plebs and morons that idolise these nonetities.

chidichris:
to start with, this thread is an incomplete statement as the poster should have ended up saying what the solution to terrorism is and then let us know his position and solution.

for a better understanding, let us know what is terrorism?
let us know who and who are involved.
what is their interests?
whose interests are they fighting for?

stanech:
Well i thought we were the poorest \ Why second poorest

Will they still cheat us on this let them hand the first position to us

English1:
There wasn't any work in the garden of eden. so why did Adam need a helper?

daprince:
I'M FROM A BROKEN HOME! Does that make me bad? Hell No! I believe it's a learning process because I wouldn't want my marriage to fail. I might even prefer someone from a broken home who's been through what I've been through so we could love and appreciate our marriage better. It's not the home, it's the person!

English1:
This is something that causes some friction between me and my Nigerian boyfriend but we manage to compromise our way out of trouble.I don't want to really go into it, as I believe there is not 'right' or 'wrong' way to run a relationship, each couple should decide for themselves how it is going to work. (I don't agree with it personally though).

However, I would like to suggest something about the biblical idea that man was created first, and then woman was created to be his helper.

Imagine you run a company and think that you need one person to do a job. You then find out that that person can't cope with the job on their own. You have to take on a second employee as well. To me, it means that the first person is incompetent and in no way is the more able person or the natural 'leader'. If they'd been any good I would'nt have needed another employee. And if you are a caring employer who was very fond of this first person, you don't tell them exactly what you have done, after all, you want to encourage them to improve not dishearten them. So you tell them 'I'm bringing someone in to help you'. (thinking: because  you can't do the job properly, hopefully you'll learn from the new person and buck your ideas up, or maybe you are just too old and tired to cope anymore so we need a better younger person around to 'help', although of course they'll be taking over from you in due course').

God's plan initially seemed to be to have one human being, otherwise he might have made them both at the same time. Then Adam couldn't cope on his own and God had to make someone better. The woman is the revised improved version of a human being! Women are physically different to men. God wouldn't take something perfect and make it worse, now would he. So women must be an improvement on men. Note that after God made Eve, he was satisfied. Eve was as good a human being as he could make, Adam was the incompetent one. So logically, the incompetent person shouldn't be the leader.

Adam was a prototype. Eve was the finished version.

What do you all think of that interpretation? It seems to me that the men have always interpreted it in their favour, but you could just as easily look at it in this way.