Before nko? Who do you think has been financing all the railway construction and development projects in Nigeria? Even your useless dullard is trying to borrow 33 billion dollars from the Chinkos. They have paid hard cash for the right to insult your shithole country.

WoeBetide666:
We don suffer. Even chinko ma don start to dey yab us.

Your dullard paymaster is tying a rope of 33 billion dollars debt borrowed from China around the neck of this shithole country. Soon even the selling of rotten suya meat won't be enough for you to pay your bills.

post=92941224:
Kuku tell us that fishes live in water �

Ghost player. Same way a particular country has a ghost president.

That still doesn't change the fact that Joshua shouldn't have lost to him in the first fight. That defeat showed a lot of weaknesses and vulnerability in Joshua which a crafty fighter like the Gypsy King will exploit mercilessly.

BluntTheApostle:


Yes, Ruiz was unrated, but he was not a journeyman. Even the best of boxers have been unrated at one time or the other in their careers. Ruiz was no journeyman.

He was once a contender for Parker's belt, and he even won that match, but the judges denied him.

If some of his opponents thought of him as a journeyman, then they paid for it, didn't they

When he beat them, their perspectives on him must have changed.

He was not a journeyman. He has always been a solid contender.

Haters go and soak kunu in rat poison

[img]https://images./2h1DTVhk1Tz5G6YBbfK5UL.gif[/img]

Andy Ruiz was meant to be stop gap. Nobody reckoned with him and he wasn't even ranked in the top 20 when he fought Joshua the first time. It was the stunning and ruthless manner with which he destroyed Joshua that shot him into the top 10 rankings. Even he himself has confessed that most of his opponents regard him as a journeyman.

BluntTheApostle:


Did you just call Andy Ruiz a journeyman?

Tyson Fury will kill Anthony Joshua.
Joshua is notorious in boxing for having what is called a glass chin, which is why an overweight journeyman like Ruiz was able to knock him out so easily and embarrassingly.It's also the reason he ran away from fighting Wilder because Wilder would have decked him like a learner.
Joshua is overhyped.

BluntTheApostle:


The guy that has the potential to beat everyone on that list is Fury, and Fury alone.

Fury is the only one on that list who does not have a weakness that can be exploited.

The man does not only know how to box, he makes it fun doing so. He danced around Klitschko, treating Klitschko the way a cat will treat a rat before eating it.

It is same thing he did with Wilder in both fights.

Fury's greatest weapon is his ability to read his opponent's next moves.

He doesn't have that power punch, but that is not a weakness you can use against him. Because:

1. He doesn't gas out easily.

2. He doesn't get hit hard easily because he knows how to read moves and get out of the way of hard punches. In the first fight, the two hard punches that Wilder managed to land were at the time Fury was fooling around.

3. He has the best footwork of all heavyweight boxers alive.

4. He is a gypsy. He is very tough to crack.


Incidentally, the only man on that list who can give him a tough fight is Anthony Joshua.

1. Joshua is hard to beat. Unlike Wilder, Joshua can actually box. He doesn't depend on luckily connecting a KO punch like Wilder.

2. Joshua has improved since taking help and advice from Wladmir Klitschko. Without Klitschko, I don't think Joshua would have beaten Andy Ruiz.

But can Joshua beat Fury? I doubt it. Why?

1. Joshua lacks the stamina of Fury. If Joshua tries to run around Fury the way he did against Ruiz, Fury will be happy to chase him around and tire him. We must remember that the Ruiz that faced Joshua in their second fight was an unfit Ruiz who ditched trainings and was feeding fat on junk foods. Tyson is far more disciplined than that.

2. Joshua is not a brawler. Toe to toe, Joshua will blank out in a fight against the king of brawlers. If Klitschko, the cheat who likes to tire boxers with his weight, can be ridiculed by Fury, I doubt if Joshua will survive Fury. Klitschko and Joshua are of the same height, and Fury has 3 inches over them. He will press down on Joshua the way he did against Klitschko and Wilder.

Tyson Fury will kill Anthony Joshua.
Joshua is notorious in boxing for having what is called a glass chin, which is why an overweight journeyman like Ruiz was able to knock him out so easily and embarrassingly.It's also the reason he ran away from fighting Wilder because Wilder would have decked him like a learner.
Joshua is overhyped.

EyezofGod120:
Joshua to the world,, he go beat dat fat boi soon,,fury

You remind me of that 6 year old girl who was raped by a 52 year old "prophet"

kestolove95:
Madam u not 22.

You might as well say the same about those Igbos pretending to be Jews.

TheExecutioner:


I think the most interesting thing about this story is that the Saudi Arabians/Meccans clearly regard this girl as an outsider and not one of them.

It is interesting because nearly all the Yoruba muslims I know have always told me that Oduduwa the ancestor of the Yorubas was a Prince of Mecca.

When you allow a myth to become your origin story, you're just setting yourself up to be embarrassed.

That sounds like a clever marketing tag line

alignacademy:
@ContractKiller

That's an interesting observation

You could say that CoronaVirus is strictly a brand to die for..

And you will end up suffering the fate which all mindless olosho wannabes are destined to suffer.

LilMissFavvy:
Even if I was to hope how is that your problem, you should face your life, I am living mine without complaining, mtchewww!

Following God does not mean the same thing as following whites.

jom28gy:
till date Africans are still being fooled, following The white foolishly, instead following God

darklibra360:
Fake news saw a news online stating it a church of Satan..

jom28gy:
till date Africans are still being fooled, following The white foolishly, instead following God

They're called the Church of Luminants and they are actually occultists and not real Christians. They proudly proclaim that they worship Satan and they are affiliated with Anton Lavey's Church of Satan. Someone wrote about them on this forum a while back

https://www.nairaland.com/2818746/church-luminants-usa-end-time/4

This one is still hoping for an oyinbo aristo to show up in her life. Mtchew.

LilMissFavvy:
You left your family to relocate and live with a strange man who you were not married to? Anyway, this is what happens when your village people are sitting on your matter, because many black girls are married to white men, and are living happily. If your case is different, it does not mean German men are bad.

Be that as it may, are you telling me that government cannot set aside $1 billion a year, every year to add to our generating capacity or even $2 billion? If they had started setting aside $2 billion dollars for every year since 2014 when the privatisation was completed, and maybe setting aside an extra $500 million for a gradual building up of infrastructure to boost distribution wouldn't 60% of this country's power problems have been solved by now?

Lostz:
you government need to first invest in infrastructures needed to generate and transmit . your Discos only invest in distribution.

assuming you get new Discos who transmit to 100% capacity" which is almost impossible even in developed countries" will the 7000mw they receive be enough?
I heard you need more than $1b to generate 1000mw nowadays and we need more than 100000mw to provide electricity for all Nigerians. will China agree to borrow us $150b?
for now constant electricity is a dream that we can't achieve. changing Discos will not change anything

Did you even bother to read the post? Anyway, any attempt to force an evil and degenerate system like Sharia on non-MUDSLIMES will mark the end of this joke of a country. When the wretched and poverty stricken abo-kis are forced to run their own Arewa Republic they will eventually realise the stupidity of allowing their love for a moronic ideology to overcloud their common sense.

tartar9:
Working tirelessly to introduce Shariah law indeed
Trump can continue appointing moróns

Well, the only interpretation of the Bible which matters, particularly when it comes to the Old Testament is how the Jewish Rabbis interpreted it, since only the moral law applies to Christians.

In fact, were it not for your attempt to use the Bible as your justification for the koran, you might have read the complete passage from Exodus 21:7-11 where it is clear that the master of the maidservant is not allowed to sleep with her since sex outside of marriage is unlawful and he was expected to release her if eventually he had no intention of marrying and he was expected to feed and cloth her.

Can you compare Exodus 21 with the shameless conduct of one agbaya fake "prophet" who was always having sex with his female servants even though he never wanted to marry them? Can you explain what this Hot bastard was up to when he was doing things like this:

Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194:

"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."
The note (845) on this says, "That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet's wives, but he did not marry her."

IAmStrange:


So that's the interpretation. If you don't mind, did you just think this or that's how the scholars of the bible interpreted it? Because one of your Christian apologists explained it differently. What's your source in this interpretation when the verse itself apparently looks very literal. But since you say it's metaphorical, What's your source for the interpretation? Or do you guys just give verse metaphorical meanings the way it suits you?

AND MIND YOU, you didn't answer the ones concerning sleeping.

Wow, so Abraham of all people had an illegitimate child which means a child born out of adultery? I'm not surprised. This is not the first time you people cast aspersions on the image of Prophets of God.

That's how you say Lut was made drunk and was slept with by his two daughters and they begot bastard children for their father.

That's how you say God commanded Isaiah to extract his cloths from his loins and Isaiah walked naked and barefoot in the streets of Jerusalem.

That's how you say David killed a neighbour and committed adultery with his wife.

Well, in short, that terms "your only son" meant your only legitimate son, right? Okay!



You people normally say what God allows is one man, one woman. That God forbids polygamy. Do you think it makes sense or it's right to regulate what you forbid?

If I say for example, Stealing a car is forbidden. Then tomorrow, I write a book that is titled "Guidelines on how to steal a car successfully", how does that sound to you?

For God to have regulated it, even if it was introduced by man, it means He ALLOWED it. God can never regulate what he forbids. That's ridiculous. or is that how the God of the bible works?

MIND YOU, you didn't answer the one concerning worsening an already bad situation. what was the wisdom behind it?

As for Ishmael, I know how pained you headslammers are because your fake ancestor was an illegitimate offspring Sorry about that But you see, Ish became illegitimate as soon as the legitimate son, Isaac, was born. God never intended for Abraham to have illegitimate children. He wanted all of Abraham's offspring to be born in lawful wedlock. So even though he was a bastard, Ishmael was never treated like one until he began to overstep his boundary and Sarah had no choice but to throw him and his mother out.

Hello, you said "in this case, it is one man paying an amount that included the bride price". But I'm sorry, bride price or marriage or anything concerning wedlock was missing in that verse.

It says it explicitly to be "sold as a maidservant". How can someone imagine that anything concerning wedlock can be described in this manner or that the money the father collected can be bride price?

To know that the contract was a contract of being a maidservant, the verse says "let her not go out as manservants do". So here the bible was comparing her or referring to her in the same terms as a manservant. So she, being a maidservant should not go out as her "male counterparts" do.

It's very clear that the matter here is a matter of the man selling his daughter to be a maidservant (a wife is never spoken of in such manner).

And even you said these yourself that "The law here makes it clear that the man who took the daughter into his house must not treat her unfairly or sell her to a foreign nation. In fact, if he is displeased with her she can be redeemed or redeem herself and go free. And if he mistreats her by denying food, clothing or marital rights (kids) she can leave without paying a dime."

All these words you said, can they be used in the concept of a wife or bride price? You said the man who took her must not sell her to a foreign nation. Can someone who was taken in by virtue of bride price which translates to bring a bride be SOLD? Do people sell brides?

You said if he's displeased with her, she can redeem herself or be redeemed? Do these processes apply if it's a "bride" that's involved?

You said if he mistreats her, she can leave without paying a dime. Does all these also apply if it's a "bride" we are talking about?

Its very clear from the verse and even from your explanation that the girl is sold to be a maidservant. Simple.

And God was regulating it.

So maybe you can clarify all these better to us and those you didn't answer too, if you know the answer. Thank you.

Yes, but who are they minusing it for? How does it even make sense that you receive 13,000 MW of electricity but by the time it reaches the end user, 98% of it is lost? Where did the missing 98% of electricity go? That's why I'm fed up with these idiots and why foreign companies with proven track records in the industry should be given incentives to overlook this country's shithole nature and take over running the entire electricity architecture.

Lostz:
Briefing reporters after the weekly Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting in the State House thursday, the Minister of Power, Mr. Saleh Mamman, said whereas Nigeria currently generates 13,000 megawatts of electricity, it transmits 7,000 to Discos while the distribution companies can only distribute 3,000 megawatts to end users.

before it gets to the Discos, it is already minus 6000. after receiving it , the Discos minus their own 4000.

so who is wasting the electricity more?
the Gencos or the Discos?

As a stepping stone, let's see what Siemens can do when it comes to distributing the little we are generating. They claim they are presently generating close to 13,000 MW, but these useless discos are only distributing somewhere between 1000 and 3000 MW.

If I had my way, I would invite the likes of top global power companies like General Electric , Dominion, NextEra etc to bid for Gencos (Generation Companies) and Trancos (Transmission Companies). The problem is nobody would want to do business in a shithole like Nigeria where there is so much insecurity and where corrupt politicians will be trying to eat into your profits.

Lostz:
. with the little electricity you are generating?

Siemens will come with a typically efficient German work model and the impact will be felt. All the useless aboki led discos can fvck off and leave distribution in more competent hands.

And yet you will never get a second chance at becoming an intelligent human being.

Slawormir:
Damnnnnn niggarrr

Everyone deserves a second chance
For all those insulting me
i won't blame you
Because Humans hate what they understand


Even shaytan (devil) deserves a second chance

1. God of the bible RESTED and WAS REFRESHED?

Exodus: 31. 17. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. - Bible Offline

2. Does the God of the bible sleep and needs to be woke up? And in another verse, it says he woke up as a drunkard shouts from sleep? And even if the sleep is not actual sleep but metaphorical, then it's gonna stand for something derogatory to God like God being in a state of forgetfulness or ignorance or heedlessness or not doing His duty. How's these sleeping verses to be explained?

Psalm: 44. 23. Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever. - Bible Offline

Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, as a warrior wakes from the stupor of wine. Psalm 78:65

The Bible is very explicit that God NEVER grows weary and is NEVER tired:

"He will not let your foot be moved, he who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121:3-4

"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary, his understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28

God’s true Word also states that there is nothing too hard for Yahweh:

"Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, in the spring, and Sarah shall have a son." Genesis 18:14

"‘Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who has made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts, …’ The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: ‘Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?’" Jeremiah 32:17-18, 26-27

In light of the foregoing we can now more fully appreciate and understand the point God was making to the Israelites in Exodus 31:17. The text is essentially saying that God was refreshed in the sense of receiving satisfaction from what he had created since he saw that everything he made was very good:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day." Genesis 1:31

Putting it simply, saying that God rested and was refreshed is simply a vividly poetic way of saying that Yahweh received great delight and pleasure after surveying the work of his creation.

3. Who is the first born of Abraham? Isaac or Ishmael. If Ishmael is the first born, then the following verse is a fallacy in the bible. Because the following verse, God called Isaac, the ONLY son of Abraham. How could this have been possible when Isaac had an elder brother? If Isaac was second and he had Ishmael as an elder brother, then God should never have called him "Only Son". Can you explain that?

Genesis: 22. 2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. - Bible Offline

Isaac was the promised child, the Child of Covenant and not a child born out of wedlock like Ishmael. In Judaism, a bastard could never claim the same rights as a legitimate son.

4. I thought you people said God only allows one husband, one wife. But the below verse suggests God allowed it (polygyny) and was even regulating it. How come? And if you say God later cancelled it in New testament, then show me the proof that God did so. Is that not a verse regulating polygamy? Please explain.

Exodus 21:10 - If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Polygamy was introduced by man but God stepped in to regulate it and prevent man from abusing it. In God's ideal and perfect plan as revealed in the garden of Eden, the first Man, Adam only had one wife. And whenever marriage is spoken of in the Bible by God, he always references it as a union between a man and a woman. He never for once considers it to be a union between a man and multiple women.

Then lastly for now, does the following verse not suggest that God of the bible was not condemning rather he was supporting and was even regulating a man selling his daughter into being a maidservant? Regulating where not the daughter come maidservant should go to? If it is so, then how do you explain such apparent atrocity of God? Please explain.

Exodus: 21. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. - Bible Offline

I think we have to understand that these laws were for a specific place and time. In this case, it is one Israelite man paying an amount that included the bride price for another Israelite man’s daughter. Given how difficult life could be in the ancient world, such an agreement may represent great benefit to the daughter. The law here makes it clear that the man who took the daughter into his house must not treat her unfairly or sell her to a foreign nation. In fact, if he is displeased with her she can be redeemed or redeem herself and go free. And if he mistreats her by denying food, clothing or marital rights (kids) she can leave without paying a dime.

God was not saying that this culture was ideal, but rather He was working within the existing culture to move it in a redemptive direction and protect the rights of the woman.

IAmStrange:
After I have answered you and directed you to where you can get answer to your question because you can bring this usual attitude and say I did not answer rather I went to the bible...

Please answer these questions too.

3. Who is the first born of Abraham? Isaac or Ishmael. If Ishmael is the first born, then the following verse is a fallacy in the bible. Because the following verse, God called Isaac, the ONLY son of Abraham. How could this have been possible when Isaac had an elder brother? If Isaac was second and he had Ishmael as an elder brother, then God should never have called him "Only Son". Can you explain that?

Genesis: 22. 2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. - Bible Offline

4. I thought you people said God only allows one husband, one wife. But the below verse suggests God allowed it (polygyny) and was even regulating it. How come? And if you say God later cancelled it in New testament, then show me the proof that God did so. Is that not a verse regulating polygamy? Please explain.

Exodus 21:10 - If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

5. How can Jesus according to bible, worsen a situation
instead of bettering it? How can he curse a tree instead of praying for it to bear fruit? Destroying Trees like this translates to losses and so on. Imagine if he did that multiple times, that will cause an adverse effect to the economy?

Just explain how Jesus who is supposed to be large hearted and have good character, why he cursed a tree never to bear fruit instead of praying for the situation to be better? Is that Jesus way? That he ruins things further than they were instead of bettering it? Just explain please.

Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to
the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road,
he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22
NIV

Then lastly for now, does the following verse not suggest that God of the bible was not condemning rather he was supporting and was even regulating a man selling his daughter into being a maidservant? Regulating where not the daughter come maidservant should go to? If it is so, then how do you explain such apparent atrocity of God? Please explain.

Exodus: 21. 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. - Bible Offline

So there they are. Kindly explain those five. AntiChristian brother let's watch as the theological genius defends his God.

May Allaah save us from confusion.

The text of the koran we have today is not even Uthman's Revised Version of the Qur'an (Zaid Bin Thabit’s Koran), because it incorporates changes by Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi.

Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thakafi, who lived in the years AD 660-714, was a teacher of the Arabic language in the city of Taif. Then he joined the military and became the most powerful person during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik Ibn Marawan and after him his son al-Waleed Ibn Abd al-Malik.

Because Al-Hajjaj taught Arabic, he gave himself the liberty to change several words of Caliph Uthman's Qur'an, which is an indication that he did not believe that the Qur'an was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet preserved."

For brevity's sake we will only mention a few of these changes:

1. In Surah Yunus 10:22, he changed the word yanshorokom, which means "spread you," to yousayerokom, which means "makes you to go on."

2. In Surah Ash-Shuara 26:116, he changed the word Al-Mukhrageen, which means "the cast out," to Al-Margoomeen, which means "those who are to be stoned [to death]."

3. In Surah Ash-Shuara 26:167, he changed the word Min Al-Margoomeen, which means "those who are to be stoned to death," to Al-Mukhrageen, which means "those who will assuredly be cast out."

4. In Surah Muhammad 47:15, he changed the word yasen, which is poor Arabic to Asen, which means "unpolluted."

5. In Surah al-Hadid 57:7, he changed the word wataqu, which means "feared Allah," to Wa-anfaqu, which means "spend in charity."

There have been hundreds of textual changes and meanings of words in the koran almost from the word go and they're still doing it to this day. Go and read the clear and concise koran and you'll see how several of the verses have been changed.

Technically you were the blunderer. Historically there's plenty of evidence to back up OP's position that the South West is part of Southern Nigeria.

MelesZenawi:



He committed a geographical blunder and I corrected him.

This post was for the purpose of alerting people on the approach of ISWAP terrorist towards other parts of Nigeria.

The post was not created to start a debate over whether the geography of Western Nigeria.

Next time use your brain.

MelesZenawi:



Why should I be bothered about something I doesn't know the meaning.

So it is useless to me as I don't give a damn.

He asked you not to quote him again or you will be branded as an agbaya. You quoted him so what does that make you?

Jokes aside though, all the geopolitical zones known as South West, South East, Mid West and South South used to be administered as one entity known as the protectorate of Southern Nigeria long before they were divided into smaller subregions but those subregions still have a lot of trade and cultural ties.

MelesZenawi:


Lol

Tell me what is really paining you, so we can settle it?

Well, if you live like an animal, think like an animal and serve an animal, I guess you deserve to die like an animal. It's no wonder Boko Haram uses you guys for suya

CaptainStephen:
Hi,no I am not, but you guys are only been sensational whilst ignoring crucial demands which should have been met by the brass and government.
The military is not for the faint hearted and I this occcurance took place when troops were on an expedition in a far remote area unfortunately supplies came late.
I can say further than that.

"Prophet" T.B Joshua. The "prophet" who prophesies after the event he is supposed to be prophesieng about has taken place

Your next propchecy should be about how the SW will soon launch a security outfit and ab-okis will not like it.

"Woyo Baba musa walahi bura ka na da dadi kamar suga, ka ci ni har mmutu, cire mu da gindi na"


[img]https://i./G9A7.gif[/img]

madridguy:
You sabi

As in eenh, the guy is such a huge fvck up! And yet they'll be hyping him as if he is one genius like that. Just read some of the things he said and you'll be scratching your head about how such a dummy was able to deceive so many people.

MrColdsweat:
That religion is for barbarians.

Imagine the prophet saw the wife of his adopted son unlad, he lusted after her, then he told his adopted son that Allah revealed to him that his son should divorce and leave his wife for him. His son divorced his wife and Mohammed married the woman. Just imagine...


I wonder how people read about Mohammed and still accept his teachings.