₦airaland Forum

RichyBlacK:
I'll answer your question, but basic courtesy demands that you do to me what you expect that I do to you. _{Hope this is not asking for too much!}

A wounded lion can only move not so far. . . . You see.

It goes back to my original points. Your point of trying to rope the US into this as usual is so flawed that it could be applied to anything. You see how YOU turned a hypocrital rogue when faced with the same set of questions, using the same logic you are trying to employ, you are quick to back down and play off the main issues.

For the record, your questions was directed at someone else. You haven't directly asked me questions like you would like to think. On the other hand, my questions have been directed mostly at you. So your logic of courtesy once again failed.

Nice move. But not smooth.

Since you are now claiming to be asking a question, let me ask you a few questions to play along

If Islam is not blemish in "any way". Do you agree with having sex with minors? After all, you are of the opinion that Islam is not blemished at all. If you disagree, then why not?

RichyBlacK:
You should learn the difference between asking a question and stating an opinion.

Oh really which one are you doing?

If you are asking a question, then I am asking you if you support sleeping with an 8 year old.

If you are stating an opinion, then I am of the opinion that you support islam, that in turn supports sleeping with minors.

Which one are you saying, 'cuz I can play both ways.

RichyBlacK:
When did I support "sleeping with an 8 year old"?

You have asked if usa indirectly support human trafficking right?

Well, you have showed your support for Islam by claiming it is not "blemish" in anyway. I pointed out an aspect I think is a blemish in my own opinion. Is it a safe bet to conclude that you support having sex with an 8 year old? [These are recorded facts. He married her at 8 and consummated her at 9]

You see your argument of trying to rope the US with human trafficking is so weak that it can be applied to anything. Once it was applied to you, you are quick to get on to the defensive isn't? Nice one richy. You really are doing a good job so far.

RichyBlacK:
$osisi,

Na craze dey worry you!

It was just a mistake.

However, this doesn't blemish Islam in any way. We all know that the rulers of many of these majority-Muslim nations are selfish tyrants and dictators that only use Islam to subjugate their own people. Most of them will do anything to hold on to power. And why is America supporting Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait? Can we say that they are indirectly supporting human-trafficking?

But sleeping with an 8 year old gets a thumbs up in your book right?


Nice diversionary move richy.

That statement is so weak, that it can be applied to anything.

RichyBlacK:
Oh, you're right. But that wasn't intentional. I was looking at the map, and[b] I mistakenly considered Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE as one country because the latter three all share borders with Saudi-Arabia and are all relatively small.[/b]

How very convenient.

But you managed to see their borders, or even know that they do share borders. Yeah, how very convenient for you.

biina:
The fact that the classification is based on a country's compliance with a US act, raises a question of objectivity in classification of countries with less cordial relationships with the US e.g. N. Korea, Cuba and Iran.
The classification says little of the actual level of human trafficking this countries are involved in, and thus going from compliance with a US initiative, to being guilty of human trafficking is too long a stretch IMO.

Take time to read the over view of the act and tell me if it is not reasonable.


You surely do not expect the result to be bang on for every nation? The illustration provided as a result of this act is meant to be an indicator, not something that should give full details simply because not every trafficking case would even be recorded or known. Again, being a US initiative, do not mean it is biased in anyway from where I stand. This is about trying to do and give a voice to the victims, let us not over look that in the midst of "oh it is a US initiative".

The moderation around here sucks. RichyBlack is biased. Period.

Lmao.

biina:
The fact that the basis for the classification is the US VTVPA raises doubts on its objectivity

It is interesting to see you trying to cast doubt on authority again.  What is your motivation for this one? Apart from citing the fact that US was involved in the classification. Surely, there it do not in anyway removes his validity? Here is an over view.

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA)

Overview

Congress passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA) in order to provide:

individuals who have been victimized in the most severe fashion with the ability to: remain in the US (temporarily and in some cases longer) and receive federal and state assistance; protections for certain crime victims including victims of crimes against women; and law enforcement agencies with a comprehensive law that will enable them to pursue the prosecution and conviction of traffickers.

This Webpage includes various agency links to information about the VTVPA, implementation of the law, and victim benefits and services.

Those who may be interested in this information include:

    *
      victims of a severe form of trafficking and non-governmental entities who may be working with such victims;
    *
      law enforcement officers so that they may better understand who is considered a victim of a severe form of trafficking; and
    *
      the general public on how the US Government will pursue traffickers of persons.

Looks about reasonable to me. However, it should be expected that Biinna queries the objectivity.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5cca6138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=48819c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

It is risky. It is dangerous and hazardous. These folks - like most road users on Nigeria roads - have little or no concept about road use. It is a good thing they are removed. However, it would be nice to see some sort of alternatives provided for them instead. Having said that, this is Nigeria.

The need to keep our road safe in my opinion, is greater than what some few thousands Okada operators would feed their families.

It is ironic that Negro_nts is quick to spew some conspiracy jargons from time to time. Yet here you are dismissing this as speculation! Not to pour rain on your parade, how is this different from of the stuff you put forward here?

While you at it. Please tell me about alien existence and area 57, the acquisition of their technology by the us forces, etc.

KnowAll. I like you.

If you ever make it, my services are available for free. Especially dealing with the health care welfare and what not.

Finally common sense have prevailed! Yay!! China have backed down at the last minute.

Chinese authorities have been forced into a last-minute climbdown over a plan to force manufacturers to bundle internet filtering software into every new personal computer sold in the country.

PC-makers would have been required to install the Green Dam Youth Escort filter in every machine produced for sale in China from tomorrow.

But with just hours to go before the introduction of the hastily-announced rules, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology bowed to public anger over censorship and criticism from the US and industry groups, who condemned the move as politically intrusive, technically flawed and commercially unfair.

Green Dam blocks some pornography, but also scoops up politically sensitive terms. For example, it blocks the cartoon cat Garfield due to filters set to block “white” images” as well as “yellow” – the Chinese term for pornography.

It also bars the film star Johnny Depp and socialite Paris Hilton but is far less strict when it comes to allowing images of naked black girls to slip through. Apparently the word "black" is not on the lengthy list of banned terms.

Most worryingly, Green Dam leaves computers vulnerable to outside attack, although its manufacturer had pledged to plug those weaknesses.

How people can defend china on this one is beyond me.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6611274.ece

dominique:
what is this doing in the politics section

How hard is it to read a single page of thread?

netotse:
y'all know we're technically asking for trouble here. . .lol

we're starting our own e-revolution

Asking for what? Oh please. This is nairaland and as such what is the worst that can happen? Gosh you get banned. Simple.

Eventually, when everyone is banned, I am sure this forum would drop of the radar On top of that, the registration process is so lax that one can have multiple identities around here. So banning some one is just pointless.

There is nothing hard in giving a proper reasons as to why a thread is locked. Employing autobots to do the job of human around here just goes to show how much the moderators/seun are bothered about actually doing any work.

I guess spam is a blanket word the moderators/admin/seun use so as to escape from giving a genuine reason in the first place.

Moderation is biased on nairaland. Anyone who says otherwise is probably not seeing the bigger picture. Take politics here for example, you have a few people who are constantly derailing threads, bickering and not actually contributing to the thread at hand. Those who for ever posting news link without living a comment or their own opinion etc. Yet there appears to be no active moderation to mop up this sort of post, or remove the offending user.

There aren't any set or well defined rules governing the forum ettiqutte here, or the art of debating. Even RichyBlack is guilty sometimes of being inactive and doing nothing to make this place a better place.

Oh before anyone come running telling "use the report to moderator button" I would urge people not to bother! I used this in the past, and the offending post was never removed. Instead my account was banned on the pretence that I posted "a spam type of post"! Yeah, that is what I get for trying to clean up this place.

Moderation should be given to people who can actually set a standard and make this place a better place. Not just friends and "paddies" who would be biased and can't be bothered to actually moderate.

Any nation can do what he/she wants provided it is not a security threat to any of his/her neigbours.

@Gaimechic

Thanks for the info.

Personally, I would post a comprehensive review if I am the one doing the testing. It can attract potential customers. But then that is just me.

Ikomi,

With all due respect, I think you and I are speaking diffferent language and discussing different things. The point I am making is this - If the view presented in the original post by afam claims to be facts, yet these so called facts won't even face up to scrutiny when taken apart. I have raised many observational questions and direct question at Afam, all which he evaded and having no clue about.

Facts are something one cant argue. For example saying Obama is the president of USA is a fact. No one can argue that. Period. The basis of what forms part of the article posted by Afam are not facts. These I pointed at zillion times. That is my point.


As for you saying claiming persian version of website launched, I think you will find that a few major sites already have a Persian version running and as such, it have nothing to do with wanting to destabilize iran like you are suggesting.

More diversion and irrelevant post.
Your previous statement acknowledges that you haven't answered any of the questions posed at you so far. Questions that actually addresses the issues at hand, instead of the constant bickering you are making. You then turn around to ask me what questions again. Nice logic.

Time would tell if you can rise to the occassion and challenge those questions directed at you. So far, you clearly ain't up to the task at hand.

More irrelevant stuff from you.

Please answer the questions directed at you.

Afam:
Wonderful. Wikipedia is the proof? So, all the noise you have been making boils down to a public encyclopedia that is editable by the general public?

You need help.

As usual you presented another evasive move. Wiki gives an over view of all the stories, all the actual link is right there in the wiki for all to see. This I mentioned before.

I suppose for the purpose of this debate some one must have edited those information to discredit his credibility right? I won't be dragged into accuracies of wiki here, but it should be noted that it is no longer "editable by anyone" and are subject to checks.

You also appeared to have avoided answering the questions directed at you.  How come the basis of your fact is based on unconfirmed and unverified reports? Surely a statement no longer becomes a fact at this stage

How hard is it to not involve in something you find annoying? Especially, when people are enjoying and seeing the funny side? Next time, remember what is called the "Back button", it takes you right away from the thread and you dont have to post. Simple common sense!

@Tpiah

debosky:
This thread is getting derailed - as far as I understand it, it was supposed to be a humorous exercise. However, some people are bound to be offended by what is considered a joke by others.

As always, when in doubt/offended, use the 'report to moderator' button. Fighting and insults are NOT acceptable.

Thanks.

Choke and die on that. Stupid loser. \o/


@Obnoxious. Nice one jare.

You hare asking for proof when you said this:

Afam said

Thanks but I will not read any link you posted. You have zero credibility so talking about the credibility of the general is ridiculous.

Jesus wept.

On top of that I have provided where my views where taken from already. Are you even reading this thread? It is starting to dawn that you are nit-picking now to be honest.

Leave the diversions out of this. Are you saying you agree with the writer that the US is being hypocritical? Yes or no? I don tire to read all these irrelevant issues you bring up just to confuse people.

What diversion? Staying on topic is diversion?? Again, Jesus wept. But in the same breathe and sentence, you all of a sudden see the point I am making about hypocrisy and politics going hand in hand?

It is strange how for the since the start of this discussion, you are yet to answer a single question posed at you. However, it seems you want answer to your question. Again read the thread and try to fully understand where am coming from, and perhaps you would see the need not to ask me questions that most would see that I have dealt with already.


PS
Here are my points before we lose it again.

Here is the link used by your author to present his "facts"
http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/10469-cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution-.html

The news print shows that it wasnt confirmed or proved. So on that basis alone, your presentation of the article as fact is inaccurate.

Here is a link I raised my point from questioning the credibility of the General.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Aslam_Beg#Controversies

There are further links in that link that shows where the stories where taken from. If a controversial man who haven't provided any facts or proof to back up his claim form the part basis of your "facts", then it at least shows how you are approaching this debate at hand. . . . Very emotionally charged just like the author.

Afam:
Thanks but I will not read any link you posted. You have zero credibility so talking about the credibility of the general is ridiculous.

This is not about me. This is about the sources that form part of the basis of you so called facts. Let us focus on that shall we?

1. He's given solidarity with Osama being laden.

2. He's taken sides where and when he is not supposed to.

3. He plays politics as an Army officer - Something that goes against what they army represents.

4. He's been involved with scandals that have to deal with misuse of public money.

5. He was in support of selling nuclear arm to Iran. Soley to undermine the US. This he made a statement about when he as the chief of army staff. [Clearly this shows he's got issue with the US]

6. He was mentioned in the death of a prominent scientist.

etc.

I don't know about you, but his statement of "CIA spent 400 million dollars to destabilize Iran" seem to check well with his profile and previous history. You do not base your "facts" on someone who appears to have a history of making controversial statement, and even to make matters worse he [the general] never provided and proof to back his claim up. Journalism is about fact, what ever this article is. . . It is far from facts.

China ke? What was the topic again? I thought you wanted us to stay on the topic even when you are ready to bring in China and even Venezuela. Na wah for Nigerians.

And this is you claiming I am an empty barrel? Interesting.

You topic had a title highlighting Hypocrisy, You post content tried to draw a picture of hypocrisy etc. I gave you an example to illustrate my point of how politics and hypocrisy goes hand in hand, and that it happens even between nations that are staunch supporters of each other. And that, hypocrisy is nothing new in between nations of the world regardless of ideology etc. How this is not relevant to the topic at hand is beyond me.


PS
Do not read what I post. I personally refuse to bathe in the sauna of ignorance you see.

JustGood:
I am still interested to find out if there are proofs of massive irregularities to warrant these well co-ordinated protests.

If all losers in elections were able to muster enough media support to motivate their followers into protesting, and that taken as proof of irregularities, there will never be said to be fair electiosn anywhere in the world.

I agree with you. However, there have been several question raised. . . .For example the actual case of Votes made, more than the numbers of eligible voters or those holding a vote card etc.

On the grand scale of things, it is a difficult one to say the election is fair or not. My stance is to look at the whole thing and ask question. Something a few people confuses with taking a side.

As for the coordinated protest, I suppose one can conclude that people over there there have their own mind and intelligent enough to stage a protest. Also let us not forget that these sort of protest is not entirely new to them.

Afam:
The content in bold refers, this is the only reasonable thing you have put down on this forum.

So, let those reading make up their minds and stop wasting space on this forum.

It seems a lot of people have kicked you out of their discussions of late that you are dwelling on this one as if your life depended on it.

More diversion. It adds nothing to the topic at hand.

Allow me to draw you back to the topic, before it get lost in the sea of bickering only you seem to be making.

You are yet to provide and solid, let alone conclusive proof that what you posted are complete facts like you appear to be presenting. The article used by your author is flawed and baseless. There wasn't a single proof to show that CIA plundered money to destabilize iran  as at the time the article was written.

The article that your author used was flawed in the sense that, the interview with the general was done over the phone and not a single proof was showed. Further more, most sources reported the story with inverted commas. [Inverted commas are used in news print when story is not confirmed or no solid proof to the content being discussed]. Yet you and your author hardly did any own leg work to check this out - the very basis of journalism.

Finally, the general that made the comment is a well known controversial figure in many ways. Read the link I posted about him. This to many reading put his position of credibility [if he ever had one] into question.

Yet how can all of this form some of the basis of your article you are presenting as facts? And that is just one by a simply method of scrutiny.


Let me level with you here. Hypocrisy and Politics go hand in hand, it is not a new thing am afraid. Here is one classic example. US have been the biggest ally of Israel both politically and militarily. I mean, we all know how the US-Israel relations are. Recently, Israel sold military UAVs [Unmanned aerial vehicles] to China even though US objected to this and threatened to pull all the plugs of support militarily. As this sort of sale put the US forces at potential risk etc. Despite the US given reassurance, it was later discovered that the UAV was sold to china. On top of that, it is widely reported that Israel have given technical-know-how to aid china in developing one of their fighter jets.

The point I am making is that regardless of what, nations are not perfect and as such hypocrisy or double standards would exist.