₦airaland Forum

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6561253.ece

The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of a student shot dead in Tehran to take down mourning posters as they struggle to stop her becoming the rallying point for protests against the presidential election.

Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, 26, was killed as she watched a pro-democracy protest, and mobile phone footage of her last moments have become a worldwide symbol of Iran's turmoil.

The authorities had already banned a public funeral or wake and have prevented gatherings in her name while the state-controlled media has not mentioned Miss Soltan's death.

Today it was reported that they had also told her family to take down the black mourning banners outside their home in the Tehran suburbs to prevent it becoming a place of pilgrimage. They were also told they could not hold a memorial service at a mosque.

The silence in here regarding these stories speak volumes.


An innocent person killed, yet the authorities keep doing all they can to give misery and more misery to the family. **shakes head in disgust**

muyoto:
joke don spoil, cuz nobody will click again. tee hee!

I think you speak spoke and spark too soon.

patwhizkid:
El razur, i hate you!

I love you too baby. Oya, gimme some more. Ooohhhh yeah!

chykeo:
I didnt click on that page but read other people's reactions.

It is not funny when you mislead people thinking it is funny.

It makes you a cynic

U MUST BE VERY SICK IN THE HEAD

Now your reaction is funny. Lmao. lol.

@alabiyemmy

I do have a personal gps like you are trying to explain. Mine is an outdoor one, suited for walking, running, biking and geo caching. It record my entire journey, and can guide me back to any given coordinates I enter. After my journey, I just upload then in ti goggle map and can view my entire journey with options of adding photographs (synced with time and location). There are other functions like calories burnt, odometer etc.

There are better and more advance one though. I think the one I wanted before was the garmin forerunner, before I opted for something else.

It must be said that for gps that can relay back one's position in case of kidnapped are getting more sophisticated, with more and more being implanted in the body, or clothing.

@labiyemmy:
A defending lawyer will not ask me if i doctor those diagrams, he will use his senses to know that those pictures were outputs from a software, a query on an underlieing database, a GIS operation, in his presence, I will run the query again and it will produce those results, he will never think they were doctored, I over assumed everyone has easy senses to understand what technology is all about! Besides, a learned lawyer doesnt have to ask un necessary and meaningless questions, hence he is no more learned.

This is precisely what am talking about. There you go again patronizing me when am merely trying to put things into perspective. Nice one alabiyemmy.

If you posted a screen shot as your evidence, only that this screen shot have a massive "edit button" on the so called evidence, you really and honestly feel you should not be asked about that? Intellectual right is big business - see many cases of industrial espionage etc - and as such every aspect is scrutinized.

That is an awesome plane Check out the f16s and the propose f35 L II

Harsh? Say what? This guy have insulted me and what not, when all I did was ask simple questions to put things into perspective. It is funny how people around here expect one to take sides, or do or die affair What ever happened to a middle ground?

I have made mention of how I am against piracy, how I understand how alabiyemmy feels and where he is coming from etc. It appears some of you missed this. Asking him for proof is not about acting harsh towards him. I even made suggesting of how he can safe guard his intellectual rights in future/asked him if there is existing protection et al. . . And some of you think am harsh? I haven't even taken sides in all of these. O ga fun yin on this forum. People's mentality when behind a screen and typing away on the world wide intraweb never ceases to amaze me in one way or the other.

He's made mention of going to court, but for crying out loud and pete's sake who honestly think a defending lawyers won't ask him some of the question already raised in here?

Why d o alabi get mad at anyone who points out the obvious? Thank heavens others see what am trying to point out.

In the midst of the bickering, it is hard to miss a few things. Apologies for that.
Anyway, is there a proof he got paid?  Surely he won't claim not to have got paid, if he was paid? Or maybe am missing logic?

Alabi let us try and cut down on the insult. It won't help you or your case.

Alabiyemmy. Interesting set of pictures there. So the one with the box screen with names of POIs are yours, while the Navi screen shot are that from OP? Intereesting. However, not to pur rain on your parade, do you have anything outside of these screen shots? It would be a difficult one convicing people in this day and age with those screen shots. For all we know, it could be "doctored" I.e those spelling errors added on your end to reflect that the OP stole you ideas.

I wonder if the OP can provide alabiyemmy with a working sample, and he can examine things, but I am guessing that would never happen.

@OP,  I have no issues with you (or alabiyemmy), however you can see where alabi is coming from. I don't know if you have, but would you consider providing him with details or at least contact of someone he can deal with so as to remove you from the line of fire? Just a thought.

Only in your eyes you are[i] "wearing a cloak and only the people from your school of thought can see it" [/i]right? The fact of the matter is that the king is naked.

Once you stop being dismissive, perhaps we can actually debate better some other time. It is useless trying to keep this up. In the mean time, I have some enemies to kill as there is a big reward waiting for me at the end. No, don't be daft, who is talking about Islam and 72 virgins? I am talking about "Rainbow six Las Vegas 2"! An awesome shooting game. I am playing one right now. Iti s set to realistic mode and my gosh, it is realistic. Oh wait, I digressed. . . . .

Dude. Salamm allaikum.

Here is the answers you need about MJ and bob marley. www.smouch.net/lol

Nezed:
Let's learn to appreciate 'humility' and ' the act of seeking forgiveness'.

Bleep forgiveness and humility!

@OP
Get her back, Bleep her mother, sister and then stab her pet to death just to show your outrage,  then you may consider forgiving her. But never ever go down on her again, you would be literally sucking your own Boss's manhood.





*Above post is a joke.

Yawn. Islam is violence. Violence forms the basis of it.

I refuse to take serious any more anyone who is quick to shift goal post. attack the man, dismiss proof et al.

This is the internet, people would use it in a debate. Deal with it.

I mean, God forbid, Biina is an infinite vessel of knowledge and as such, haven't ever looked anything up on the net Ever!

A different view on Obama's action on Iran. It makes an interesting read.

Does anyone remember when liberals were champions of human rights and freedom? I don’t mean their infatuation with their politically correct domestic agenda, such as gay marriage or amnesty for illegal aliens. I mean the JFK, “I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world” kind of freedom.

So what is president Barack Obama’s response to thousands of Iranian protesters putting their lives on the line against a totalitarian regime? He doesn’t want to “meddle” in Iran’s affairs.

Does anyone sense the overwhelming irony? Barack Obama is perhaps the most meddlesome president to ever occupy the White House. He’s taken federal control of banks, car companies, and the insurance giant, AIG. He’s appointed “czars” who answer to no one but him, which, if the American public weren’t in a coma, would be seen for the gross violation of the Constitution that it is. He wants to completely re-vamp the best health care system in the world, regulate salaries of corporate executives and save the entire planet from global warming.

The Iranian freedom-fighters? Screw ‘em--because supporting them might pose a problem in future “negotiations” with the thugs who run that country.

President Obama does not wish to “meddle?” Again, it is difficult to ignore the irony of a president whose considers himself a master of the rhetorical flourish, yet prefers to stand mute against the blatant oppression of a regime that is the foremost sponsor of international terrorism. And how is it that the same leftists who are obsessed with rights--women’s rights, gay rights, abortion rights, minority rights, illegal immigrant rights, and even terrorist rights--can ignore the human rights violations being inflicted on ordinary Iranians, seven of whom have already been executed for defying the regime?

Perhaps beneath the veneer of “caring” there exists nothing more than a “freedom for me, but not for thee” hypocrisy. But even if that’s true, liberals have always “talked the talk,” even when they lacked the courage to “walk the “walk.” Now, even expressing verbal support for Iranian dissidents is considered a bridge too far.

Is freedom “God’s gift to mankind?” Apparently not. Perhaps Bush Derangement Syndrome means never agreeing with anything the former president said, even if it used to be one of the pillars of liberal ideology. Better to sit on the sidelines, and leave decent Iranians twisting in the wind. Better not to offer a single word of encouragement or hope to those willing to risk their lives for freedom.

Better to be less “meddlesome.”

It should be noted that Obama have voiced concern at this point, and he is said to be appalled.

Anyone can dismiss proof so as not to lose face.

You lost the plot completely. I am presenting a case so to speak, I presented findings that supported my case and you refuse to acknowledge them. How ironic in the sense that you want your views taken!

For the record, simply because you purposely refuse to see my point, do not mean it aint valid.

Salaam alaikum brother.

$osisi:
Islam is peace

Indeed.

Very evident in the world we live in.

If am caught in a corner, my head is about to go on a plate and am wanted almost everywhere in the region. . . . I think it makes sense to make an offer of peace and become a political hero.

Allahu Akbar.

The Muslim Game:

Verses like, “Slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” were issued during times of war, according to the apologists.  They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).

The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise.  Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with violent Old Testament passages).

The Truth:

The truth, unfortunately, is just the opposite.  This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages.  Neophytes are encouraged to seek the counseling of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them along" with interpreting what they read.

It is not the verses of violence that are rare, unfortunately, it is the ones of peace and tolerance.  Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence at all obvious from the surrounding text (in most cases).

In the Qur’an, ideas and topics often seem to come from out of nowhere, emerging almost at random in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought.  But, with external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was “handed down from Allah,” and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time.  This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.”  They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as imperatives to present-day Muslims.

But “historical context” cuts both ways.  If any verse is a product of history, then they all are.  Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

Islamic purists do not engage in such games.  Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

Some of the things I have pointed out, only that these explains it more in details.

Funny how you backed out once these[i] proofS[/i] seem fortcoming. Oh wait, silly me. How can I forget that you wont accept them as proofs.  **slams palm into fore-head** doh! Seems to me like someone can't handle the proofs.

I guess we can move on from this point.

RichyBlacK:
Nna, read my post before you start to misyarn, I take God beg you.

I am asking specifically your take on those nations after observing your posts over time. I wonder what your answer would be?

Either you answer it or not.

Richy, like the iran's authority did with the jews right? Or like Saudi's monarch did with Christianity?

Biina. Here is your approach so far.

Ad homen.

Dismiss every proof provided and then lay claim that nothing have been proved.

Move Goal post, and in some case make the goal post disappear.

Then when turn around and accuse me of shifting goal post. Or trying to evade not answering or countering your argument.

Now it I realise that not matter how much verses I throw at you, you would come up with some excuse as to why the glove do not fit. So in the light of recent event, is it worth carrying on debating with you? In some ways yes, it give an insight into how your logic is and your method. In most ways it is not worth the time and day.


Every post or proof that puts you in a corner, you manoeuvre to bring in the Christians into it. Even though I have mentioned numerous time my focus is on Islam from onset.

Does violence forms the bedrock of islam? Yeah. I have no doubt about this. Would you accept my point? Erm seeing that you can even make attempts to defend someone who had sex with a minor it is obvious what the writings are on the wall.

After reading your post, it is suffice to say you play what is called "The Muslim game". What game I hear you say? Well it is explained as "Given Islam's violent history and the unfavourable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age. Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith."

You have made false claims as per crusades etc This quote makes an interesting read.

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,376th year).

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

Here is another game you have played "Muhammed never killed anyone".

"Muhammad never killed anyone.”

The Muslim Game:

In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention).

The Truth:

By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.

Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.

There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife.

Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.

All lies innit bro? Awesome.

“Just like the Bible, the Qur’an also says ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’”
(Qur’an, Verse 5:32)

The Muslim Game:

Many Westerners prefer to believe that all religion is either equally bad or equally good, and eagerly devour anything that seems to support this preconception. The myth usually works to Islam’s advantage as well, since it either raises it to the level of others, or brings the others down to it. To compete with Western religion, Muslims vigorously employ verse 5:32, which is the closest thing they have to the Old Testament command of ‘Thou shalt not kill.”

It reads, in part:

“…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…”.
(As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)

The Truth:

Oh goodness… if only the Qur’an stopped right there! What would the world be like without large numbers of Muslims eager to commit mass murder in the name of their religion across the globe each day? Think of the lives, money and heartache that would be spared if Muhammad had commanded Muslims to cherish human life in the Judeo-Christian tradition

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. This fragment of verse 5:32 is what Muslim apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, rather than the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means. (Needless to say, the standards vary).

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a command to Muslims after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was handed down to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating God’s law. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service - and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is.

Muslims also conveniently leave out the fact that the verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief.” It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year.

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. The only thing that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

We can go on and on. But it sucks going round in circles you see. Muhammed was violent. Islam is violent. My view and I am sticking to it.


For the record, I am an atheist.

JeSoul:
Exactly. It's not about supporting the protesters or the government over the elections but about condemning the preventable and unneccesary loss of life.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here.

People die on a daily basis in America, but hardly do Iran make comments on them? I dont know if this is a water tight arguement. However, should nation really interfere in internal matters?

BNP facing potential law suits.

I like it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6562075.ece

The British National Party was today accused of operating illegally and threatened with an injunction over its whites-only membership policy.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission threatened the legal action over what it claimed were “potential breaches” of race discrimination law by the far-right nationalist party.

The commission has set a July 20 deadline for the party to address the issues, or face court action.

@Topic
Time would tell at Obama's approach. If there isnt a need for America to get involve, then there really isnt a need. This matter to some is totally an internal matter. But should nation stand back and say nothing when innocent people are paying the price with their lives for making a peaceful demonstration with regards to their votes?


**Observartion**

I see that the usual "attack the man" person is on board again. **shakes head in disgust**

I guess anyone who's never experienced it must be a *fugly guy


*Fugly = bleeping + Ugly

Akpangbon:
whats this topic doing under the politics section anyway @Poster.

Off topic.

Welcome back. Did you bring the crew with you?

mikeansy:
the drama has changed gear

diplomats are now being expelled

I saw that this morning. Iran first called back their ambassador. I suppose it would all go back to norm fairly soon. I personally do not see the big deal, and the accusations on Iran's path is unnecessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8115358.stm

So you indirectly agree that the God of Islam, the one that Muhammed subscribe to and bow down to incites violence in one form or the other . . . but his so called last servant cannot be held accountable?

As for the hadith, it is funny how muslims scholars holds on to them, yet you are quick to dimiss them. Hahah. Nice. Is it a coincidence that any thing that shows up Islam for what it is, is quickly dismissed as unsubstantiated? Even if it is embroiled in controversies, it do not mean that Muhammed is a saint like those from your school of thought would want us believe. Not to digress, a man who sleeps with a child is not someone I would subscribe to.

If you think you are fooling anyone, or make a convincing case. Think again.

Strangely enough Islam have been the most violent religion than any other.  The last ten years or so with events all around the world detailing Violence and atrocities associated with Islam, or carried out in the name of Islam would support this. I guess viewing it with your rose tinted glasses, it must be all lies and those doing so in the name of Islam are really not Muslims right?

Trying to explain things over and over to you is like trying to describe the colour of the rainbow to a man blind from birth. He just won't see it. Period.


PS
No one would have pointed out your goal-shifting tactics if you never did. It is right there for all to see.

@labiyemmy:
ElRazur


What proof do you want? Receipts of my satellite imagery purchases? Receipts of my field crew trips to Kano, Kaduna, etc? Our field books? The maps showing the same mistakes repeated on her maps? What is it you want me to show here online?

Do you know this thread has increased our sales? Do you know this thread has increased visits to our website? do you know how many calls we have had based on this thread? This shows not everyone sleeps with their heads in the same direction, this shows there are reasonable people who reads these threads and understands and chooses to toe the line of truth, rather than asking questions, proofs and stuff. Any reasonable person reading the thread will have found enough proof of where the truth lies. this is it, the truth never hides or lies low for long, it goes out for everyone to see.

If you have proof of anything that could win people over, and that this is not just all "talk and noise", then it may be worth posting it [Provided off course it do not jeopardise your ideas]. Better still get a court on your side to even give your claim more legitimacy.

The biggest problem here that you are not seeing is how you refused to post anything, when you have accused and demanded from others [OP]

Here is a thread just for you. [See below] Take joy in knowing that some of us actively condemns piracy.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284440.0.html


If you have a convincing case, I am more than happy to email a few moderators for you so as to get this thread locked and possibly any other future ones that may be an encroachment on your intellectual rights.

AlabiYemmy
I am asking so as to make it clear for everyone involve. But it wont help your case if you refuse to post a proof when asked before, then you turn around to ask someone else for a proof.  

Piracy sucks, it is illegal and as such we all have to help combat it.

What are you guys saying? It is working for me over here. Just use this link to by pass the filter

www.smouch.net/lol

@Gaminechic

So you are just testing the device and trying to gauge the market?

@labiyemmy:
Where is the proof - they paid me for the maps, fine - where is the proof, no proof then this fight continues.

The best system in Nigeria because? How many have you been asked to test before giving a blanket approval and posting on a politics section!

But in fairness, you havent provided any proof either.

As for claiming it is the best, people are allowed their personal preferences. Look at it this way, what is best to you may be rubbish to someone else and vice versa.


Alabi yemmy, what would you like to see, or happen in this matter? If you dont mind me asking.