₦airaland Forum

nairalanda1:
Which makes him all the more unfit for the job.

Some of you Nigerians too dey forget.

Yeah, he could be remembered as a major player in a very murderous and blood-sucking military junta. But we must understand that in the military, an order from a superior cannot be defied. It's a military law. In this case, if Al Mustapha defies Abacha, he'll be a dead man himself. We cannot hold him accountable for Abacha's misadventures. Al Mustapha and Rogers were once tried in court and freed on this very basis. They were merely acting out orders. They're not liable to any crime. Abacha is the one to be held accountable for the crimes.

However, I personally dislike Al Mustapha because he definitely has the blood-sucking tendency in him. You remember, even after Abaxha died that morning, that same morning, Al Mustapha still wanted to carry out the ordered execution of the prisoners (Obasanjo, Diya, Adisa, Yar'adua and co). If Rogers had not opposed him on the basis that the person who gave the order was dead, Al Mustapha would still have executed them that morning. That's why I dislike him But on the flip side, we need such blood-sucking demons to flush out the bandits and those wicked murderers terrorising our land. Since he's not at the helm of the nation's affairs, he's not a threat to anybody. Let's use him and dump him afterwards.

FOLYKAZE:
I learnt that from somewhere yesterday and also learned how the West Bank is partitioned into three with the two nation taking control of two sides, while the third side is controlled co-jointly. I may be wrong though.

But the Palestinians are claiming Israeli occupied their land. That they are the original owner of those spaces occupied by Israelis today. If this claim is true, why would you even think Palestine should side their properties to 'aliens'?

If we look at the land 2000yrs back in time, what the Palestinians said is partially true.

Places like Gaza, Ekron, Askelon, Gath and Ashdod were all Palestinian lands. Israel occupes some of those places today. Meanwhile, places like Jerusalem and other ancient Israeli lands are today under Palestinian occupation. So, the dividers of the land actually muddled up the whole thing, giving Israel some Palestinian lands and also giving some Israeli lands to Palestinians. There's no way there'll be no conflict. However, the Palestinians are not even after recovering their own ancestral lands. What they want is the total annihilation of Israel.

nairalanda1:
Rogers was acting under the instructions of al mustapha who was his superior.

Lest we forget

Al Mustapha was instructing Rogers by directives from the then head of states - Abacha.

sweerychick:
hehehe the same Al Mustapha that murdered Abiolas wife Kudirat this is gonna be interesting

It was actually Rogers that murdered her on the instruction of Abacha.

FOLYKAZE:
Lord Reed.

This issue is very complex. It is difficult to have a clear cut of who lived, or are the aborigine of the current Israel state when we go back to Assyrian exile. Because the Israel we know today is not an entity but a community that lived among Canaanite who are known today as Palestinians.

Watching some documentary on Al Jazeera recently, I think the engraved hatred on both sides will not give room for two state solution. I saw some Jew quoting Torah and insisting that Israel state is their land, they owned and inherited the space from God, and that any non jew who cannot abide by the seven laws should be exiled or killed.

I mean these guys follow a particular rabbi, burnt an eight month child, openly attacked Arabs with knife, brandishing guns and even attacking Israeli securities because they don't believe in democracy. They are so convinced and determined that they will conquer and occupy all the God given land.

So how can two state solution works when both sides do not agree to accommodate each other? It is just like putting enemies in a cage. That is fight till death.

Israel actually accepted for the land to be divided. The Palestinians said no. They just want Israel extinct, always shouting "Death to Israel."

CC: lordreed

This puts the Palestinian situation in the right perspective, challenging the false narratives that paint the Israelis as land grabbers which has become mainstream.

It's really eye opening to even see that Jews never completely left or abandoned their land. They were someowhat subjugated and cheated out of it by the Ottoman empire, and further shortchanged by the remapping activities of Winston Churchill who gave them just 25% of what they were supposed to own.

Judging from the article, a great part of Israel still remains in the country called Transjordan which is now known as Jordan. It would be right to say that their land was snatched from them (they were even paying heavily to repurchase their own land before 1848). The land grabbers, the Arabs left the land desolate. No single development was done on it. The Israelis gave it rapid development after paid acquisition. By 1948, when the nation got its independence, it already had a self-deceloped place it could call a Homeland. The Palestinians wanted to inherit what they never built, and wanted to completely rid the Israelis of what was rightfully theirs. The Palestinians therefore are the ones doing injustice to the Jews.

This article provides a lot of clarity on the matter. The most cogent point is that they never completely abandoned the land. Remnants of Jews totalling about 600,000 in population had always been in occupation in the place. It isn't wrong for these remnants to rise up at anytime to reclaim their ancestral land. The land is rightfully theirs. The resolve of the Palestinians to completely dispossess them of the land is absolute wickedness. There's no justification for that.

To be honest, a review of that area before 1948 is the best way to put the matter in the right perspective. The false narrative which has become mainstream has to be corrected.

Thanks again for this piece.

The life and times of Kathryn Khulman were remarkably filled with the unmistakable Presence of God. Many testimonies still abound today of the encounters of people still living, who had been blessed by her ministry when she was alive.

She is one of the many examples of the unspeakable grace of God in the lives of those who commit themselves to God's service.

Glory to Jesus.

turmacs:
I know some people will come here to say rubbish about AlJazeera. This is one of the few truthful and unbiased news outlet remaining in this world. Aljazeera has never been known to spread propaganda and false news. Unlike CNN that openly apologised to the world for spreading fake news about beheaded babies, only God knows what else they've been lying about.

I stopped watching CNN and all her affiliated stations when i watched this video below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI?si=XdDVafRjvjR81ihl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnIQalprvR8?si=ajfZjhjURW4Oxgg8

Aljazeera also reported the beheaded babies and never apologied.

TenQ:
The Day of the JWs is coming.
I just decided to first concentrate on Muslims and Islam.

Kudos bro.

TenQ:
I will consider it.
I have previously written a post about Islam being a Cult of Mohammed!

Why Islam is a Cult of Mohammed!
https://www.nairaland.com/7715066/why-islam-cult-mohammed#123576940


JWs can waste your time for Africa!
They don't care one bit about the truth of the scriptures as long it doesn't align with their doctrinal position as dictated by the old men of their governing body

Yeah, I can remember reading the post.

You're right about JWs but God would give you the wisdom to handle them.

Courz would readily supply you with quotes from their rules and regulations that would be a big plus for the post. He's very versatile on JW matters.

Saao:
yes ofcuz, I bought something few days ago using wema MasterCard debit.

Bro how do you manage to use your Wema MasterCard Debit for international transactions? I have one but it's not working. Please show me the way.

TenQ:
And this is one of the reasons Islam is a Cult of Mohammed..

Freely you can join but you may disengage at the risk of losing your life.

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4061
It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said:
"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.

Chai!!

Please, I believe in God's grace and wisdom upon your life.

Can you make a list thread with a topic such as, 'How to know that you're in a cult.' or 'How to know that the region you're practising is a cult.' or '10 Signs that shows that your religion or organization is a cult.' Then, you back it up with sample verses or verdicts from such cults such as the verse you just quoted for Islam. Both Muslims and JWs can benefit from such threads. Especially when you clearly show them that they're being held for the benefit of the cult. I'll supply points for the thread too if the Lord gives me points.

God will certainly help you bro.

TenQ:
1. A Cult or a Prison is one in which once you enter, it is impossible for you to Freely take your leave if you don't like the place.
Even in the army, except in times of war, I you can withdraw your appointment.

2. A Party or a partnership of a Business is one in which he you can withdraw your membership at will.

The difference between the two groups is this.

In any association that is to the benefit of the Initiate, Allah he is allowed to leave at will.

Any association that need your membership to survive will never allow you to go because the association was not designed for your benefit.


So is the difference between Islam and Christianity!

The bolded is very succinct. Any organization that needs you for its own benefit would never allow you to renounce so easily. All cults are like that.

rolams:


One question will destroy all your faith.

After this, I have nothing to comment here.

Bring me the question please. My answer to that question will shake your Islamic foundation. You'll discover you were lied to.

TenQ:
I have asked them repeatedly :
How come the Almighty Allah is copying the original Sayings of Jesus said almost 700 years before Islam. Who is copying who?

A wise man once said:

A Muslim is one who says and live by the mantra :
Don't confuse me with the Truth because I have already made up my mind!

If only they can sit down and make subjective reviews of what they have been told without allowing any religious bias to becloud their reasoning. Christians are permitted to ask questions in church. They're are not threatened if they decide to leave the faith. This gives room for free thinking. You are never forced to be a Christian. You are a Christian because you chose to. The same does not apply to Islam, that's why Muslims have to reason things out themselves and not be defending Mohammed blindly.

TenQ:
Do they want to know the truth that will lead them to their salvation?

It seems not. They think that they can earn their way to the paradise of God with nodding their heads on the ground five times daily even though Allah guarantees them hell fire as a Decree from him.

You are right, when a case is indefensible, they they feign ignorance by feigning blind, deaf and dumb at the same time.

God and his Prophets CANNOT make the kind of mistakes and errors we see Islam

They don't care about the truth. They only care about mohammed.

rolams:
Continue and congratulations!

Thank you.

We would continue until we're sure that heaven is your home. The devil must lose the battle over your soul. Hell shall not be your portion.

We're watching global events. More Bible prophecies are getting ready to be fulfilled.

TenQ:
As we know, I the questions have remained unanswered till now


Questions :
1. Who else do you know in history to have given a similar Narrative like this: apart from Jesus?

2. Who can we say is copying who with these narratives?

3. Why is it that Jesus is claiming that which only God can do as per judgment of mankind?

4. Is Jesus the Allah Muslims do not know?

They can't answer the questions.

They'll pretend as though they're deliberately ignoring the posts as one rolams has said up there, but it isn't so. If you make any post they think they can defend, you would see them flexing their muscles. They've scoured the net for answers to this post, they couldn't find anything, hence, their silence. Or how would anyone defend the copycat proofs presented here without sounding foolish?

Rather than re-examine the lies that are being exposed, their priority is to defend a false prophet who calls himself mohammed.

FRANCISTOWN:
I maintain that the stories are legends. They were orally passed down from one generation to another . No one, I repeat,no one alive now has an exact memorate of what happened.

If at all, any of the stories has 1% credibility. It would be the king's. Why? It's simple. His g.father was a direct character in that event.

However, the fact that you submitted that the king altered the account of the event further strengthens the disposition that legends are liable to be alterated.

Which means, neither of the two accounts should be taken seriously.

If at all? It should be the king's.

If everyone at Efon Alaye said the same thing. I still won't believe or be impressed. At least I know rumour travels faster and it's more believable than the truth.

Myths, real life stories, legends, experiences, life histories, etc are similarly passed down from generation to generation. Learn how to differentiate real events from fictions. Your opinion about the matter does not change its actual reality. I was at Efon Alaye in 2017. The oba confirmed that the story is true. Your subjective opinion does not affect reality.

LordReed:
LoLz. They definitely will see your attempt to argue with your own evidence. Bwahahahahaha!

Lol. They'll definitely see your attempts to add your incompatible
interpolations. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
What answer did you provide? LoLz.

You slandered the alaaye by saying he twisted the story to put his grandfather in good light, no one forced you to do that.

You can hold on to your wrong interpretation. Lol. Any wise investigator can read my comment to see what I really meant. Your opinion is yours alone, and you can't force your interpretation on me.

LordReed:
You are the one arguing. I stated quite clearly that your evidence does not mention snake or invisible people.

LoLz. You brought evidence and are the one casting aspersions on the evidence.

I answered the question of the king not mentioning snakes or invisible people, you later went on to say the king's story about his father was a mismatch. I provided answers for that too. You hung on to say I'm casting aspersions on my evidence I've extensively explained that too, I never cast aspersions on the evidence. I neither criticised the story nor the king. I've corrected your wrong interpretation.

LordReed:
Dude you said he was trying to paint his grandfather in a good light, that is slanderous anyway you try to paint it.

Quote where I said the story is false.

If you're not of the opinion that the story is false, what are we arguing about?

Saying he was trying to paint his grandfather in good light is not slanderous. I never said his efforts were deceptive. Where is the slander? The former king may not offer the general public an explanation as to why he directed Babalola to the evil forest. Hence, while the public holds the opinion till today that the former king did it in sheer wickedness, the current king who's the grandson of the king in question might be setting the records straight in order to redeem the bad image of his grandpa in the story. Whatever you made of what I said about the king is your own personal interpretation.

LordReed:
You are slandering the alaaye and saying he twisted the tale to put his grandfather in a good light. Meanwhile I have expressed nothing against the article, you offered it as support for RiyadhGoddess' tale which of course they don't match so how is it an aspersion to say the stories don't match?

My response regarding what the Alààyè said was to your reference made to the disparity between the Alaaye's account of his grandfather and the general account as a point to conclude that the entire story was false. That's the only new twist to the story apart from what is commonly known of the event. It was this new twist that caused the mismatch, and I provided an answer for that. What might have looked like an aspersion was on the Alààyè and not on the story: by saying he repainted his father's image in the story (which isn't a bad thing to do). I never even said his version concerning his grandfather was false (where then is the aspersion?), I wasn't there. His version might be true while the general version might be the notion of the people that lived at the time of the event, since the king at the time might likely not give an explanation to the general public as to why he directed Babalola to the evil forest. The current king might be trying to set the records straight about his grand dad. I never cast aspersions on him or slander him. It's your personal interpretation.

By criticising the story and saying it's false, citing that mismatch, you cast aspersions on the story.

LordReed:
That is what casting aspersions means.

You don't seem to understand what it means to cast aspersions, do you?

You're the one who cast aspersions on the story saying that there's disparity between what the story said about the King's grandfather and what the circulating story says about the same person. Then, I explained why it was so.

See the meaning of casting aspersions as attached.

LordReed:
Then post where he recounts the 'true' story instead of casting aspersions on the very evidence you presented. Are we supposed to read the minds of the alaaye and the reporter to know what they thought?

I cast no aspersion on the evidence I presented. I only explained why the said disparity about the king's grandpa was present in the king's narration.

LordReed:
LMAO! The alaaye did no such thing since he does not mention snake or running invisible people. Also your attempt to castigate the alaaye's motivation is just pathetic. How can you be offering the story as both correct and wrong at the same time?

The Alààyè is aware of the true story. The story by Riyahdgoddess is all over the place. It's the same everywhere. Check the net. It was an allusion to the story which needed no further retelling that the Alààyè said 'It was a true story.' Check out the story online. It's a common story. The investigator and the Alààyè knew what they wete both talking about when the Alààyè said 'the story is true ' He now went ahead to recast the the portion of the story which had to do with his grandfather.

LordReed:
Then why did you bring the article as evidence if you have all these problems with it?

I modified my last comment. I have no problem with the article because I understand what happened.

The oba confirmed that the story was true, then he quickly used the opportunity to redeem his grandpa's image.

LordReed:
We are not arguing with the alaaye, it's you who is claiming he doctored the tale to put his grandfather in favorable light. LoLz.

No. You were using the Oba's version of the story relating to the role his grandpa played as proof that the entire story was not true. And I asked you if you expected the Oba to present his grandpa in bad light as the true story relates the matter?

The oba confirmed that the story was true, and quickly used the opportunity to redeem his grandpa's image.

LordReed:
Oga na you bring am come as evidence na you come dey argue against am too. LoLz.

How I come argue against am? Oya prove.