Hello,

When God asks you to do something, does he know whether you are going to follow his instruction or not? Take for instance the Abraham and Isaac story. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, did he know what course of action Abraham was going to take?

Have fun thinking.
Hux

Blueice4re:

I don't think so.

How about those who have died fasting ?

Can one serve god too much?  Can one pray too much?  Can one pay too much tithes?

If god notices that one is serving him too much would he (god) intervene and ask the worshipper to take a break?  Is there some kind of limit beyond which anything done to serve god becomes excessive and dangerous?  Would god warn you when you have reached and exceeded that limit?

Take the case of people who have damaged their health or even died fasting in a bid to serve god - did they overdo it?  Or was their death a just reward for a prayerful servant of god?

Does there exist the notion of proportionality in the Christian conceptualisation of sin? In other words, is there such a thing as a minor sin, a major sin, and medium sin? A grave sin? A not-so-grave sin?


Supposing someone intentionally and willfully murders a little toddler. And someone else murders one thousand toddlers.


Are they equally culpable to the same extent in the eyes of god? Or did the one who murder just one toddler commit a more grivous sin than the murderer of one thousand children?


Extend your argumentation to the case of Stalin and the Christian Crusade. Stalin is said to have murdered millions of people and the Crusades hundreds of thousands. Are these murderous acts of equal culpability in the eyes of god?

I have a neighbour who had fallen on hard times until recently. He had lost his job about 18 months ago and had been looking for a job since then without much luck. His family situation was getting rather dire and as his wife was not employed the loss of his job was a terrible hit of their family finances.

Now, this neighbour said to me that he prayed daily for his god to give him a new employment and that he firmly believed that he would get back into the ranks of the employed. I met him last week-end and to my great relief he announced that he had started a new job some days earlier and that his new job was more rewarding financially than his previous job and that he was so thankful that his prayers had been answered.

This neighbour is a very pious man and takes his prayers very seriously indeed. He has a room in his house dedicated just for the worship of god and spends hours there in daily meditation, contemplation and communion with god. This neighbour is Hindu and his room is filled with statues of his god(s) whom he revers daily. This neighbour has confessed that he nearly lost faith in his god but since he got a new job, his faith in his god has become stronger.

Do the Hindu god(s) answer prayers too or was it sheer luck that he got his job and that prayers had nothing to do with it?

michelin89:

I am not a man, so whatever!

You are really hard of understanding, aren't your? Do you think that because you are not a man, this leaves you off the hook? Supposing your current (or future) husband were to divorce you. According to Jesus, you become a victim of adultery too.

Hello,

Which God-fearing Christian man, in his right mind would marry a woman who has come through a divorce?  If you did that, then you are not following the commandments of you God, for he said:

Matthew 5:

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


So, Christian men, you have heard the words of your God, Jesus Christ.  Do not pollute yourself my marrying a divorced woman.  For as Jesus said, a divorced woman is a carrier of the sin of adultery.  If you touch her, you too risk becoming adulterated by the sin of adultery.

Divorced Christian woman, stay away from men whom you risk infecting with the sin in you.  Be a follower of your God Jesus and render yourself to a nunnery, away from the reach of men, so that you do not contaminate them.

OLAADEGBU:

Huxley is released for a season.

Answer the questions - you dimwit. I suppose you cannot because religion has mashed you your brain.

alexleo:

God created us in his own image thereby giving us power to choose what we want and what we don't want. Now, be it known to you that God does not create anybody for hell and he also does not force us in our choice. It is your choice that determines where you will spend eternity. When God created Adam and Eve he showed them the evil tree and told them the consequences of taking its fruits. And until they ate that fruit, their relationship with God was cordial. Today, God is warning people of the consequences of sin and those who refuse to choose God's way which is the way of righteousness end up in hell which is where the originator of sin is.

Hello,

How about those who not capable of choosing (such as foetuses, babies, infants, the brain-damaged, etc, etc) - who makes that choice for them? Does god know in advance where they are gonna end up?

kola oloye:

God did not destined anyone to be an atheist.It is the power of CHOICE ,(freewill) that He gave to us.

Deuteronomy 30:14-16 (King James Version)

14  But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

15  See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

16  In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his
       commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply:
       and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

But does God know whether a foetus in the womb is gonna end up an atheist in adult life?

Does that foetus have the "Power of Choice"? Does a one-day old baby have the "Power of Choice"? Supposing the foetus or baby dies, does it end up in heaven or in hell?

kola oloye:

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb
I sanctified thee, . . . .

Ecclesiastes 11:5
As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child:
even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

So what conclusion can you draw from the above verses in view of my questions? That when a baby is conceived and born, god already knows whether this baby is gonna be an atheist, for example? Is that correct?

Hello,

If you believe in God and spend most of your wakeful moments doing God-related things, is there any chance that God pays no attention to you at all? Does he care about you? Does he even know about your existence?

Believers-in-God claim that God is omniscient, ie, knowing all. If this is true, at this very moment in time, does God know all those people who are gonna end up in hell? Does he already know all those babies born today whom he is gonna torture eternally in hell?

Believers-in-God also claim that God is omnipotent, ie capable of doing anything. If God is omnipotent, is he capable of changing the plight of those babies born today who are gonna end up in hell?

rethink:

@huxley

Withdraw that statement immediately. You have no empirical evidence to show we have no brains. If you said "some" then that would be a fair statement. I am 1 million percent NIGERIAN and I have no apologies to be one. There are are idiots everywhere in the world.

Yes - you are right. Some Nigerians have two brain cells, but most have none.

Is that OK now?

Faeb:

Full Camouflage!!!
Nigerian soldier, ready to blast 7 demons out of cameroonian monkey munchers.

Yes, because Nigerians have no BRAINS, just muscle. You are a living proof of that. Have you contributed anything intelligent to the discussion?

The intelligent and rational ones amongst your will be thankful that I may have help you rid yourself of the irrationalism of nationalism and patriotism, which are in themselves as bad and reprehensible as the irrationalism of god and religion.

wirinet:



Huxley, Huxley, Huxley. How many times did i call your name. You are twisting facts to beat a dead rat. Bakassi is in Cameroon as of today, so they is no need to lie and twist facts. We can read too you know. And thanks for providing the link, it has interesting stuff.

Wirinet, Wirinet, Wirinet - please, please, please - which facts did I twist?  The text says that these peoples were plebiscited  and in the then Northern Cameroon, the people decided to join Nigeria, while in Bakassi, they decided to join Cameroon, by a majority of over 70%.  Now, can you state clearly what FACT I have twisted here?


Yes, I know Bakassi in in CAmeroon today, but most Nigerians were claiming that it belonged to Nigeria.  I brought it up because most people who make this claim don't really know the history and are wont to act emotionally rather than rationally consult the archives and make a decision on that basis.

Your quote above makes no sense at all. How can you achieve independence by joining one independent federation instead of the other.

When, this was the language of the time.  French Cameroon became independent in 1960.  Southern Cameroon, which was under British administration had to be plebiscited in order to get the opinion of the people.  The majority decided in the plebiscite to join the already independent Republic of Cameroon, and that is why the new unions was initially called "The United Republic of Cameroon" signifying the union of the former two Cameroons.  Basically, Cameroon signalled their wish to return to the unified old German colony of Kamerun.

Now, tell me in what way does this NOT make sense, rather than simply asserting that it does not make sense.  If you say it does not make sense, you bear the responsibility to show why it does not make sense - simply declaring that does not make it so.

Below is the ACTUAL quote from the book;

The people of Bakassi voted to be independent and not join Nigeria, that did not mean they voted to join Cameroon. So because of that you people decided to twist logic by insinuation a no vote to join Nigeria means independence by joining Cameroon. Maybe Cameroon should also declare independence by joining France.


The main issue here is not Bakassi, that is settled, it is Obudu. It would be sensible not to reopen another conflict for now and besides you have not provided  your reason why we should also cede Obudu to you, and after that where else?

C'mon, man  - THINK, THINK.  What do you think the options were at this plebiscite?

1) To gain independence by joining Nigeria
2) To gain indeoendence by joining The Republic of Cameroon, or
3)  To gain independence as the independent country of Bakassi

Why was Northen Cameroon, which decided to join Nigeria, not become independent by becoming its own independent state?

koruji:

@huxley
In other words Cameroun has being doing this over and over again since 1961. The question you need to ask yourself is why? Furthermore, you should look at your first item below more critically". There is something fishy with the plebiscite of 1961: 1) Security reasons prevented such a plebiscite in 1959 - what were these reasons and what changed 2 years later? ; 2) 73% voted to join Cameroon, but argued they never voted to join Cameroun - when was this Cameroon/Cameroun argument made? That should tell you something about what went down in 1961.  Whatever happened back then the truth is that Cameroun never took possession of Bakassi, neglecting it for 40 years while repeatedly making border claims - "serial border claimer"! As a result, the people never felt Camerounian and did not want to be part of Cameroun. It seems to me that 40 years from now the people living in Bakassi would continue to consider themselves Nigerians, and Cameroun would still be making border claims.

Are there no people today in Nigeria who are NOT neglected and marginalised by the Nigerian state? How about most of the peoples of the Delta regions, like the Ogoni - how about people in the far North West? There fact that government aid and influence does not reach them on a day-to-day basis, does the give other neighbouring countries the right to come in and claim them?

Remember, the question of Bakassi was not in dispute in 1975 and all the maps of the 60s and 70s showed Bakassi as belonging to CAmeroon. Does Cameroon need to do anything further to claim it, when it is already its territory?

As a result of endemic mental indolence of the Nigerian ruling class, a problem was made to exist where none needed to exist. From the moment when it became a problem, the Bakassi issue dragged on for many years before it was eventually settled peacefully at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2008. But this need not have been a problem, nor taken that long to resolve or clarify.  That it did is testament to the mental indolence that the Nigerian ruling class and large parts of the ordinary Nigerian population. Even the Nigerian intellectual class do not seem to have a voice anymore.

All that needed to be done was for someone to check the records of the history of the Bakassi Peninsula, but such simple fact-checking seem to be beyond the ability of an entire country that want to pass itself off as the Giant of Africa.  The entire country seemed to have been mentally paralysed into a mode of thought that bore no resemblance with reality, and no one seemed capable of getting them out of this coma.  They let themselves be dragged into the ICJ and be humiliated by such an elementary matter as referring to the archive or history records of the period. What really is happening in that country?


If there are Nigerians out there who can read and have the faculty to understand and be rational, please read this report (http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf)  in its entirety, or at least the excerpts below:

12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here. By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is the former French territory.

13. In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. General Gowon was a T/Captain. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.

14. In January 1966, Major General Ironsi came to power in Nigeria. He committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Balewa government. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

15. In July 1966, then Lt. Col. Gowon came to power in Nigeria. He too committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Ironsi and Balewa governments. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun

16. In 1970, moves began to be made by independent Cameroun and post-civil war Nigeria to clarify their maritime border which was vaguely defined by the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, but the offshore boundary was unclear since there was no detailed demarkation of the "navigable portion" of the approach channel to the Calabar estuary. Then Attorney General Elias correctly advised the Gowon government that post-colonial Nigeria had no legal basis for contesting the Bakassi peninsula itself, but that work to delimit the offshore boundary and
vague sections of the land boundary should proceed at full speed in accordance with the original Anglo-German Treaty of 1913. The technical problem thus became deciding exactly what part was "navigable" and what was not. It is this matter that was addressed on April 4th, 1971 at Yaoundé when Nigeria's General Gowon and Cameroun President Ahidjo, accompanied by large delegations, signed the "Coker-Ngo" Line on British
Admiralty Chart No. 3433 "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit." The status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

17. On June 1st, 1975, Gowon and Ahidjo signed the Maroua Declaration for the partial extension of the 1971 maritime boundary. Again, the status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not even an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

====================================================================================================


Now, if you did not know this,  ask yourself - Why is it you did not know this?

Were you not educated properly about the modern history of your country?  Did you not seek to educate yourself about your country's modern history? Have the media you your country failed to educate you about this?

OR are you just very simple-minded, dumb, stup1d, trigger-happy and plain ignorant, someone whom no amount of education could change your benighted?


If you think you have and had been poorly served by your government, leaders, media and intellectuals, can you continue to trust that they are capable of doing the morally correct thing, the things that are in keeping with your high values of moral rectitude?  What are you gonna do if you think you can no longer trust these people?

If there are Nigerians out there who can read and have the faculty to understand and be rationa, please read this report (http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf)  in its entirety, or at least the excerpts below:

12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here. By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is the former French territory.

13. In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. General Gowon was a T/Captain. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.

14. In January 1966, Major General Ironsi came to power in Nigeria. He committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Balewa government. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

15. In July 1966, then Lt. Col. Gowon came to power in Nigeria. He too committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Ironsi and Balewa governments. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun

16. In 1970, moves began to be made by independent Cameroun and post-civil war Nigeria to clarify their maritime border which was vaguely defined by the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, but the offshore boundary was unclear since there was no detailed demarkation of the "navigable portion" of the approach channel to the Calabar estuary. Then Attorney General Elias correctly advised the Gowon government that post-colonial Nigeria had no legal basis for contesting the Bakassi peninsula itself, but that work to delimit the offshore boundary and
vague sections of the land boundary should proceed at full speed in accordance with the original Anglo-German Treaty of 1913. The technical problem thus became deciding exactly what part was "navigable" and what was not. It is this matter that was addressed on April 4th, 1971 at Yaoundé when Nigeria's General Gowon and Cameroun President Ahidjo, accompanied by large delegations, signed the "Coker-Ngo" Line on British
Admiralty Chart No. 3433 "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit." The status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

17. On June 1st, 1975, Gowon and Ahidjo signed the Maroua Declaration for the partial extension of the 1971 maritime boundary. Again, the status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not even an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

====================================================================================================


Now, if you did not know this,  ask yourself - Why is it you did not know this?

Were you not educated properly about the modern history of your country?  Did you not seek to educate yourself about your country's modern history? Have the media you your country failed to educate you about this?

OR are you just very simple-minded, dumb, stup1d, trigger-happy and plain ignorant, someone whom no amount of education could change your benighted?

koruji:

@huxley
I guess by that measure everyone that ever had any historical claim to Cameroun land should begin checking the "history" books - the Bantus that were kicked off this area aeons ago are about to repossess their land, and the people of Cameroun can move into the world wide ocean.

How do you even define law, history or other sources as regards historical land occupation? On what basis do you set a point in time as the reference for laying claim to land? These questions apparently have no concrete answer and anybody that pretends otherwise either has submitted himself to someone else's decision or has a vested interest in their self-chosen date. In your case, the latter is very true.

The only sound basis for deciding on a disputed piece of land between nations is to conduct a time-relevant referendum on the issue. Given the protest raised by Bakassi residents OBJ should have argued for such a referendum before the UN rather than ignorantly sign away people's lives.

So, if Cameroun thinks there is a mumu next door who can be dragged through the mud of pseudo-arguments, begining with your half-baked deceit, then something else is coming. We will change the reference point for you - then we can talk.

Such a referandum has already been conducted in 1961 at the time the borders were being decided, and the people of Bakassi voted overwhelming in favour of joining Cameroon. This is an excerpt from the report I posted ealier. That decision cannot be made null and void by the fact that more Nigerians have over the years migrated and settled there.

Remember, Cameroon ceded a lot of land to Nigeria in the same period. Supposing that many Cameroonians have now settled in the land Cameroon ceded to Nigeria in the 60s, should we now conduct another referandum now to decide whether such land should remain Nigerian or returned to Cameroon?
:

=============================================================================
12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the
people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern
Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the
independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose
plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly
resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the
Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here.
By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is
the former French territory.


13. In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with
Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. General
Gowon was a T/Captain. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun,
following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.

wirinet:

That should be expected, given the acrimonious conflict that arose due to the prologue Bakassi dispute, where some  civilians and soldiers lost their lives.  So another inkling of another conflict would trigger a very emotional response.

I disagree with the above statements. Human being are incapable of rationality at all times, especially when there is emotional attachment to the subject matter. That is why it is considered foolish for a Lawyer to handle his own case or for a doctor to operate a close family member. We are emotional creatures, and all our decisions  are in some way are controlled by emotions. The advertising sector preys on emotions so does religion.

Validity of Land claims is neither here nor there, if you go back far enough, it always boils down to Military or Political Conquests. Cameroon and Nigeria were not in existence 150million years ago, they were created as a result of Military and Political conquest by European nations. At that time we had a Benin Kingdom that reached former Dahomey. The Benin Kingdom was conquered and also divided up by the Europeans. So should be say that Benin Republic actually belong to Benin Kingdom? I strongly feel it was a crime against humanity the way we were carved up in Africa, where disunity and distrust was unnecessarily created between same people, while the Europeans enjoyed Ethnic Harmony and Homogeneity. That is the main Bane of Africa's development.

Land disputes are always an emotional issue, be it personal, tribal, national or international. People die every in family land disputes. I know because i am in the construction industry.

I said Nigeria as a country and as a people are still trying to recover from loosing Bakassi. It is an emotional topic and even the Nigerian Media avoids discussing it, and when it does you will hear lots of vitriolic abuses being aimed at the Obasanjo Government for ceding our land. Some groups have even threatened to take the former present to Nigerian courts for the action. Believe me when i say most Nigerians have not gotten over ceding of Bakassi, as is seen in the post your mentioned.

I am surprised, you are surprised by the comment. Maybe you did not take time to read the comment, considering i put it in bold letters so you do not miss it.  so here is it again. I said  Land Issues[b] Cannot Be Settled By International Law[/b].  Even though we have UN, Sovereign nations are still just that - Sovereign. So that means that the Laws of a sovereign state is supreme. If a country decides, not to sign any UN charter or treaty, that is that. The best other Sovereign states can do is to apply punitive measures or at best declare war. If Nigeria decides not to submit to World Court, there is little any one can do. And after, submitting to the World Court and got and unfavourable judgment, she can still decide to ignore the judgments  and await whatever consequences - others have done it before, so it would not be novel.

The above examples has no relevance to my statement, except you consider divorce and armed robbery part of international law.

Hello,

The Nigerians are acting emotionally because they have been conditioned by their culture, media and politicians to be emotive rather than rational.  Even the large majority of the Nigerian intellectual class, if such a thing could be said to still exist in Nigeria have their share of guilty for not trying to educate the largely ignorant and poorly educated masses.

But such a thing cannot be said of this Nigerian intellectual, medical doctor and historian Nowa Omoigui , who has actaully taken the trouble to study the issue and has written it up in this report about the whole affair.  If only most people would take time to deliberate before acting emotionally.

http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf

wirinet:

Huxley, I have always respected your intellectual capacity to look at issues as a whole instead of piece meal, and I must say that this post is very disappointing. Not that you do not have a point. But the way you delivered a very sensitive and explosive issue is very insensitive.

Given your level of intelligence, I thought you would understand, the psychological and emotional response to any further land claim by Cameroon, after the trauma of loosing Bakassi, which were are still able to recover from.

And I think Nigerians are even very civilized in their comments so far, if was other countries, that is attempting to start another border dispute immediately after going through a painful one that lasted over 40years, it would be construed as an act of aggression.  Believe me, that your style of writing about this issue could actually raise tension and suspicion between two countries that should be consolidating on the peaceful resolution of a difficult dispute.

Finally, i thought you should be aware that[b] Land Issues Cannot Be Settled By International Law,[/b] at the end it is up the the parties to the dispute to settle amicably or otherwise. Nigeria cannot be forced to abide by World Court judgments if it does not want to. Go and ask Israel or the US, we gave out Bakassi to avoid a possible war with a neighbour. Please do not construe that as an act of cowardice.  Most Land disputes elsewhere are settled on the battlefield.

Hello Wirinet,

Nice to see you on this subject. I wrote in this tone deliberately to provoke a reaction given the vitriol I had noticed on the other threat directed towards Cameroon. It seemed to me that most Nigerians, instead of asking questions about the validity of the land claim, which would be the thing any reasoning people should do first, were rattling their sabres. This post was really directed at those who are eager and trigger-happy to pull out the sword, rather than to engage their brain.

Human beings are capable of being rational if we so desire or if we are conditioned to think rationally at all times. Whether this claim from Cameroon is frivolous or not, and in spite of what happened about Bakassi, this is not the time nor occasion to act emotionally. Rational thinkers do not resort to the slovenness of emotional over-reaction whatever the circumstance.

Rationalism demands that we ask deep and search questions about ourselves and in this case, about the validity of the land claim. I was condamning the almost universal knee-jerk fashion by most people (particularly Nigerians and Cameroonians, I must say) to not engage their BRAINS, but to act rather emotionally. Emotional rewaction is what usually drive people to WARS. But if people learn to sit and ask the right questions first and formulate a policy and principle from their deliberation of such questions, they are more likely than not to come to a more rational and peaceful decision.

Now, were you speaking about yourself as well when you said Nigerians are still traumatised from the loss of Bakassi? If you are a rational person, why would that be, particularly if you are not directly connected with people or interests in the area? For instance, if Cameroon were to cede 10000 hectares of land to Central Africa Republic, and if the inhabitants of this land are not going to be ill-treated and worse off in their new country, and if I have no direct interests there, I would NOT be bothered in the least.

Why are were you emotionally disturbed with Nigerian losing Bakassi to Cameroon? Have you got connections there who may now find themselves in a different country? What if these people and resettle in Nigeria and compensated for their loss of land and properties?

Man, put on your thinking cap and learn to think things throught rather than respond in the emotional fashion you have just done.

Finally, i thought you should be aware that[b] Land Issues Cannot Be Settled By International Law,[/b] at the end it is up the the parties to the dispute to settle amicably or otherwise. Nigeria cannot be forced to abide by World Court judgments if it does not want to. Go and ask Israel or the US, we gave out Bakassi to avoid a possible war with a neighbour. Please do not construe that as an act of cowardice. Most Land disputes elsewhere are settled on the battlefield.

I am very surprised and disappointed to see you make the above comment. LAWS do not exist as an entity in nature - they exist as a result of a consensus within and between community to have a principle by which to rule and guide civil life. Remember, LAWS are the outcome of some sort of universal consensus. If you say things are not settle in courts, does it mean that Nigeria has not Court of Laws? Or if it does, why does it need them? Are all matters that are eventually settled in courts settled in an amicable fashion?

Consider the case of a married couple going to court to settle their divorce, and supposing one of them feels particularly hard-done-by by the settlement. And suppose divorce is granted in court amid all sorts of acrimony. Should one or both parties continue to consider sheself/himself married because the court settlement was not done amicably?

Should an armed robber, caught in the act and found guilty in court consider himself innocent because he disputes the verdicts of the courts?

Your notion of the law would lead any society into chaos and incivility in a matter of seconds in people were to disregard the courts. The fact that some countries, notably US and Israel, disregard the verdict of international courts does not mean that there are on the side of justice. Far from it.

THE AMAKA:

if it were the other way around and Nigerians tried to grab some of Cameroon's land, what do you think Cameroonians would say?

Hello,

Very good questions - The first thing I would say is - Let's check the claim in law, history or any other sources that may validate the claim. If the Nigerian claims proves to be backed by these sources, I would whole-heartedly be in favour of handing the land over to Nigeria.


The Last LAST LAST thing I would even suggest is WAR.


WAR is for empty-headed people. The fact that MOST Nigerians are so much in favour of WAR suggests to me that MOST Nigerian are empty-headed. ( NOTE - I use the word "MOST" loosely, simply from the comments on this forum. It may in fact be the case that if the entire Nigerian population was surveyed, the majority may not be in favour of war)

The Nigerian blockheads are living up to their emptied-headed dumbskull heads again. Keep up guys, you are doing you people proud - every stupid and boneskull Nigerian is proud to see such vacuous responses from you guys.

Nayah:

HI everyone just come back and have read a lot of yours answers and I have mixed feelings, The majority like claiming they will beat Cameroon, or there anger and bitterness about this country and I might be understand this if some had been a bit serious. I mean we are living in a world with ALLIANCES and INFLUENCES! If some think this so call war (that will only exist on some heads) will just involve our two countriesnow I can affirm I'm worried about some people who seem to be naive or optimistic if you prefer. Now I'm not telling that we Cameroonians need any help to defend our country for different reasons I've already displayed on previous comments, but it's only a question of INTEREST. Now back to the topic I've told before this must be a rumour coming from Nigeria because even Cameroon seem to ignore this issue, according to news and I'm right now having searchings about this but nothing!

Huxtley just want to tell you thanks for your  contribution in this topic, because you are Nigerian and you could have been more bitter and angry but you've choosen to see beyond the first sight, and I confess I admire the way you analyse the issue because this is very interesting and espcially brainy.  As for Bakassi once again someone took about the plebiscite of Nigerian by joining Cameroon, well I think this is a very relevant argument which show two things
The first one Bakassi was no "stolen" by Cameroon since there was a referendum
The second one people from Bakassi, the majority of them do not have pb when it comes to feel Cameroonian.

My position was clear about this topic in Obungu, for me this should not take part of my country, but people (in this forum) who claims they want war should think first before, because even they are sure to win thanks to the number of population and their "money" , military is about strategy more than money. Russia (ex SSUR) was a perfect example. I hate violence as verbal as physical and Nigerian are my brothers and I love them very much, but I love more Cameroonians.

Hello Nayah,

Actually, I am Cameroonian, but I would make a similar argument irrespective of my nationality, cuz I am arguing on the side of REASON. REASON has no color, no nationality, or no cultural bias. For me REASON and Rationality come first. Nationality is NOT important to me.

ziddy:

And I thought this topic had been moved to racism/tribalism section already.

@ Huxley is this how you get your jollies in real life too? I went through your earlier post and I was like, wow!

see a therapist before you go unclothed on the streets.

Can you tell me what is wrong with my post? Can you point to just one specific problem with any of my post and tell us what is wrong or the problem with it? If you make a charge you should be bold enough to showing us the evidence that supports you charge - else you charge is just mere words.

ziyaun:

as intelligent as u are u really think u have to be so insulted to make a point? wonder who the is afterall

Cuz sometimes, there is nothing better than a dose of insult, sarcasm and well-directed criticism to beat sense into the heads of those who are willfully ignorant or downright stup-id.

Just watch how many people will come out and challenge my position - how many will offer a better alternative - how many will make good constructive suggestions as to how to deal with such problems.

If more people offer better and constructive and positive way of dealing with the issue, I shall withdraw my case. But I doubt it, because knowing Nigerians, I doubt they are capable of such constructive behaviour.

tkb417:

^^^ in the posse of 'arindins'

u must be a heavyweight champion

how my contribution on this thing affects your livelihood beats me

u must be born with your senses diluted with metholated spirit

fck off i said or are you blind?

Exactly my point - you have not got brain cells in your skull to engage in such discussions. If you have prove it now.

I have started this thread in reaction of the various comments from most Nigerian about the putative claim of Obudu by Cameroon. If indeed such a claim has been made or is going to be made, I have been horrified at the way most Nigerians are reacting to this news. Instead of stepping back and asking for grounds for a claim against this territory, most of you are characteristically thinking with your arses and have started rattling your sabres.  Where have your brains gone?  What a shame and disgrace to humanity.  Did any of you ask whether it was conceivable that such a claim could be justifiable and non-frivolous?

After all, where were the countries of Nigeria and Cameroon 150 years ago?  Of course, there were no modern day official state boundaries then as we have today.  The present day boundaries were primarily the result of the colonisation of Africa by European countries who came over to Africa and drew and parcelled up land for their own benefit.  Some of these boundaries were draws across lands such that whole tribes and kingdoms were divided up and have ended up in different countries today.  Such is the case with most of the tribes along the Nigeria-Cameroon borders.

Post-colonisation nationalistic fervour has now been instilled into the minds of these peoples who belong to the same tribes, such that they now see themselves as "enemies".  Is this how we Africans are so silly and weakminded?

I do not know whether Obudu rightfully belongs to Nigeria or Cameroon - for me right now, that is not the big question.  The big questions are:

1 - How do we go about thinking about the issues?

2 - What do the historical records say about any borders around this areas?

3 - What do the ethno-linguistic records are?

4 - What did the people decide in the plebiscite of 1960/61.?

It is worth remembering that these areas were plebiscited in the 60s prior to independence of both countries.  Many territories which were then under Cameroonian rule decided to join Nigeria, while some decided to join Cameroon.  In Bakassi, for example, the people voted with a majority of 62% to join Cameroon.

In any of you were wise and clever, you would check the UN records and refer to any history books of the areas and period,  but  being Nigerians, MOST of you are VERY DUMB and SILLY and could not even think in this scholarly fashion.

Following the plebiscite, state boundaries were to be draw according to the existing colonial boundaries, taking into account the results of the plebiscite. So from the 60s, it was very clear that Bakassi would fall inside Cameroon and that was not in dispute at the time.  Over the years, many people from the west of Bakassi (ie Nigerians) started settling in Bakassi to take advantage of the good fishing opportunities, etc. Eventually the population came to be dominated by people who would describe themselves as Nigerian.

When Cameroon pressed for the recognition of the borders set at the plebiscite, Nigeria contested, claiming that she owned the territory.  In fact, most Nigerian politicians and military are so DUMP and SILLY they never bothered to consult their own academics lawyers, cartographers, historians, etc. They were trying to defend an empty case for which they had no evidence.

Nigerians - Please, Please, Please - Wise up people.  You all look like clowns the way you are acting.


I, personally, I couldn't care less whether Obudu is Nigerian or Cameroonian.  What matters for me and for most right-thinking people, is the manner of thinking and dealing with such issues.

Thus far, most Nigerians have proved themselves incapable of rational and logical thinking.  What a SHAME.


If you think I am not justified in describing the reaction I have seen as DUMB and SILLY, can you provide a more rational and logical way, which is capable of standing up in a court of law.  Remember, if this claim is true, just like Bakassi, it is likely to be settled in a court of law.  I guess most Nigerians don't know what a court of law is, that is why they would rather rattle their sabres than engage their brains.

tkb417:

what a consummate retard u are

u probably take what most people post on online forums as the barometer to measure intelligence?

and since u have joined NL, how many sensible post can be ascribed to your moniker?

throwing wild assumptions on a faceless forum makes you look like a nincompoop ; the thread in question has veered off its main message and is more of a comical mudslingings amongst the proponents.

If you cannot join the fun, scram and lets hear others talk.

mind you, where intelligent convos are discussed on thsi forum, where do u hide?

fck off douchebag

Is this the best contribution you can make on this subject? If it is, then I think I am justified in saying that most of your guys are stupid, ignorant, gullible and totally benighted.

Your heads need to be cracked with a thinking hammer.

The majority of the comments on this subject reveal just how stupid and thick most Nigerians are.  Instead of stepping back and asking for grounds for a claim against this territory, most of you are characteristically thinking with your arses and have started rattling your sabres.  Where have your brains gone?  What a shame and disgrace to humanity.  Did any of you ask whether it was conceivable that such a claim could be justifiable and non-frivolous?

After all, where were the countries of Nigeria and Cameroon 150 years ago?  Of course, there were no modern day official state boundaries then as we have today.  The present day boundaries were primarily the result of the colonisation of Africa by European countries who came over to Africa and drew and parcelled up land for their own benefit.  Some of these boundaries were draws across lands such that whole tribes and kingdoms were divided up and have ended up in different countries today.  Such is the case with most of the tribes along the Nigeria-Cameroon borders.

Post-colonisation nationalistic fervour has now been instilled into the minds of these peoples who belong to the same tribes, such that they now see themselves as "enemies".  Is this how we Africans are so stupid and weakminded?

I do not know whether Obudu rightfully belongs to Nigeria or Cameroon - for me right now, that is not the big question.  The big questions are:

1 - How do we go about thinking about the issues?

2 - What do the historical records say about any borders around this areas?

3 - What do the ethno-linguistic records are?

4 - What did the people decide in the plebiscite of 1960/61.?

It is worth remembering that these areas were plebiscited in the 60s prior to independence of both countries.  Many territories which were then under Cameroonian rule decided to join Nigeria, while some decided to join Cameroon.  In Bakassi, for example, the people voted with a majority of 62% to join Cameroon.

In any of you were wise and clever, you would check the UN records and refer to any history books of the areas and period,  but  being Nigerians, MOST of you are VERY DUMB and STUPID and could not even think in this scholarly fashion.

Following the plebiscite, state boundaries were to be draw according to the existing colonial boundaries, taking into account the results of the plebiscite. So from the 60s, it was very clear that Bakassi would fall inside Cameroon and that was not in dispute at the time.  Over the years, many people from the west of Bakassi (ie Nigerians) started settling in Bakassi to take advantage of the good fishing opportunities, etc. Eventually the population came to be dominated by people who would describe themselves as Nigerian.

When Cameroon pressed for the recognition of the borders set at the plebiscite, Nigeria contested, claiming that she owned the territory.  In fact, most Nigerian politicians and military are so DUMP and STUPID they never bothered to consult their own academics lawyers, cartographers, historians, etc. They were trying to defend an empty case for which they had no evidence.

Nigerians - Please, Please, Please - Wise up people.  You all look like clowns the way you are acting.


I, personally, I couldn't care less whether Obudu is Nigerian or Cameroonian.  What matters for me and for most right-thinking people, is the manner of thinking and dealing with such issues.

Thus far, most Nigerians have proved themselves incapable of rational and logical thinking.  What a SHAME.

What does it really mean to you if Nigeria loses this territory to Cameroon? Or if Nigeria keeps this territory?