₦airaland Forum

@Denex

When I come to Nairaland,I often feel exasperated by what I read.Lets take this thread for example.The title says "US Senate Declare Opec Illegal". Yet,the very poster of the thread starts with a George Bush diatribe.Is Bush the "US Senate"? Here is the White House's opinion on the proposed NOPEC bill-Sean Kevelighan, an OMB spokesman, says the White House “adamantly” opposes NOPEC.”-http://www.heritageblogs.org/index.php/967_nopec-update

In effect,a bill is proposed which you and others are disdainful of.Bush also does not like the bill,so in effect,you and Bush are on the same side on the issue.

When the Democrats were elected,the bill was proposed By Congressman Conyers(Democrat),many were delighted.Yet,when the Democrats propose a measure,people attack Bush on the measure even though he is against it!How irrational and ignorant can you be?Its a classic case of Bush Derangement Syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

Can you see now why I am a bit exasperated with certain posts on Nairaland?

My namesake is back Funny enough,I went to Nigeria for a month myself and was off NL for that period.Welcome back. Your abscence prompted me to think that my furious protestations to Seun about you usurping my identity had borne fruit.Just kidding

Afam:
He hardly says anything. All he does is come down on anyone or indeed anything that says anything not soothing to the US, UK or Israel.

So, don't expect him to tackle the issues, infact you ain't seen nothing yet

You should change your username to Irony!    

oyb:
@ iman, instead of playing follow follow for your revered mentor PTH, why don't you start a thread on your question?then you and the whole 'christian' gang can get together for another rousing 1001 posts of islam bashing.I'm sure that will make you feel much better about your personal religious state

What precisely do you object to in someone asking about the meaning of passages from the Quran? I quoted a passage from the Quran and asked the meaning,all I get from you is irritation.

Do passages from your Quran irritate you?

osereka:
NO BREAK YOU SISTER'S HOME O
becous the way I read it , e be like say na you give the man green light

You are an idiot!

Chiori:
I-man, you have not said anything. Just a string of high-sounding words that are not cohesive.

Here comes cohesion:

Chiori:
Abeg forget George Bush. A man who could supply arms to Arab terrorists, and then fuel a war against them so he could continue his clandestines does not have much credibility to start with. So whatever America is saying about OPEC is pure balderdash.

According to the above,Bush sells weapons to Arab terrorists and then "fuel" a war against them to continue his "clandestines". I have seen greater cohesion from a retarded drunk.

Bush wants to continue his clandestines? You are having a laugh.

An orgy of hare-brained, tripe-filled,crass anti-Americanism has descended here. This is an inane spectacle reflecting the innate human tendency to dispense with reason when in the grip of blinding prejudice.

debosky:
the heart of the issue? I don't think so
the state in question is not 'muslim' and can thus not be referred to as part of the 'muslim north'.

The issue is,to what extent should restrictions be placed on women's choice of clothing? You may be better informed than me but I'm not aware that Benue State actually enacted any "dress code". The thread invoked the  issue of women's sartorial freedoms,an issue more pertinent in the Muslim North.

The thread is not restricted to Benue State in particular,we can't verify the story.So to restrict our analysis to Benue would be risible.There is no point in debating a story that has not been substantiated.While we wait for the poster to substantiate the story,we may as well address the larger and more relevant  issue of why women,most especially in the  Muslim North ,face such restrictions.

There is no Benue issue to discuss untill the Benue story is substantiated.If you want to discuss unsubstantiated issues,start a thread called: Speedy Gonzalez Code In Abia;Men Banned From Premature Ejaculations!

grafikdon:
This thread don head south o.

Nonsense!The thread is heading to the North,the Muslim North.We need to examine why there are restrictions on Muslim women's clothing in certain Northern states.This goes to the heart of the issue raised by the thread.

@Jackal

I don't mean he himself is Kit but that he is Mrs Kit-Kit's gay partner.I called him KIT as in Kit's wife.Word on the street is that they wedded recently. 'em civil union/partnership stuff.

@Denex a.k.a I am delighted to see Americans die in that bridge incident.

I told you you are an ignorant oaf! Your ignorance extends to even comments apparent to everyone.No where did I claim that Aisha is a Muslim name.Here are my posts:

Why is a Christian parading around in an Arab name

Why the Arab names in the first place?

You effectively posted to inform me that Aisha is an Arab name,even though I always refered to it as an Arab name. Do you use this forum through a translator? Perhaps,your gripe is with me asking why a Christian parades around in an Arab name.That is a fair question to ask of a non-Arab Christian.Why does an African,a non-Muslim,use an Arab name?

You may say she has the freedom to use whatever name she wants.Fair enough.But it is also fair to ask,'why this name? Accepting arguendo your point. Muhammad supposedly means "highly praised".Is "highly praised" Muslim or Christian?I might as well walk around calling myself Muhammad and condemn anyone who queries why a non-Arab Nigerian Christian is walking around with such a name.

I'm seriously getting tired of this Nairaland.

Good riddance!Your posts are a  mockery of a farce of a farce of a mockery.

debosky:
i meant castigation of Aisha by virtue of her name/casting aspersions on her Christianity due to a name she did not decide to give herself

All that you deduced from this

Of all the names for a Christian to bear,it is the name of Muhammad's 6 year old wife-Aisha.Why the Arab names in the first place?

The above is a fair question to ask.Why is a Christian parading around in an Arab name,moreso the name of Mohammed's 6 year old wife?

If it is her birth name,that maybe exculpatory.If it is her chosen moniker,she deserves some vitriol.

debosky:
Mamaosisi and I-man cease and desist forthwith from such accusations, it isn't fair.

What accusations are you talking about ?

@topic
Dead

Of all the names for a Christian to bear,it is the name of Muhammad's 6 year old wife-Aisha.Why the Arab names in the first place? 

loyika:
If you are going to "cull" from a Blog, you could do well to give the link as well, cause that analysis wasn't from you mate!!

GOONER 89

Why una dey insult Kit like that?

aisha2:
What evidence do you have to back up your Claim that women are not allowed to wear trousers in the North. Have you heard of any report that a woman was harrassed in Zamfara or any Northern State? Have you ever been to the Noorth?
All you Ignorant Bigots make me really sickWhen people like you raise unnecessary sentiments when there is none and stay  there on your computers and post stupid comments

Ok you win,women can walk the streets of Gusau in trousers.Women are not harrassed about their dressing in Zamfara and some of the Islamic states.I wonder where I got that idea from! Zamfara is a beacon of liberal tolerance.

Carlosein:
denex am still at a loss as to how a bridge collapsing could have been the cause of all these, historical reviews (for lack of a better qualification)

He derives pleasure from seeing those people die in that bridge incident.

aisha2:
The sad thing is that most of you live abroad so you want to lock our heads so when the fight start you stay there and be quoting statistics of the number of dead people and complain of religious bigotary in Nigeria when you people are the real bigots.
Shame on you

It is us living abroad that are the "real bigots".Those who actually do the killings are the "unreal bigots".The religious fanatics who kill people,who subjugate women in the name of Islam are just powerless pawns of us,the scheming expatriate Nigerians.

This thread is relevant to the wider issue concerning the lack of freedom,amongst women,to dress how they want.We know how it is in many Muslim states in Nigeria.Adressing this issue is very much called for.

nurexg:
I Think is issue should be over by now, because is becoming something else,

why is it that people are blaming Islam for this, Islam didn't prevent wearing trousers.

Can women,wearing trousers, walk the streets of those states that declared Sharia Law?Can they do so,for instance,in Zamfara? Islam is notoriously demanding in sartorial matters concerning women.To the extent that we are discussing women's freedom to chose their clothing,Islam inevitably and naturally comes into the equation.

let it be "banned of indecent dressing in public places"

because indecent dressing in courage sex-attack, sexual harassment etc.

So women should bear responsibility for the collapse of self-discipline amongst sexually perveted men?

Seun:
See me see trouble o. How is masturbation a problem? Isn't it a good way to release one's frustration?

You can catch STDs and have unwanted pregnancies while masturbating.It is obviously evil.

In a normal world,only criminals and crazy people normally feel the need to walk around as masqauredes.If I was to walk the streets in a balaclava,I would meet with public dissaproval.For hordes of women to be walking about,dressed as ninjas,is troubling.

PS:I heard a dissproportionate amount of Muslim women in the West suffer from rickets.I wonder why!

Can any Muslim explain to me the meaning of the following verse:

004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Do they oblige or condone in such contexts,the physical "reproach" of disobedient women?

Before the coming of the Europeans and the Arabs,were not African women skimpily dressed? Are the bare breasted Koma women victims of Western influence?

The irony is that those who assert that African women must cover up as much as possible, and that such a failure to cover up is a product of Western influence, are promoting values first transmitted to us by outsiders.

In those pre-season games,neither Tevez nor Saha were available,so Rooney got to play as a lone striker.With Tevez in the team,I expect Rooney to be shuffled out wide.Your 4-5-1 is essentially a 4-4-2.What is the point of playing Tevez  as the 5th man in midfield behind Rooney,you might as well push up alongside Rooney.

It also won't solve the problem of who to start from Carrick,Scholes and Hargreaves.I prefer that all 3 start,even if it means sacrificing width.We could even play them in a 4-4-2 with only Ronaldo as the winger in a 4 man midfield-

                                                                      Van Der Saar

                            Neville                     Rio                   Vidic         Evra
                 
                                                                          Hargreaves
                                             
                               Ronaldo                     Carrick           Scholes   

                                                                Tevez       Rooney

Rooney can be effective out wide on the left in a 4-3-3 formation.In such a formation,the wide men do not stay out wide as in a traditional 4-4-2.They may move to the centre as the team attacks,they don't have to hug the flanks.I have seen Rooney excel in that role.

The creativity in midfield will be provided by Carrick and Scholes.With Rooney and Ronaldo rotating as wingers and strikers as need be.

The dilemna is how you fit in the midfielders.The defence is pretty settled and it is expected that Tevez and Rooney will start.Whether Tevez and Rooney start as a striking duo in a 4-4-2 formation or as part of a 3 man attacking force with Ronaldo in a 4-3-3 formation is the unanswered question.

I would go for the 4-3-3 formation,with a 3 man midfield of Carrick,Scholes and Hargreaves.

Afam:
Do you think at all before writing or do you write first and think later?

So in your wisdom you imagine that a solution to the near unclothedness we see everyday is for people to look elsewhere when they expose a greater part of their bodies to the public?

Near unclothedness?What a load of hocus pocus from a man notably reeking in horse hockey.Which democratic country on the planet do you know of that arrests women for wearing trousers?I suppose the Army should be sent to Koma to arrest all the women exposing their breasts.

denex:
I'm sure you will support Thabo Mbeki's constitutional amendment too. Or is it only George Bush constitutional amendment you support?

Na good idea you bring up! Bush for a 3rd term! We need to organise a one million man march in front of the American embassy in Lagos.

PTH:
I definitely agree. I however think the "inexperienced and naive" tag has been used much more on Obama than Clinton in 1992. Clinton was actually seen as a fresh faced alternative to the gerontocratic regimes of Bush senior.

Obama has only legislative experience while Clinton had "executive" experience,albeit as Gov of Arkansas.However,I think its a significant difference considering the office of the President is part of the Executive arm.

PTH:
That is the excuse white america is preparing in order not to be seen as racist. Clinton and Kennedy where about the same age as obama when they won landslide elections and just as inexperienced.

What experience does Clinton have? Was she not one of those who voted in favour of the Iraq quagmire?

Clinton and Kennedy,rightfully in my view,also suffered the "inexperienced" tag.It is politics.Your perceived weaknesses will be highlighted and discussed and there is nothing remotely racist in the Obama context.

Obama has actually received far more postive press than any other candidate.

Denex,you have confirmed yourself as an ignorant oaf!

Obama is a complete joke.He is running for Vice-President and he better be nice to the Clintons if he wants to get that task.

Rudy Guliani is my prefered candidate.

k0be:
As far as bush is concerned, he's obviously not as stupid as some of us may think he is (myself included).  Getting re-elected and turning congress into some kind of puppet that lives by his rules.

I don't wonder whether Bush is stupid.I only wonder about people who genuinely think he is.