₦airaland Forum

bawomolo:
what official millitary or CIA code of conduct are terror tactics approved. the US follows the geneva accord while the FARC doesn't. there is a big difference. why won't u answer the question. is the FARC a terror group

dude I stated evidence above, they are off the books operations aka Black Operations sanctioned by the CIA
I'm not willing to call FARC a terrorist organization, because if FARC is a terror group then every rebel group can be called Terrorist including Castro and the July movement who rebelled against Batista.
However, I will be willing to concede that FARC is a terrorist organization, if you concede that the CIA is/was a terrorist organization. If we can't make concessions then hey, we leave it as it is.

4Him:
Up until 1948 the term "palestinian" refered to a JEW living in Palestine.
Palestine was the greco-roman name given to the land of Israel by Emperor Hadrian after the 70AD crushing of the last jewish revolt.
The name palestine was coined from the ancient philistines (of mediteranean stock) who have since ceased to exist.

In all the above . . . no arab influence! How then did "palestinian lands" suddenly become arab lands?

THAT IS FALSE! Arabs have not been living in Palestine for centuries. Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for the last 3000yrs.

The Jews formed the larger part of the population of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria prior to 1948 . . . so did u expect to uproot those ones to Germany?

No dude, Palestinian meant anyone who lived in Palestine, much like "American" is anyone who lives in America. You also might want to check out the Crusades to see how Jerusalem has been conquered over and over again. It has been owned by Persians,Ottomans and of course The crusaders.

"Israel" has only existed since 1948, The current inhabitants are known as "Israeli" not "Israelite", please don't tell me you are one of those religious freaks who extend their beliefs to politics? c'mon

There is a hugeeeeeee Jewish diaspora, Pre WWII majority of them lived in Germany, Poland, France, Italy, Iran and Slavic lands(Igbos are not Jews!!!). Now Hitler one day thinks to himself "why not conquer the world and Kill all the Jews?" so he attempts to annihilate the Jews living in Europe, with his trusty sycophant Himmler and the psychopath Mengele, of course he fails being the incompetent dictator that he is. So post WWII, Britain being the genius that She is, said to herself and France, "why not settle this diaspora of Jews in the middle east? Sure we can displace the people who have been living there for the past half millennium, because of course in the Bible says Palestine is the home of the Israelites right and the Bible is always right, right?" and since then the middle east has known no peace. And of course the J'ihad foundation has flourished there since then. Arabs are just mad because they think Jerusalem is their "Holy City"
and therefore are entitled to it, they dont give a shit about the Palestinians, and never mind that both Jewish and Christian communities consider it theirs too. Sure i sympathize with the Jews for their situation, but I do not agree with the decision made, taking away the Land from one group and giving it to the other.

texazzpete:
@RichyBlacK
Please don't confuse people who say 'The US is NOT ALWAYS wrong' with 'The US is always right'.
That has been a common Nairaland mistake.
You constantly announce that you're not against America, that you only loathe people like Bush. Fine. Just when i start believing you, you go and support EVERYTHING people like JayFK say just because it casts your points in good light. For example. . .

@JayFK
The CIA importing Nazi scientists to perform experiments on Jews and Gypsies? Provide proof or stand discredited.

Blaming the CIA for the My Lai massacres. . .you might as well blame the CIA for the recent rape case in Japan.

You can't really be serious right? Haven't you read WWII and Cold War history? I said the CIA imported War criminals "who" performed experiments on Jews and Gypsies look up "Operation Paperclip" this is not fiction.

I did not blame the CIA for My Lai, don't misunderstand me. Your boy above there he says basically that anyone who utilizes Terrorist tactics must be a terrorist, so I told him that "how bout the CIA and the U.S army who utilized such tactics, Can they be called terrorists too? My point is if he is so willing to extend the label to just about anyone surely he must be willing to extend it to the CIA no?

Rlst84sale:
The Lord fights for Israel, her neighbors could try all they could, for every Israeli they hurt or kill, they will lose 100 to 1000. I really don't feel soory for those heartless, ruthless neighbors of theirs. When Israel retaliates then the whole world would be crying that Israel is killing them but they don't cry and sanction them for attacking Israel first.

I knew someone would come with this Biblical crap.

Nothing against the Jewish people but the state of Israel was established on Palestinian Lands, the UK and the other morons gave the land to the Israelis based on Biblical history even though the Palestinians had been living there for the Past, oh I dunnoooo how many centuries? The state of Israel should have been established on German lands since they are the ones who attempted to eliminate them. Other than that, Jewish dudes are cool, sexy women they got too.

I think you may have opened a can of worms

bawomolo:
the lines aren't blured, it's pretty clear when u look at the goals and actions of the group. the CIA is an intelligence area which has made mistakes but it isn't a terrorist group. are u claiming the FARC is not a terrorist group

Yeah because of course, an Intelligence organization is supposed to be involved in assassinations on their soil and foreign soil, the selling of Opium and of course dangerous experiments on the citizens of their country including the mentally challenged, they imported Nazi scientists who committed atrocities against the Jews and Roma, the arming and training of the Contras. and of course the U.S army's My Lai massacre and other massacres in Iraq and Vietnam by U.S marines, Let us note that this is not their country's freedom they are fighting for oh!! I'm sure that there are people who would define those actions as "Terrorist" c'mon dude stop hugging the U.S's nuts , as for FARC I bet there are some Colombians who would disagree with you there. Like it was said earlier "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" until there is an internationally agreed upon definition of the word "Terrorist" I let this one rest.

bawomolo:
it still enriches uranium without UN inspection. that's the problem. it's strange u have no problem with countries like iran violating international protocol but raise a fit when the US does the same thing.

Iran has a right to the pursuit of Nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I'm sure that if the "oga U.S" can use Nuclear power to develop weapons they can surely make allowance for Iran to do the opposite. I reiterate, the IAEA finds no evidence that Iran has been developing weapons after 2003. Besides the U.S is the "Baba" of violating international protocol. Look up the clusterfuck that is Iraq and this is even prior to their beef with Iran. Anyways this has nothing to do with Colombia,Venezuela and Ecuador, how did we start arguing about this?

I see this as our only option here, either Nigeria splits for good or each region be given individual autonomy within Nigeria. But the odds of us doing it without war are very low. In the 20th to 21st century the only country I know of, that has managed to split peacefully is Czechoslovakia. The fact is that this concept of "one Nigeria" is just not workable and all of you that are rallying for it should get real.

bawomolo:
of course september 2006 is '03. i like how u guys spin things.

hezbollah's millitary wing was order to be dismantled by the UN i believe, hezbollah's millitary wing is considered a terror group by the UN,EU and many other organizations.

Guerrilla warfare is unconventional warfare

yes hezbollah bombing a jewish community in argentina isn't terrorism but guerilla warfare. guerilla warfare is a tactic against armed officers and civillians.
my head is beginning to ache.

yeah terror tactics like attacking and assassinating civilians must not the terrorism. this is like a member of the KKK saying, although we don't black people, we are not racist, we just used hate speeches. the excuses for groups like the FARC are unbelievable. very sad, we have to resort to this.

Like I said the line between "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" is blurred. I'm sure if you want to call all of them Terrorists, your precious CIA would be top 3 on the list.

bawomolo:
of course september 2006 is '03. i like how u guys spin things.

you are right, peaceful nuclear enrichment is usually done in underground bunkers. yes peaceful nuclear enrichment is done when IAEA inspectors are sealed from your nuclear facilities. this is laughable.

look at the top of the page it says 2003. According to the IAEA Iran discontinued manufacturing weapons in 2003.

bawomolo:
lol of course u won't visit the link, since the links say weapons grade uranium were found at two sites. who knows what kind of uranium would be found at Iran's underground nuclear facility. if irans program is peaceful, why do they have underground facilities??

Inspectors have found such uranium, which at extreme enrichment levels can fuel bombs, twice in the past. The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that at least some of those samples came from contaminated equipment that Iran had obtained from Pakistan.

But in this case, the nuclear fingerprint of the particles did not match the other samples, an official familiar with the inspections said, raising questions about their origin.


[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/middleeast/01vienna.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/You/United%20Nations[/url]


Mr Tonadoz- where is your evidence that the CIA is trying to kill hugo chavez.

Dude your links are from '03, you might want to check this out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6122412.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

The findings clearly state, there's no evidence that Iran is pursuing Weapons, when I find the other links I'll post them here, for now I have stuff to do.
I dont understand why you guys are against Iran pursuing peaceful nuclear enrichment. I don't see you guys complaining about Israel's nuclear program.


Also, about the issue of the definition "Terrorist"
I think you may be confusing the definition or rather "The label", Hezbollah was actually considered a legitimate political party, prior to the Israeli war with Lebanon

Guerrilla warfare is unconventional warfare, where a smaller army utilizes elements such as ambushes, targeted assassinations and other mobile tactics to combat a Larger less mobile enemy. Some tactics of course which maybe considered "terrorist" in nature, tactics of which the CIA is no stranger to. Now these guerrillas or groups who utilize guerrilla warfare, most of them are fighting within their homelands against a larger enemy, PKK (group of Kurds), PLO (Palestinians), they utilize targeted bombings and assassinations, they are considered freedom fighters within their communities but within the larger country their fighting they are considered terrorists, Do you follow? Okay now groups like Al Qaeda, I'slamic Jihad, The KKK who are not fighting for any freedom, but are instead targeting western Countries because of what they feel is a threat to their "Religion", those groups are clearcut Terrorist, now some of these smaller groups, like the Taleban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, had their interests aligned with Al Qaeda, because of course they couldn't achieve freedom on their own, hence the extension of the label of "Terrorist" towards them. I hope you understand? so consider Al qaeda and such as "I'slamic mercenaries" who are against the west but will fight for their on distorted version of "The good of I'slam" or Christianity as the case maybe. The red army faction of Italy and Baader Meinhof of Germany were also terrorists. The IRA utilizes terrorist tactics but they are not terrorists, do you understand what I'm getting at? Either way the definition is vague

bawomolo:
in other words, countries can hold rebels as long as they want. harboring terrorists is a violation of international law by the way.

The definition of terrorist is very vague.

bawomolo:
human rights for what?? u don't start attacks form another man's country then claim human rights. it's the right of that country to expel rebels as it wants. it's refugees that has such protection not rebels.

How about when American trained rebels tried to invade Cuba? My point here is, If the host country refuses to hand over the rebels? What next? especially if the country is smaller/less powerful. I guarantee you, if America was in Cuba's position it would have been a whole different story.
Likewise, Venezuela and Ecuador have the right to defend their borders especially if it interprets Colombia's actions as aggressive i.e. Conducting a military operation without explicit approval on their soil. Like I said in one of my previous posts Venezuela might have overreacted, as the situation could have been solved with diplomacy. But nonetheless they have the right to what they did, the whole point of "Sovereignty" here is defense against "external aggression" and external aggression can be interpreted in different ways, no matter how warped the Country's interpretation is.

bawomolo:
weren't there UN troops in rwanda, was rwanda invaded by foreign troops?? i guess we have to redefine the meaning of sovereignty. any country has a right to say no to UN troops.

i honestly don't, every country have their own personal interests.i don't know how it relates to this thread. the Kuwaiti's more than welcomed American influenced. it seems u guys have no problem with FARC.

My point is the partiality of the UN, where you said there was none. The US and UK have no interests in Rwanda therefore they can let that one go to hell,
the whole Vietnam issue communism, military funding of rebels communism, the middle east oil, Sudan/Chad Is'lamic influence, all of which are in the UN aka US interests. I guess we can let this one rest because the UN is definitely a partial body and it has nothing to do with the OP.

I really dont see what he did wrong there. He went straight to the point and the proposal was unambiguous unlike what someone said. So she turned down the guy because it was unromantic? Wow, if its me though you definitely won't be getting another one.

guess no one knows?

bawomolo:
international laws don't protect u when u intentionally harbor a terrorist group. this argument is mute since ecuador courts the FARC.

This point holds no water, like i said if the host Country allows them, that's a whole different issue.

bawomolo:
of course it has a right to retaliate by taking appropriate actions like expelling the rebels? don't u think so. are we absolving the FARC of guilt here.

lol so you are saying if Mexico conducts military operations on US soil, the US has a right to retaliate by expelling the rebels? These are people that might go to war. What if the US doesn't want to expel the rebels by citing human rights or sumn like that?

bawomolo:
false, the UN security council is composed of france,china and russia. countries that aren't so fond of US foreign policy. i see it's the new nairaland phenomenon to blame the US for everything. next thing we know, the UN has no right to intervene in sudan.

there are temporary seats in the security council, did anyone force them to join the UN? no

I guess you just proved the partiality of the UN no? Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, since Rwanda is a UN member?

bawomolo:
lol, u are arguing the semantics, the saudi king basically allowed the US base to counter the rise of syria and iraq. no one forced the creation of a base in saudi. the UN allowed the force to go through. it's pretty sad if u think, the US should have allowed Kuwait to be invaded on false claims. the goal of the UN is to protect the sovereignty and rights of it's member nations.

I didn't say it was by force, UK pressured the US into intervening in Kuwait (both Countries have their interests aligned) The US uses that opportunity to gain a foothold in the Middle East? Do you understand my point here?

kola oloye:
Nigeria will not split no matter your plight,it won`t work.
NIGERIA -THE GREATEST NATION ON THE PLANET i hail thee.

I laugh at thee!!

jesusfreak:
and which group is the we and comrades that ure referring to?
is it the same dumb herd of cattle?
or the people withougt a future?

u only contradict yourself. y don't u do everyone a favour by shutting up? Nigeria CANNOT progress with people like u who only clamour for chaos. what exactly is your point?

so what's your solution then? More respect between Tribes or something along those lines? Get real

bawomolo:
this is wrong, pakistan has allowed the US to conduct millitary operations against al qaeda in pakistani territory in some cases. that wasn't an act of war. u are overgeneralizing the situation here. chad has chased rebels into sudan, that wasn't an act of war against sudan.

That's a whole different issue, the host Country allowed the United States to conduct operations on Her soil, keyword here being "allowed"

bawomolo:
mexico has a right to take action if the US REFUSES to take actions against the menace residing in the US. of course mexico is allowed.

so are you saying if Mexico conducts an operation (hypothetically) on US soil that the US has no right to retaliate?

bawomolo:
correction, it was actually the UN that invaded. the UN force was only spearheaded by american forces. i'm tired of restating my points. are u claiming the UN is partial now??

are u kidding? read up on the history of the gulf war, my bad though I meant the UK and not the US, the UK pressured the United States into helping out Kuwait and of course, once that domino falls the rest are sure to follow, they then came under the guise of the UN and of course the US succeeded in establishing a military presence in Saudi Arabia.

I sincerely hope you are kidding about the UN not being partial? the UN is almost synonymous with the US now, it is basically United States interests it grants now no sanctions for those permanent members who go against Her wishes. The US and Uk interests were aligned, of course prior to this new prime minister. Thats why we have those two clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan. A council where only permanent members look out solely for their interests in "lesser" countries and have Veto power? are you kidding me?

would it be a good or bad thing?

bawomolo:
harboring rebels and allowing them to stage attacks from your TERRITORY is an act of war. PLO staged attacks from lebanon in the 80's thereby allowing israeli to invade lebanon without objection from the UN or "international law". if the US condones such act, then it's basically challenging mexico to a millitary confrontation.

Conducting Military operations on foreign soil is an act of war, period. But according to you "harboring rebels and allowing them to stage attacks from your TERRITORY is an act of war" so let us hypothesize If Zapatista rebels reside in the United States and are causing havoc to Mexico, I repeat, is Mexico allowed to conduct a Military operation on US soil? are they supposed to be given a free pass? How do you think the US would react?

this applies to the other questions.
About Kuwait, I'm just stating the partiality of the United States to regimes it supports. She had no right to intervene in the conflict.

I guess here sovereignty applies only to the countries you back no?

bawomolo:
"
yes they do. u can't claim neutrality in a conflict while giving rebels safe haven. mexico has a right to respond.(i doubt they would)

I dont think you understand foreign policy.
No, it is a violation of the country's sovereignty, even violation of airspace is a violation of sovereignty. And every country has the right to protect their borders.
You do know that the US is harboring what Cuba calls "rebels" and they do not even claim "neutrality", the US even planned an invasion, "Bay of pigs" ring a bell?
Are they not the same ones who backed Kuwait when Saddam Hussein tried to invade it and were claiming "Kuwaiti sovereignty"?

4 Play:
@knuckle-head

Who cares where the Chav stations his troops in Venezuela?Not even the Colombian Govt has bothered to respond with a similar mobilisation of troops.If his troops ever cross the border into Colombia,they will be met with a firm response.

The Obama line reiterates a more lucid and thoughtful appraisal of the situation rather than the rabid incoherent guff you spout.

so Let's say Mexican rebels have a safe haven in Texas, does Mexico have the right to conduct military operations on U.S soil?

What site do you play on?

nwando:
We are talking today you're talking 1500 AD
When will you move out of stone age reasoning?
you might as well ask them to capture Miss Yusuf as a war booty (like Mo did)

I notice you're selective in choosing what to comment on. Nonetheless my point remains the same

All three Abrahamic religions have committed atrocities in the name of their "God" so none of you have the right to judge the other.

The pope absolved the sins of those who killed innocents in the name of their Lord
Mus'lims, does Usman dan fodio ring a bell?
Jews, they just claim their Lord gave them the right to take Canaan because the inhabitants didn't worship him

hi!!

opposites attract?

That was a dumb statement by Mr. Okiro, he shoulda stated that he was ready to die for Nigeria instead. Whether you like him or not Yar'Adua came to be president by fraudulent means.

oldie:
The problem is not the number of tribes we have
The real problem is the people who run the system
These people form the tribe, the cabal that makes
things un-workable in Nigeria

This cabal is not ethnic.
Their common language is corruption, greed and selfishness!

Corruption is a major issue too, I agree. But let's face it Tribalism is also a major issue. Matter of fact, these are the two major issues facing Nigeria today.

@JayFK,

Just have some questions or observations regarding your input. I'll try and relate them to the topic at hand.

Quote
1.While every one knows the US is guilty of this, would you say the same regarding Hugo Chavez? Isn't his escalation of this crisis intervention? I still have a hard time figuring out why he is so involved with this to the extent that he sent out troops to his borders ahead of the country whose territorial integrity is in question

Nope, he simply sent troops to his border, his country's sovereignty was violated he simply reacted. Though I think he might have overreacted.

2. US and others lead the pack here. But tell me, isn't Chavez guilty of the same?

How exactly? however there is a concept in Socialism known as "Internationalism" it is summarized by the statement: "workers of the world unite" I however do not agree with the concept.

3.Communal ownership of what?

Property and Resources

4.The US is arguably the most tolerant country in this regard.

Are you kidding?

5. Is this possible if communal ownership is encouraged? Communal ownership requires all to receive same salary irrespective of individual output. Communal ownership is diametrically opposed to capitalism. While capitalism encourages individual compensation based on efforts, communal ownership doesn't.

Yes it is, communal ownership is exactly that : communal ownership, one of the beliefs that I failed to mention is state sponsored education until the end of secondary school. And those who wish to continue to university can advance in rank. Note that this is not detrimental as it is not solely for the good of the person but also for the Nation too. In Capitalist societies however it is used to amass property, and employees work solely for the benefit of the employer and not the Nation.

You want the best of both worlds ehn? If a society is prosperous through capitalism, why the need to make the State a welfare clearing house? If everyone has the opportunity to pursuit of wealth and happiness, why should others live on the sweat of others when they could also be contributing to nation building?

Read my former post, I stated i hold Socialist beliefs, I didnt say I was a pure Socialist, there's different kinds of Socialism, Sweden is described as a Socialist Democratic Nation.

Chavez has decided to devote his energies to aggravating the United States
It is not only the US that he is aggravating. The guy just seems to like attention, good or bad. I do not see any wisdom in his actions. His main problem with Colombia is because it isn't run by a leftist like him.

I agree with you on this point, Chavez is not acting in his Country's interest, it is not in his Country's interest to get into a war with the United States

Tell me, what rights does the baby have if any?

To answer that, we would have to delve into philosophy and we wont come to a definite answer.
However it is the decision of the woman that is having the baby to make, not your decision, no matter the sentiments you have on the issue.

SysUser:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldchristianministries.org/default2.asp?active_page_id=255


Kazakhstan: Religious Freedom Under Attack


February 15, 2008
By By Anneta Vyssotskaia

Kazakhstan is one of the Central Asian countries that were part of the Soviet Union Communist empire and later became independent states.

During the Soviet era the ruling Communist Party imposed so-called scientific atheism on the people's minds using the education system and official propaganda. However, with the collapse of the Communist regime and the Soviet state, freedom of religion came to Kazakhstan among other freedoms. Through the work of numerous missionaries the Good News was accepted by large numbers of people, resulting in the birth and growth of many Protestant churches.

The churches in Kazakhstan continue to grow and the number of converts from both the ethnic and Russian population continues to increase. However, Protestant Christians are still a religious minority in Kazakhstan. Most of the ethnic population historically considers Sunni The Great Religion to be the only true religion for ethnic Kazakhs, while the majority of the Russians living in Kazakhstan relate to the Russian Orthodox Church.

The government wants to keep strict control of all religious life in the country, deciding which religions are suitable for Kazakhstan and which are not. There is a growing intolerance of Protestant Christians and some Great One groups as well as other religious bodies, mainly Jehovah's Witnesses and Hare Krishna. During 2007 the authorities started to put greater restrictions on the activities of such organizations, with 43 people of various religions charged with illegal missionary activities.

In August 2007 Grace Presbyterian Church in Karaganda, a large church in Kazakhstan with 2500 members, was raided by National Security Committee secret police for 15 hours. While initial accusations of treason against the pastor and three other church leaders were dropped, in the following months other Grace churches in Kazakhstan were investigated and several were threatened with closure. On 25 & 26 January the 5000-member Grace Presbyterian Church in Almaty, one of the largest churches in the country, was raided by secret police for 17 hours.
Intend to close 300 evangelical churches

As Forum 18 reports, a Grace Church representative said all this was aimed at closing down the approximately 300 Grace churches in Kazakhstan. They are now being scrutinized by state agencies such as the Financial Police, Justice Department and National Security. Although the investigation is still under way, there have already been several negative media reports. One of these, "Deceptive Grace," accused church members of spying, possessing drugs and stealing church members' property.

While Kazakhstan's official policy had been to set an example of tolerance towards all peaceful religions, President Nazarbayev, speaking at the Nur Otan party's council meeting on 17 January, attacked missionary activities in the country. He said: "We are a secular state and have no official religion. However, it does not mean that Kazakhstan should become a dumping ground for religious movements of all kinds." In his opinion the existing religious law needed to be strengthened, especially regarding religious extremism.

"Thousands of missionary organizations are functioning in Kazakhstan. We are unaware of their goals. We must curtail their unlimited freedom, as this country does not need it." The next day, participants at the round table, "Impact of Non-traditional Religions on Youth," expressed their concerns about the growth of "violations of the law" by non-traditional religious bodies.

After such statements from Kazakhstan's head of state, there will most likely be more persecution of religious organizations not approved by the government, including many Protestant churches, and especially those having links with foreign missionary groups. There is an urgent need to pray for the situation in the country, as it may deteriorate very quickly.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take it you haven't heard of the crusades? or the labeling of innocent girls "witches"? I'm pretty sure people of that era, considered their time "The last days", Labeling of witches continues in Nigeria to this day, fraud committed by pastors, should the fact that they are Christian be taken into account?