₦airaland Forum

@Missy B
Thanks for the Hungarian goulash. That type looks quite unfamiliar, but I thoroughly enjoyed the juice. Seriously, though, I used to have the recipe. If I can find it I will paste it for you later.

morpheus24:
If you know anyting about SA politics and the ANC then you would have anticipated this outcome

Right.

All this fixation with the phrase “food basket” which has little to with the discussion? If I understand you correctly, what you saying is that a country that produces enough food to feed itself and to export does not qualify as a “food basket” in its region, or that you have to be ahead of the likes of South Africa to qualify. Ok.

Afam:
Tell me the quote above was a mistake?

This must be a novel method of refuting points. But, perhaps, you are still up to the task of giving particulars of how the IMF and the World Bank conspired against Zimbabwe and the roles they played in plunging Zimbabwe into its crisis? And, er. . . this is not a mistake.

Lwandle:
No he is not a BRAND new MUGABE MyJoe he is a man who realised in good time that he was just a pawn being played 10-0.

He was in fact caught between a rock(war veterans) and a hard place (read west) he made his choice and decided to do right by it. The consequences have been dire for the whole country but at least it was done before the powers that be got their puppet party in government.

Noone is perfect we all bleep up from time to time but when you see your so called friends funding and sponsoring a new party whose sole aim is to unseat you and privatise the whole country by means of destroying our currency and economy through sanctions then its important to fight and frustrae them a every turn no matter what.

You are saying that the war veterans woke up from sleep after nearly twenty years and put pressure on Mugabe? This is untrue. Perhaps you have forgotten and I need to remind you. It was Mugabe who ordered the veterans into the farms when he realised he was about to lose an election. I recall the words of the late Chenjerai “Hitler” Hunzi, then leader of the veterans, when confronted on why he was disobeying court orders to leave the farms: “I cannot disobey my president.”

I don't know about funding and sponsorship but I do know dictators often label opposition parties in order to harass them. I am not convinced Mugabe and the other primitive accumulators in Zanu-PF or their enforcers in the Army love Zimbabwe more than former labour leader Tsvangirai, or the cerebral and fearless student union leader-turned-politician Tendai Biti, or the irrepressible student union leader turned-brilliant scientist-turned-politician Arthur Mutambara. If Mugabe has any love for Zimbabweans he has not demonstrated it. He comes across as a cynical, calculating dictator driven by an unbridled lust for power. In the early days he preached reconciliation with the whites – so far so good. The West praised him. But then he let the white farmers be - a betrayal considering the fact that it was land that Zimbabweans fought bravely for. During the negotiations at Lancaster House the issue of land was discussed extensively and settled. Land was to be redistributed to the landless black majority and Britain was to help pay compensation to the white farmers. When the British selfishly reneged on this agreement what did Mugabe do to try to seek redress? Nothing. He did not not seriously pursue the matter, drag Downing Street to the UN or anything. He did nothing. If he had stood up then and insisted on an orderly land redistribution many would have supported him. If he had called Britain names then he would have found many allies right across the world. But he was happy to let his people suffer deprivation just so long as that guaranteed him the status he just acquired as the Great African Statesman with regular invitations to London and other European capitals.

Then one day he realises he is about to lose an election and cynically starts talking about land. He orders his friends into the farms to beat up, kill, burn and loot. A few white farmers and their Zimbabwean workers are murdered. People become jobless. Seized farms are given to government cronies with little or preparation for the project and most become unproductive. The economy collapses overnight. Elections become “do-or-die” as war veterans and Zanu-PF youths maim and kill opposition supporters. This is what our people are applauding. “A great black leader is taking back land from whites.” I do not buy it.

I think the mistake you and many others make is in failing to realise that oppression has no colour. It does not matter whether an enslaver is named Leopold, Cecil Rhodes, Verwoerd, Babangida, Abacha, Margaret Thatcher, Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe.  Mugabe has got the same mindset that drove Ian Smith and the other snooty white rulers of Rhodesia. This is what we disagree on. It is not whether or not the British like us or not. When people come here talking about how the British do not like Zimbabwe I take it they have nothing better to do with their time since no one is under the illusion that the British government was elected to put our interest before theirs.

Afam:
But the people of Zimbabwe don't need your sympathies and have made that clear by choosing to stick with Mugabe and to move the economy forward in spite of all the conspiracy by the World bank and IMF to strangulate the economy even when the economic melt down messed up the economies of a lot of countries that the so called IMF and World band were assisting.

No, they don't need my sympathies. And I don't offer them my sympathies in those terms. But, here, sir, MY SYMPATHIES ARE WITH THE STRUGGLING PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE.

And while I don't think much of the IMF, it is quite convenient to blame them for what befalls the likes of Mugabeland without offering a shred of fact that they had anything to do with Zimbabwe's problems.

Lwandle:
MyJoe your sympathies are definately not with the Zimbabwean people but are with the likes of IMF, WB, BBC, CNN and the defacto rulers of this world.

This is not based on rational thinking but a desire to slight me, since I said nothing in praise of the IMF or the other alphabetical organisations you mentioned. . .

Lwandle: In fact we do not need your sympathies instead keep them for your own fellow countrymen whom I believe need it much more then we do.
Nothing in this world comes easy thank goodness the worst of it is over for now but the journey is still long indeed.

. . . Or maybe you misunderstand "sympathies". But never mind that.

Lwandle: Zimbabweans are moving from a stage of being nothing but chattels on their own land moving from being spectators as others played football with their GOD given WEALTH to being turned into players themselves. Who ever said empowering and freeing yourself from the clutches of imperialism is a simple walk in the park lied. Noone who has been benefitting from someone elses TALENTS and LABOUR would ever want to freely let go of his ill gotten benefits.

The white man reminisces of the MUGABE of old who in the 80s' and 90s' kowtowed and served his interests whilst subdueing his own black people.
The MUGABE upon whom they conferred KNIGHTHOODS and honorary degrees for his being a good NIGGER who protected and served their interests diligently, THE MUGABE they called a STATESMAN even as he killed and subdued ruthlessly all his opponents in the 80s'lol!!!

You see what I said earlier? NEPA goes for two days, then comes back and my people sing their praises. Why did Mugabe do nothing to resolve an ugly land situation for more than 15 years? Why did it take his loss of a poll and the prospect of losing an election to goad him into seizing lands? Why was this done with so much violence and chaos, plunging the country into anarchy, unproductiveness and economic depression? What's between Mugage and power that would make him let a tiny minority control the bulk of his country's land as long as that, in his thinking, guaranteed him political power and invitations to Buckingham Palace and then turn round and send "war veterans" to storm farms and private homes of opposition supporters just because he was likely to lose an election?

Lwandle: Of course they have a reason to hate this new MUGABE who has seen the error of his ways and has worked tirelssly to right the wrongs of yesteryear by working tirelessly to empower his own people the indegenes of ZIMBABWE,
Africans we need to open our eyes and minds and not be fooled anymore.

I don't have any illusions about the Europeans. And I know the ignoble role Britain has played in Zimbabwe's land problem. But if you think you have a brand new Mugabe who suddenly realised the error of his ways and found an innate love for the poor and dispossessed of Zimbabwe; if you think Mugabe cares about the Zimbabwean people nearly as much as the fineries of state power; if you think it is not the same cynical Mugabe who outmaneuvered Joshua Nkomo and massacred Zimbabweans in Matabeleland, I think YOU, sir, need to open your eyes and not be fooled anymore.

Actually that was the most hilarious TV I have seen in a long time! Had me in stitches. First, some of the women had their placards upside down. They knew little or nothing about Yerima, so when asked if it was proper for Yerima to divorce a 17-year-old wife to marry a new one they countered that they did not know what that one did to Yerima. After the NAPTIP guy spoke to them they looked happy as they departed. And to crown it all two boys appeared on camera to "wish Yerima's wife happy children's day!"

It would have been all fun were it not for the tragic fact that a 13-year-old girl's future is on the line here!

JeSoul:
This reminds me of the movie Troy from a few years ago.

Paris, Prince of Troy steals away at night back to Troy - with Helen, wife of Menelaus the Mycenaean King. Menelaus is infuriated at this treachery from his wife and Paris. King Agamemnon - ruler of the entire land, who had for years been dreaming about conquering Troy - uses this as as an opportunity, as justification or reason if you will, to invade Troy. Agamemnon did not care about Helen. He did not even care about Menelaus. He would've invaded Troy one way or another. Helen just happened to be a convenient vehicle for him to ride on.

My point is the same as Romeo's. People who will kill, steal, hate, discriminate etc will do so one way or another, with or without religion. Religion just happens to be their "justification" or outlet for that which already exists in them. If religion didn't exist, they would use something else.

I think it actually happens more the other way round. That is, people who want to kill those who refuse to share their faith seize on a convenient political excuse to do it. I don't think Uthman Dan Fodio even needed any such excuses to invade Hausaland. Ditto for King Richard's wars to take the "holy land" from the Moslems. The Pope's endorsement was all he needed.

JeSoul:
@Myjoe, what's up doc?

Cool, here. How's you? 

I can understand a Nigerian applauding Mugabe for Zimbabwe's growth. After all, when NEPA restores the light after holding on to it for two months we sing their praises. Zimbabwe, once the food basket of its region, is now a decrepit, desultory, impecunious, tiny dictatorship ruled by an autocratic, gerontocratic, megalomaniac, who, because he is old and close to his grave, has no qualms taking many young people along with him as long as he remains "His Excellency" unto death. Anyway, my sympathies are with the people of Zimbabwe.

Romeo4real:
Fundamentalism is a malady that afflicts all sides equally. There are scientists who are "fundamentalists" in their thinking, who have gone on to do abhorrent things all in the name of science. I personally, have no time for fundamentalism of any kind or sheen.
There is nothing fanatical or fundamentalist about the teachings in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. People choose to interpret things in a way that is aligned with their initial thinking.This is a case of Don't blame the Game, Blame the Player.

As you rightly pointed out, many great things have been done in the name of religion. Unrivalled acts of kindness, compassion and selflessness. These do not, can not, and must not erase the equally abhorrent things done in the name of religion.
Contrary to popular thinking, most wars are not caused by religion - A catalyst? Yes. Contributing factor? Yes, but rarely the cause. Show me any war, political unrest, rebellion or revolution, and I'll show you injustices, land grabs, genocide, ethnic cleansing and government terrorism.

A++
But bolded will be very hard to sell. Many will argue, too, that religion has been more than a "contributing factor" in many wars.

wirinet:
Because it give you a sense of security in numbers, and it helps reinforce your beliefs. It is ego soothing to be able to convince other to abandon their beliefs and follow yours. Then there is the sense of arrogance at being more knowledgeable and special than others.

Spot on!

^^^ I think you are subjecting his question to your own subjective concept of heaven.

Hungarian goulash, please?

Big B1:
@Poster:
IBB himself will be addressing Nigerians tomorrow in Abuja. He plans to talk/discuss exactly what he accomplished and didn't accomplish during his time as our president.

This setting will be open, straight forward and educational; the man  even plans to answer any questions you may having regarding his regime.

Now what else can be better?

Instead of discussing baseless facts about IBB and his accomplishment as Nigerian president, I'll advise you to attend the forum in Abuja tomorrow. You can trust that I will be there.

Are you kidding or you seriously expect to learn anything useful from IBB's mouth? Here is a quote from IBB at forum in Jos back in 2000:
"In all, we witnessed the most complex and the most dramatic moments of the century that has just ended. Situations and events kept unfolding throughout that period with  unyielding and breath taking rapidity. . . changing everything and everybody everywhere in a manner never before experienced, in a manner so thorough. . . "
If you can make any sense out of the above, then by all means attend the IBB show at Abuja.

toluxa1:
Most English words that begin with Ex are actually pronounced IK e.g Example, Explain, Examination. Some pronounced as EK are Extent, Excellent.

You are right. But I'm sure you mean ig-zam-pl.  

Medlabgirl:
My Dear Darling, please go to www.dictionary.com, and kindly turn your speaker volume up. I maintain, its IK

You are right about Dictionary.com. But several other dickos, including Encarta, render it EK. I will go with them on this. But that is not to say you are wrong. It is to say there is sometimes no consensus on these things and we should be slow to "correct" others, as anyone who pays attention to grammar will realise.

Medlabgirl:
Not to brag, but I had a perfect TOEFL score in 1996 when TOEFL was TOEFL, not now!

Medlabgirl:
You missed the most glaring one Oga Olawoye: 99.99% of Nigerians, and I bet you do it too, say EXPANTIATE instead of EXPATIATE; which means to throw more light on, to further explain etc, and pronounced ik-spey-shee-eyt[/size]

Thanks for this. But it's ek-spey-shee-eyt not ik-spey-shee-eyt

Sagamite:
The cult genius folklore is a making of our utter, useless, illiterate, moronic, quack Nigerian journalists.

Right. If I recall it correctly, Okey Ndibe gave us "Maradona" and Tell magazine coined "evil genius".

Olawoye:
Senate      / S – E – NIT /   - NOT / SI / in first syllable; and NOT / NEIT / in the second syllable

This is the one that has turned my stomach since 1999. I call /SI-NEIT/ a piece of Nollywoodese. Reason, it was shortly after the return of democracy 1999, and a Nollywood movie titled The Senator was released and the actors pronounced it /SI-NEIT/ that it all started. Before my horrified ears respected NTA and FRCN newscasters started saying SI-NEIT instead of SE-NEIT. That, of course, is to say nothing of senators themselves and the rookies that pass for broadcasters at the FM stations springing up like bad mushrooms all over the place. Please tell them its /SE-NEIT/ not /SI-NEIT/!

Note: I do not concur with you on the second syllable. The a between N and T is rendered as the weak form by most dictionaries, that is Ə, but most talking dictionaries sound it EI, so we have SENƏT where the Ə is sounded very much like EI but in a very short form.

Sagamite:
What makes him a genius?

We. Us. We built the cult and keep sustaining it. You only need to pay some attention to the man when he is talking to see he is no genius at all and to see how perfectly he fits the uncomplimentary description of him contained in Patrick Wilmot's book Nigeria: The Nightmare Scenario. But with a little bit of luck on his side, the "genius" picture may be the one that lives after him. It has happened to several blackguards and monsters of history. Already many educated Nigerians have shocked me with their capacity to forget what IBB stood/stands for.

A man stole a small sum of money belonging to some town association somewhere in Kogi State. He was summoned to the king's palace. When he refused to own up for the money, a curse was ceremonially placed on him by the king and he suffered some ostracism in the community. That is how seriously the town took the matter.

Why is it, then, that when people steal in government house our people defend them? Why do people come here to talk "work and eat" and other silly lines? In another thread, I think, someone was saying that Ibori developed his home town?! Is it insanity, illiteracy or plain stupidity that makes a man to defend the person that steals from him? I think the place we should start is to let our people know that "government money" belongs to them and that they have non-negotiable rights to 24-hour electricity, good roads, water, good schools, well-equipped police, rail network, etc.

RSA:
My Joe I do understand your concern regarding leadership in Africa,but Africa is not one country.South Africa's problems are unlike any other country in the continent,in South Africa we have both world in one country,a typical third world country and a first world.[b]And we need a leader who could relates to both worlds and whose mission is to bring them together.[/b]The ruling party is trying hard to balance this.And one thing that people forget is in South Africa we don't vote for an individual but for a party,which means we vote for a party's policies not Zuma's policies,if Zuma is not doing what his party appointed him to do then just like they did to Mbeki they will recall him and appoint someone else.

Some sensible talk here. I do realise there are different countries in Africa, each with its unique set of challenges. But there are also similar problems. My reference to Africa was made in the realisation that South Africans may be voting like the rest of Africa, that is, voting for the Big Man, instead of considering issues. My concern is about the highlighted - I failed to see in Zuma the ability to do this and was hoping to learn something I may have missed from you.

RSA: Most of us are familiar with the policy of ANC,and there fore vote them in power because of what they stand for.

This is not the issue but the issue is related to this. South African politics is dominated by the ANC and whoever is picked by the ANC as its leader becomes president. So by questioning the choice of Zuma by South Africans I was questioning the support given him by the supporters of the ANC. I was not wondering why South Africans did not vote for DA or IFP. The two politicians I mentioned their names are both members of the ANC.

The support enjoyed by the ANC is perfectly understandable. The challenge, therefore, is for the ANC to get it right in picking its leaders and election candidates. A friend went to South Africa back then and told me of his conversation with his taxi driver. The driver was full of support for Zuma, whom he described as "president-in-waiting", and denunciation for Mbeki. The reason for this is what I failed to comprehend. I think Mpele's post is right - people are charmed by Zuma's smiles and put off by Mbeki's aloofness. And that is what worries me. It was nothing about any perceived abilities of Zuma's.

Kay 17:
a survey of Nigerian leaders!?

You did not say anything about "Nigerian leaders" in your post. Here is it again

Kay 17:
Impressive! ten years in prison. That kind of sacrifice would be hard to come by in Nigeria.

But he loves dancing a lot. and loves women.

He has some sembleance of a dictator, hardly tolerant and on a constant battle with the media and judiciary.

And was Zuma "South African leader" when he went to jail?

AjanleKoko:
Absurd thread.
Why not compare Zuma to OBJ and his twenty-something wives? He even had to add his daughter-in-law to his scorecard.

Why compare Zuma to OBJ? I wonder why you people are obsessed with the sexuality of leaders or did you see anything about Zuma's sexuality in OP?

AjanleKoko:
Nigerian leaders don't make any kind of sacrifice anyways, that point is irrelevant. Maybe their political enemies sometimes throw them in jail . . . but that's where it ends.

While Nigerian leaders are uninspiring, how does that justify the lie that you can't find Zuma's sort of sacrifice in Nigeria? Are you and K17 aware of how many people lost their lives fighting to overthrew stratocracy in Nigeria? Countless people have made the supreme sacrifice for this country. There are no politicians with 10 year jail records in Nigeria, but have any of you ever heard the statement that heroes are made by circumstances?

adconline:
I think it will really be unfair to compare Zuma to Mandela, if that was your benchmark on fairness, however, Zuma he comes off as someone who has lived his life in struggle. It's like Jesse Jackson who fought in Civil Rights era, but had had an illegitimate child. I think Zuma is authentic, relatable and reflects the actualisation of black emancipation in RSA.  It's  like George Bush and Al Gore in 1999 elections.

How, in your exalted opinion, has anyone here compared Zuma to Mandela? Emancipation, yes. But there were countless others. In fact, most South Africans of that era are heroes of the struggle. Zuma himself has repeatedly paid tribute to these great people. Why can't some of you move beyond apartheid?

Anyway, since some of you can't comprehend the thread, let me try to explain it.

There is overwhelming support for Zuma among the people of South Africa. Compared to the others there were to choose from, such as Sexwale and Ramaphosa, some find this incomprehensible. In line with that, there were many pundits who thought Mandela also made a mistake in picking Mbeki, a view I share.

South Africa, like every country, has its challenges at this time. There is rampant poverty and unemployment. There is runaway crime. There is the matter of land which is still in the hands of whites - you need someone with the guts to look them in the face and tackle this problem.
Now, looking at Zuma, it is hard to put a finger on what it is the people saw that made them believe he can tackle these serious problems. I have followed his politics for a long time and he strikes me as a typical Nigerian politician, that is someone who places emphasis on politics above anything else. He is a consensus builder and consensus builders usually draw back when it comes to important but difficult decisions that will involve "stepping on toes". I had hoped South Africa would do better than the rest of Africa, including Nigeria, when it comes to picking its leaders, but what have we seen? When I opened thread I was hoping to learn that single thing that was seen in him which gave the impression that he has the capability to tackle that country's varied problems. But reading to the responses by the South Africans here one's worst fears are confirmed - that he did not win because the people saw something in him that made them believe he could solve their problems! It is all down to his ability to smile and charm the people!! I watched him in Davos the other day and was taken aback to see him laughing when a serious question bothering South African economy was asked.

In advanced democracies, people tend to vote based on the perceived ability of the contender to tackle the issues bothering the citizens at that time. In Africa villagers vote for someone who brings bags of rice. People who can smile and charm their fellow countrymen tend to do well in politics. This is also true in advanced democracies but only to a certain extent - people also look at the issues. Africans need to wake up.

I certainly don't think much of Nigerian leaders in general - in fact, I hold them in contempt. But they are not the subject of this thread. Did anyone miss that? If you want to discuss Obasanjo or Jonathan or whoever open another thread on him. It is free.

The citizens on the the streets of Athens are to be denounced, not commended. They, along with their government, all brought the crisis upon Greece. When a government is too inept and corrupt to collect taxes this is bound to happen. While I do not agree that "socialism" is the problem, I wonder if those protesting against cuts expect their government to pluck money from trees to spend.

Kay 17:
Impressive! ten years in prison. That kind of sacrifice would be hard to come by in Nigeria.

But he loves dancing a lot. and loves women.

He has some sembleance of a dictator, hardly tolerant and on a constant battle with the media and judiciary.

@bolded
May I ask how you came to this conclusion?

Pro Anti:
If the above his true, he should answer for his crimes in the UK.
As for issues in Nigeria, I can tell you on good authority that his main crimes are not corruption related. He was seen as an influential member of the "Yar 'Adua Cabal". The govt of the day had to do "something" about him before he did "something" about them.

You may not agree with this but you will agree that Nigerian politics is the more you look the less you see

As you probably know, he has been accused of breaking the law by stealing (read plundering) public funds. Did he steal or not? That is the question he ought to answer in court. If he is innocent, he will get away. [b]If he stole public funds and it took an anti-"Yar'Adua Cabal" or "Nigerian politics" to smoke him out, then well done anti-"Yar'Adua Cabal and "Nigerian politics"! [/b]Those who are taking advantage of their positions today will also be out of power tomorrow and, going by your perception, let's hope the next "cabal" goes after them. If your conspiracy theory is true, then what I see is a conspiracy of the elite against the elite. I am, of course, talking about the thieving elite.

silvertuke:
These guys are hunting Ibori because of the moni they he stole, what about Lucky Igbinadion the bad guy what have they donr to him.

He should be arrested too because he is even worse than Ibori, immagine for 8 years there is nothing to show 4 it and still they just let him go free.

Na wa ooooooooo na only God go help us.

I agree with you. The Inspector-General of Police should also stop hunting armed robbers and, in fact, release all the ones in his custody since he has not caught the very bad ones that caused the death of Abubakar Rimi or those that murdered travellers at Benin-Ore Road!

Orilee9ice:
@ [b]sagamite, since you're in Jand like moi, i would have expected better from you [/b]instead of desending to insults  , ,  , Aburo, dee deee oooo, u-get -me

What is this?

@ Mad_Max
So I noticed. But you gave just one solid objective mode of separation - the findings of credible scholars, which, it must be noted, you say do not tell you what to believe, but help in the sorting process. The reason I expected you to answer Krayola here is, I think, quite obvious - the gospels do not score higher than Pauline letters with the scholars. In fact, they are more controversial.

JeSoul:
MyJoe,
   I reckon with the strongest of reckonings - that after the dust settles from evaluations, and analyses, and re-evaluations, that I will always believe Jesus came and died for my sins. I believe it as strongly today as I did 10 clicks ago and as I will 100 clicks from now - if I'm still around .

Good.

JeSoul: Lol . . . I dare you to find two of such phrases on this thread  .

Seen quite a few today, actually. Maybe I'm getting old and can't get a hang of new words!

JeSoul: If anyone is guilty of mysterious phrases, just come over to the movie section and try understanding a conversation between Max, Vesc and Spikedcylinder.

So that's the secret! Not much of a movie person, but I recently started doing a bit of Bollywood _{*don't laugh*} and am now occasionally sighted in front of the set watching a handsome chap and a beautiful lady (check out Aishwarya Rai) dancing round and holding hands. Watch out for my Hindi phrases from now. 

Hey there, too, Max. Quite an informative thesis you wrote there!

JeSoul:
Un-subed Jesoul's well. And thankful for MyJoe today . Let me clarify. Cos I just realized my entries can be a tad confusing.

I have remarked over my NL life that every man's walk to God is unique. There is no one universal template that can be applied evenly across the board and will produce the same results. Case in point - we have drastically differing views on a single character Paul. I see a hero, Max sees a villian. Now when I say I cannot prove it - its because I can't and more importantly, I'm not even trying to. Because my proof - which is in my experiences - matters to only me. Is significant to only me. Cannot be bottled and reproduced for others to experience alike and hence believe alike. See the "Book of Eli" bit - I believe because I have had an experience (and continue to) and that is what fuels my faith to keep on believing. So I know, but only unto myself - does that make sense?

So Joe, I will not claim to "know". "Know" is a packed, loaded word and I do not know it all - not by any stretch of the imagination and I cannot dare present myself as an authority on spiritual matters that are ever so complex and are scarcely identical from one soul to another. Only God knows. Which is why I then proceeded to say "seek and ye shall find" from Him who truly knows.

One important assertion I want to strongly clamp down on is that "I believe because I was raised to" - indoctrination - nothing could be further from the truth. I believe because I had an experience as a child - this caused me to search and I found, and I have been holding on to the heart of what I found since then. Have there been tertiary beliefs I have let go and modified and gathered along the way? absolutely. I am a thinker and analyze everything - you have no idea. So if anyone thinks that I have not, do not and will not continue to critically think, soberly consider and humbly evaluate all that I believe - all the while weighing it all against the balance of faith - then such a soul is sorely mistaken - and I say that with the warmest of affection
You know I was going to ask this very same thing of Max, but was just to lazy to do so. Thanks Joe. Max, I look forward to your response on this.

Thanks for your response and good to know you constantly pause to evaluate. I think it would be worth everyone's while to do that. Concerning experiences, you probably read the thread I opened on that and know why I do not consider them objective. Fact remains that before your experiences, and then before JeSoul's highly developed scientific mind bloomed, you had already learned something by rote. This applies to all us. So my invitation to religious folk to evaluate EVERYTHING  - first with the intellect before proceeding to the spiritual - stands. I mean, it should make sense to me first.   I am in no position to know you haven't done this - examine everything without making reference to the received Bible since you aren't sure about the book, question if Jesus really came to die for people as told or if someone made it up - of course, so these are general thoughts I hope anyone might give a second thought to.

JeSoul:
This is too kumbaya-ish. There are spiritual wrongs and rights Max. If not then Jesus would've said everyone would go to heaven. But He says "only few will find the right road".

The rate at which you churn out New Words and Phrases I haven't a clue what they mean. . . I think I will start compiling a book out of them to be titled – The Mysterious Phrases of JeSoul.  

Great thread. _{I am just a tad concerned about JeSoul's well-known position that she doesn't really claim to know and cannot "prove" it but she believes it all the same. You were born a Christian and grew up believing. So, like most people, you learnt by rote. So the basis of belief here is this "inner peace"? Since most religious people feel this under the belief they are pleasing God, is it not worthwhile to take some time aside to question EVERYTHING from A-Z and . . .} Just musing  How's you, JeSoul?

Related to the musings above, it is noted that even Max did not respond to Krayola's question about the sources of Christ speak, since she rejects Paul's teachings on the basis of perceived differences between them and those of Christ. How do we know what Jesus taught which Paul is said to differ from? What Matthew, John and the others wrote. But Max does not know they reported Christ accurately such that they are to be used as yardstick for dismissing another "called" one, or does she? To put that differently, in the face of the well-known controversies surrounding the gospels how reasonable is it to hold them as standard for Paul? 

Romeo4real:
No it isn't.The phrase is intended to highlight the fact that not all "terrorists" are equal. "Terrorist" is a term used injudiciously and extensively in the media today. The various definitions of terrorism would encompass anybody fighting for anything - It encompasses people fighting for their homeland, religious fanatics, white supremacists, revolutionaries, liberation fighters, and war mongers.

Unfortunately though, the media in collusion with Western powers have subliminally linked it to various people fighting their neo-colonialist and imperialistic ambitions - Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. Even the terrorists labeled as islamofascists and religious fanatics are fighting for their homeland and their way of life. There is no difference between a Hamas fighter and an Al Qaeda operative. Both are fighting invaders in their homeland. Foisting democracy and western ideals on people at the point of a gun, Invading a foreign land,appropriating their resources for yourself, demarcating their boundaries, and subjecting it people to "Shock & Awe" - Now that is terrorism!

I think we are agreed on the fact that not all “terrorists” are equal. And historically liberation groups have been labeled as terrorists. Indeed, one man’s terrorist may be another man’s freedom fighter, but that in no way detracts from the fact that they are involved in the reprehensible act of terrorism.

Moreover, you are on shaky ground when you attempt to perfume a terrorist fighting against oppression irrespective of the method he adopts. Perhaps you know of the “homeland” invaded by the West that the Islamofascist group Al Qaeda was fighting to liberate. And how did the activities of the GSPC, the GIA and FIS further their agenda of overthrowing the government of Algeria and installing a Shari’a state, or, as you would put it, their struggle for their homeland and their way of life? What other motivation does the Abu-Sayaff have besides the realisation of an Islamic enclave where Quran is Constitution? For your argument that one militant group, say, Hamas, is not different from another, say, Al Qaeda, to stand up, you will first have to put up a convincing argument that the major motivation behind terrorism carried out by Islamist groups is politics and not religion.

The definition of terrorism should encompass anybody fighting for anything depending on the method he adopts. Terrorism is objectively defined by the method adopted, not the course. This is what the respectable media houses generally do nowadays. It is not usually subliminal. Admittedly, defining is not always clear cut. So like you rightly noted on linking or labeling, the apartheid government labeled the ANC a terrorist group. There were “experts” in the West who shared this view because, starting from 1961, the ANC did use violence. There were others who felt differently because the ANC never had a policy of attacking people. Its campaign was “sabotage”, whereby it attacked state installations, always taking reasonable care to avoid human casualty.

The same generally went for the ETA (Spain) and the Provisional IRA. They planted bombs at public buildings, institutions and businesses, but often gave warnings, even though, in the case of the IRA, inadequate warnings and premature explosions sometimes led to civilian casualties.

I have listened to speeches and interviews by Hamas leaders such the late Ahmed Yasin and Dr Rantisi. Said Yasin once, “why are they [the West] calling us terrorists? Have we ever attacked them? Did we attack anyone other than those who occupy our land?” And he is right. While I consider Hamas a terrorist group because they carry out attacks intentionally targeted to murder civilians, I cannot place them in the same category as others. The same goes for the terrorist group Hezbollah which was formed largely in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

The ETA, IRA and Hamas are terrorist groups, but they are different, both in agenda and method, from groups like Al Qaeda, the GSPC (now called Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb) and others. Al Qaeda will highjack a plane and fly it into landmark buildings, planning in a manner that will kill the most number of people. One can imagine the massive o[i]r[/i]gasm experienced by bin Ladin and Zawahiri whenever they watch video clips of people burning and jumping to death. GSPC operatives once sneaked into a school dormitory at night and slit the throats of schoolboys sleeping on beds outside Algiers. These are Sunni Muslims contributing their widow’s mite to bring about the fulfillment of that spectacular prophecy that the entire world will one day be converted to Islam. There are even some who don’t pretend to have political objectives, such as those ones in Pakistan who revel in killing Shi’ites, Hindus, Christians, just about anyone. Consequently, from the viewpoint of course and that of method, these groups leave nothing to desire. They stink to high heavens. Moderate Muslims generally reject them, even though they, unfortunately, often don’t speak out enough or on time. Their leaders want to Islamise the world and their foot soldiers want to die to claim their reward. “You love life, but we love death”, said one. And so young men are being sent to their death under the belief that they will be rewarded in paradise. In some cases, families are also rewarded here on earth, as it is reported Saddam Hussein used to pay $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Even if the “oppression” argument advanced by you and others were true, does it justify terrorism? Let’s compare the Islamic world to the Black and the African world. Historically and at present, these have suffered the greatest injustice of the West. It started from the age of enlightenment, a time that brought about western civilization but also birthed the “enlightened” philosophers who provided the intellectual grounds for defining blacks as subhuman, leading to the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. You know the story, including the inhuman conditions of the slaves in the plantations in the New World. The slave trade ended after over 400 years, but what followed? Colonisation in Africa and Jim Crow in the United States. The atrocities committed by King Leopold of Belgium in Congo are on their own sufficient to ignite a thousand years of terrorism, going by Middle-Eastern standards. Then came apartheid. Are we talking historical injustice only, in which case forgiving and forgetting would have taken care of it all? No!

I will not here go into details of the present trade injustice and exploitation of Africa’s mineral resources, to say nothing of the secret dumping of industrial and nuclear wastes. You probably heard of those protests by Africans in Westminster some years back when it was found out that while British diplomats were helping to bring the warring parties in Congo to the negotiating table, British companies were the main arms supplier to both sides, with, of course, the knowledge of the British government.

Even the Arabs have done their modest best. Remember the trans-Sahara slave trade? Today, in the 21st Century, Arabs still carry out raids and enslave blacks in Sudan and Mauritania. And there is Darfur.

So why are Africans not planting bombs in shopping malls and school busses? Would Martin Luther King Jr have been justified to plant bombs at the Lincoln Memorial or Harvard University campus?

Romeo4real:
What is Terrorism? Who decides who is a Terrorist? Are people fighting to rid their homeland of invaders terrorists? Are people fighting to rid their country of corrupt governance terrorists? Are you a terrorist if you are willing to die for your country. Are you a terrorist if you are willing to kill for injustices perpetrated against your people? One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

This is simplistic in my opinion. There are methods that most thinking people agree on as unconscionable bad. I agree the circumstances under which the "fighter" finds himself do matter. Thus, many will find it possible to find more than a semblance of difference between a Palestinian and an Al Qaeda operative. But there are a whole of other issues to consider. In any case, most of the terrorists around today are not all that hard-pressed. These are mostly religious megalomaniacs too drunk to see the distance between them and God.

vescucci:
Your take is simplistic and frankly the easiest route. What I would give to believe the things you believe but my soul knows there's more. Way more. Sometimes I like the pantheistic belief that we're all chunks of God but I reject that especially now that I'm getting older and coming to terms with the evil human beings are capable of. Right now, I don't know what to believe. I only know what not to believe. The process of elimination will bring me somewhere sooner or later.

Excellent!