₦airaland Forum

Gbadebo19:
.
See kôw tryna form philosopher
This thread will ever be the best thing that has ever happened to you.

We will keep doing our own best.

Freedom of speech is not whether you can talk or not, it is about whether you are allowed to say what your mind wanted to say and what you really want to say according to the limits allowed by law.

Imagine it this way:
Freedom of speech is the right to express one self according to the limits of the law. Therefore, a person's freedom of speech ends where the interest of the state begins to be jeopardized or where it starts to transgress or offend another person's. For instance, the fact that a person has freedom of speech does not mean they can make seditious statement against the state, some statements can also be considered treasonous against the state. Constituting public disturbances can also be a limit to freedom of speech. For instance, in a state like Saudi Arabia, you cannot go out and start shouting "Jesus is Lord". It is an offence to the state as well as a disturbance of public peace. I think same should apply in the Vatican city.
As for individuals, an individual's freedom of speech ends when they begin to make libelous or slanderous allegations against another.
If it is against the state, it is a criminal offense and the individual can be arrested. If against an individual, it is a tort. If it is against the office of an individual, it is mostly considered as against the state as well. In Nigeria, saying a person is incompetent in their job is a slander, saying a woman has a contagious disease is a slander and many more. Of course, truth of statement will not make the person liable. But saying such is a tort.

Therefore, insulting Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not the same as insulting the President of Nigeria. Both of them are two different persons. I brought this example to explain why the individual that heckled at Von der Leyen could have been whisked away by security. Von der Leyen herself could sue him separately and likewise her office could sue him if there is an EU law permitting such. Therefore, he could answer two separate cases for a singular act.

Now to the issue at hand,

When you go through Twitter and social media, you see several individuals give their take on POTUS. They criticize, insult, praise and express themselves on how they feel on his government. They can also organize protests if they want to force a change. And even if they are arrested for doing it, they get access to a court that can decide whether they actually crossed their boundary on freedom of speech or not.

In Russia, China and NK that you adore,
Can anyone criticize Pootin, Xi or Kim?
Whether they do good or bad, the citizens MUST live by their decisions, no protest that condemn them, no pressure groups, nothing. There isn't even anything like a court that determines whether or not it was true. They are left at the mercy of the dictator. And when I say court, I mean a place where trials are conducted in public view, not like the ones that was done to Navalny where reporters and observers were barred from Knowing what was happening indoors.

The case of Edward Snowden was never about freedom of speech. Edward Snowden raised a defence of him being concerned about the ethical part of running such a program which never stood ground. It was a pure case of espionage and a pure criminal offence against the state. Edward knew his freedom of speech didn't allow him to commit espionage and that was why he raised the defence of ethical condition.

Placing limits on human rights cuts across all of human rights, not just freedom of speech alone. The right to free movement does not mean you can trespass on other people's property. The right to life does not mean you will not be dealt the capital punishment if you take another's life. The freedom of association does not mean you can join proscribed organizations or secret cults.

If after all these, you still come again with another of your .....ish, I will finally understand why Jesus said: "It is finished."

23jerryking:
I'll give no attention-seeking low life such privilege. He's not worth a sec of my time.

Gbadebo19:
Only your golibu folloers can you make fuuls out of.

I checked that twitter account and the post you screenshot is not even present in the last one month. You went to pick one of the days of the biggest attacks and claimed it to be the last one.

Secondly, how scandalous of you to go pick from an account that has been reporting the death of children in Russian missiles strikes after you claimed here less than a week ago that Russia doesn't target civilians.

FYI, yesterday's attacks was a meagre 47 drones and 2 Iskander K cruise missiles , of which 16 drones and 1 Iskander K cruise was downed. Don't know how Seun's bot will react this morning, I would have added a SS

dvkot:
He probably died in prison like Gonzalo lira died in Ukraine prison and Jeffrey Epstein died in US prison

Gbadebo19:
People who don't know that even in the best democratic state, there is a limit to individual rights. Once they hear of democracy, they always think it is a kind of unruly world where one should be able to do whatever they want, irrespective of the consequences.
Now add FOI act, ahhhhhhh, they believe they now have a legal basis to override restricted access to official secrets that can threaten the unity or existence of the state.

shoodboi2:
The Russian equivalent of the Nigerian and US law is the "Law of the Russian Federation NO. 5485-1".

Using your logic, if a Russian government official leaks documents that expose horrific war crimes committed by Russian soldiers in a war, does Russia have the right to go after the person?

You should answer yourself instead of seeking dishonest excuses to justify war crimes committed by the US.

If a Russian did what the US did, we would have been hearing noises of war crimes, freedom of the press, and talks of Russia going after dissidents.

But since it's the US, you're trying to justify their war crimes by quoting laws.

dvkot:
oh so le pen and goergescou arrest are both on corruption charges.
Didn't you clown also know that Nalavany arrest was also on corruption charges, Worst that he's also an ultra nationalist that compares Muslims immigrants to cockroachs and bugs.

WriteerNg:
Why would Israel need to use from its reserve units when their main troops have only suffered 800 fatalities??

❓❓❓❓❓❓

WritterNg:
What happened to Russia must be defeated?

Russia must be isolated?

Now all we see everywhere are excuses upon excuses...

US paused aides? The same aides that have flowed non stop to Ukraine? Even Trump said nothing was paused. That nothing will be given for free anymore. They would be paid for by Europe, which Europe agreed to ever since.

Elon Musk Starlink deactivated? Hahahahaha... Too stupid to even respond to.

Russia attacking civilians? Only one country (Ukraine) have attacked a Mall where civilians were gathered (Croc City Massacre) killing over 200.

Only one country have attacked a beach where Russian citizens were relaxing using stormshadow missiles with cluster munition Killing children and women.

Only one country have attacked apartment buildings, killing and wounding several people in Russia.

Only one country have targeted innocent people in a bus.

Only one country have carried out terrorist attacks on off duty military men on the streets in broad daylight, killing bystanders. All caught on video.

You taught the Russians how to fight dirty, now you complain that they do the same?

Now you're using that as an excuse for your failure.

Sorry it's too late. YOU MUST DEFEAT RUSSIA ON THE BATTLEFIELD!!

There will be no ceasefire until there's not a single Nazi left breathing in Ukraine.

dvkot:
How's he being emotional?
He stated all the fantasies the west initially had about their own delusions in defeating Russia.
Now they are all tired of defeating Russia on the battlefield, the same zelemsky that rejected ceasefire with Putin, is now beggin Putin for a ceasefire. At the end of the day,
War is just another form of politics, so let's see who this negotiations will favor more.

Hoaxen:
George Orwell's 1984 "double think" 😂

Last time they denied that Soviet Union is Russia. Then they "denied" denying that the Holocaust happened. And now this?

Gbadebo19:
Lol, 🤣🤣 Pleading the fifth on Yahya Sinwar puts serious questions on the sincerity of your admission of Hamas, Hezbollah et al as terror organizations.

There is nothing incriminating about it.

usmanpogo:
These groups employ measures that can be easily translated as terrorism, calling them anything less would mean being economical with the truth.

On Yahya Sinwar, I plead the 5th.

shoodboi2:
A quick recap:

I asked you who a terrorist it and you provided an answer.

Once I showed you the flaws in your answer, you resorted to ridicule and quickly sidetracked your answer by saying it was a definition you got from the web. So, I just decided to ignore altogether.

But since you insist, a terrorist refers to anyone who uses religion to justify violence. You agree with that?

As for whether Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are terrorists, you're only trying to distract from the question I originally asked you about defining who a terrorist is.

It's the same way you people start asking "Does Israel have the right to exist?" or "Does Israel have the right to defend itself" once you're met with a superior argument.

As they say: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

So, instead of you and I arguing over which group or country is a terrorist and which isn't, why don't we define who a terrorist is first, and then start tagging groups and countries that fill the definition as terrorists.

Gbadebo19:
If you get a reasonable response. There will be thunder in the dry season 🤣🤣🤣

Obedience40:
I asked you a simple question, you are busy writing epistles

Those definitions i got from the Internet i didn't formulate them myself.

Is Sinwar your hero a terrorist, yes or no?
Are Hamas, Hazebolla and the Houthis terrorist groups, Yes or No??

If your above answers to the questions are No, please give me your own preferred definitions of who a terrorist is and a terrorist group is.

Hoaxen:
How does you saying "Not everyone has a sharp wit and intellect, but with the way you easily understood my post" mean anything other than only those as"intelligent" as you can understand your post?
Are you trying to change the meaning of words of the English language?

You say you don't try to "indoctrinate" then proceeds to call anything that doesn't fit well with your propaganda "false opinions". And call those who are not easily brainwashed by your "opinions" fools.

The arguments put forward by usman is exactly the same arguments echoed by pro Hamas and pro Russia keyboard warriors here. Suddenly you are trying to pretend as if what he was saying is completely different from what you guys have been saying here since. And you called those exact same arguments that we know as propaganda, "superior".

You just went round in a circle and returned back to were we started. It's funny how you denied the meaning of words.
You should invent your own version of English language so that whenever you are caught making implicating statements, you can claim that you were not speaking conventional English and that instead, you were speaking a new version of English that you invented.

You have a new defensive claim for your propaganda machine. Congrats 👏👏👏

IMEI:
What's the point of arguing with people who'll never concede to superior arguments? Unless you enjoy endless (read pointless) engagements

🤷🏾‍♂️

shoodboi2:
Good. But your definition is vague, open to multiple interpretations, and excludes states from being categorized as state sponsors of terrorism.

Firstly, are you implying that violence and intimidation meted against civilians for political purposes only qualifies as terrorism when it is unlawful. Are you saying such violence is not terrorism when it is lawful?

I should add that most countries do not have any law against their governments using violence against their own population or even foreign populations (whether for political aims or not). So, your definition also clearly excludes states from being perpetrators of terror activities, whether within their own state or in foreign states.

Secondly, your definition also does not capture multiple events that constitute unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Let me use two examples from Nigeria as examples so you can relate with them:

The first is MEND aka Niger Delta militants. They were not considered terrorists even though they primarily used unlawful violence against civilians in pursuit for political aims. They killed soldiers at intervals but that was when the soldiers came after them or were guarding facilities they were attacking.

Their primary targets were civilians, especially oil workers who they often kidnapped or killed. Let us also not forget that this same MEND popularized car bombing in Nigeria, particularly in the late 2000s, until Boko Haram took their place. But no one calls them terrorists despite what they did.

The second is the October 1993 hijacking of a Nigeria Airways flight by four men from the Movement for the Advancement of Democracy. They seized an airplane filled with passengers, flying from Lagos to Abuja and diverted it to Niamey, Niger where they called for Sani Abacha to resign and return to democratic rule.

The men were arrested after Nigerien troops stormed the plane and their actions clearly qualify as terrorist according to your definition, but no one calls them such.

(There are other foreign groups but I deliberately used Nigeria since I believe you should know about them and can better relate with them.)

Then let me make a final example of a foreign group that was labelled a terror group even though it does not meet your definition.

That is the Irish Republican Army. They wanted to end British rule in Northern Ireland and unite it with Ireland. The UK categorized them as terrorists even though they primarily used unlawful violence against the British military, police, and paramilitary rather than civilians.

usmanpogo:
Finally, you agree they committed war crimes, that's all that matters.

Gbadebo19:
I found another commander Adamu on front page. Iran is now actually in alliance with Israel. Na wa oooo
This people will say anything to taint USA and Israel.