₦airaland Forum

Sctests:
Right, the US is a British colony but you will never find them in that gathering of British slaves called 'Commoneealth'. Should tell you a lot but will buffoons in Nigger area understand?

989900B:
Oh really? If you have any idea about rationality, then you'll know the onus is on him . . . any sane or senile individual can make any claim, hell, even write a book about it, but then you'd still have to back it up with verifiable facts/instances to sell your 'opinions' or 'claims' to a 'rational' mind -- you see, that's how 'facts' work 'hombre'.

Reyginus:
Lol. Onus on him? So what's wrong with his explanation? You are yet to say why they don't fit but you are also saying the one presented to you don't fit. Go ahead. Tell me why the one he presented is garbage.

989900B:
Bah, where are the documents showing 40% of Nigeria's crude oil sales accrues to GBR?

Show me instances/documents of the US getting approvals from GBR to negotiate with Nigeria.

BTW, the US and GBR are two of the world's tightest and strongest allies, actually what is referred to as the 'Anglo -American world power' (I guess I don't have to elucidate what allies do).

And to think you'll align with a guy that starts off his comment by falsely and ignorantly asserting that in his own words, makes me feel sorry for myself having this argument with you.

If y'all are so oblivious to the fact that the UK produces more than 60% of her own food (better than Nigeria even in this regard), has large reserves of coal, petroleum (10% of her GDP= almost $300b for a population of roughly 60 million), natural gas, limestone, gypsum, silica, iron ore, tin, silver, gold, lead; not to mention science and technology, then I just have to leave this thread so you can all bask in your glory of ignominy.

Reyginus:
Lol. How's that his argument. He's not the Op. The op made mention of 40% while he's talking about the stake UK companies have here. The British are bunch of thieves who reaped and ripped States they colonized apart. Petroleum, natural gas? In insignificant amounts, Yes.

But he's argument is that the UK still control our resources through their companies here. How does the fact that they produce their own food or even any other thing for that matter destroy his argument? You think Sanusi Lamido Sanisu who talked about a signed document to make the north uneducated is dumb.

Control. If they had met a more intelligent north it would have been vice versa. Through their companies we still live in the days of the Royal Niger Company. Tell me why this can't be true or why you think they still don't rip us? I get his point but I don't agree with the forty percent or zero resources even though we know a lot of what they have today were from stolen resources.

Reyginus:
Lol. How's that his argument. He's not the Op. The op made mention of 40% while he's talking about the stake UK companies have here. The British are bunch of thieves who reaped and ripped States they colonized apart. Petroleum, natural gas? In insignificant amounts, Yes.

But he's argument is that the UK still control our resources through their companies here. How does the fact that they produce their own food or even any other thing for that matter destroy his argument? You think Sanusi Lamido Sanisu who talked about a signed document to make the north uneducated is dumb.

Control. If they had met a more intelligent north it would have been vice versa. Through their companies we still live in the days of the Royal Niger Company. Tell me why this can't be true or why you think they still don't rip us? I get his point but I don't agree with the forty percent or zero resources even though we know a lot of what they have today were from stolen resources.

989900B:
Total, Elf, Texaco, Chevron, Mobil, AGIP/Eni, Schlumberger, CNOOC, Petrobras, and many more, are they all British?

BTW, they do same business in other oil producing countries -- this is business for chrissakes!

Oil prospecting and drilling is 'cash-risky' and capital intensive, might I tell you?

The first oil well discovered in Nigeria in 1908 in Araromi, in the Ilaje area of Ondo state, and later the one at Oloibiri was by the help of these same foreign companies you now castigate, when we didn't even know what's up.

cocoduck:
These companies can drill, but must PASS THROUGH THE SYSTEM SET BY COLONIAL MASTERS, ie in Gabon, the colonial master is France, so Total being a French company gets the lion's share, it doesn't mean you will not find shell in Gabon, or chevron, or ExxonMobil etc, you must agree to their whims and caprices before you exploit anything. That is how shell gets the lions share in Nigar area

cocoduck:
[s]Also why are they fighting Robert Mugabe so dirty they resorted to sabotaging the economy of the whole of Zimbabwe, well thank God they have lost Zimbabwe and they know that, When Donald trump said he will ban Muslims from entering the US the Brits were first and I believe the only Europeans to react by saying that they will ban or some other thing to DT, well it is their own cup of tea, I believe what the OP said 100%, why did they destroy the Oyo empire? they looted everything, and burnt the ones they could not, anyways that guy is a house niggar, no need argueing with him.[/s]

989900B:
Total, Elf, Texaco, Chevron, Mobil, AGIP/Eni, Schlumberger, CNOOC, Petrobras, and many more, are they all British?

BTW, they do same business in other oil producing countries -- this is business for chrissakes!

Oil prospecting and drilling is 'cash-risky' and capital intensive, might I tell you?

The first oil well discovered in Nigeria in 1908 in Araromi, in the Ilaje area of Ondo state, and later the one at Oloibiri was by the help of these same foreign companies you now castigate, when we didn't even know what's up.

989900B:
Which company first discovered oil in commercial quantity in Nigeria?

cocoduck:
Also why are they fighting Robert Mugabe so dirty they resorted to sabotaging the economy of the whole of Zimbabwe, well thank God they have lost Zimbabwe and they know that, When Donald trump said he will ban Muslims from entering the US the Brits were first and I believe the only Europeans to react by saying that they will ban or some other thing to DT, well it is their own cup of tea, I believe what the OP said 100%, why did they destroy the Oyo empire? they looted everything, and burnt the ones they could not, anyways that guy is a house niggar, no need argueing with him.

Reyginus:
While I agree with the assertion that the British still milk its Royal Niger Company, I'm interested in how he arrived at forty percent. We know shell has more influence in this oil thing down here but 40%, that's like slavery. I don't totally admire Mugabe. He also participated in ruining Zimbabwe.

Ariani:
The British deserved it, they sponsored the Nigerians 100percent during the war, without the British unlimited heavy weapon supply,Gowon and his troops would have been decimated and annihilated by angry and patriotic Easterners.

Without the British, one Nigeria would had ceased existing in 1966, the North were even tired of one Nigeria and was screaming Araba( Division, secession) in the 1966 northern Riots and Easterners massacre. It was the British who convinced them to re evaluate their Araba stance and change it to one Nigeria, after showing them the rich potentials and Eastern oil wells and promised them 100 percent support to claim with. With their 40 % commission.

A worker is worthy of his wages. The British earned their stake in the Nigerian oil sector, it was won in the battle fronts, and can only be taken from them at the battle fronts.

Sctests:
The Imperialist British have ZERO resources but use their house niggars in the colonies and ex-colonies to control the resources there.
That's why they always recognise those ex-colonies the way they left it anytime the liberators and seccesionists wants to change geo-political map of those ex-colonies.

Go and read the book- Biafra: Britain's shame by Auberon Waugh a journalist who was on ground and about wrote for The spectator, a British tabloid. He documented the evil that Britain represented in Biafra and the British government engineered his sack from his job.
Him and his pro-Biafran colleagues took it up and won damages for unfair dismissal.

His book on British evil in Biafra was even banned from being sold for sometime. That book cannot be SHIPPED to Nigeria as we speak.

In the eyes of the British, Nigeria still remains the Royal Niger Company-their war booty, (Today, even the US cannot interfere in Nigeria matters without British consent) and the British sponsored the war against Biafrans so that companies like shell can have 40% of your resources while their good hausa and fulani house niggars take the rest.


It's simple logic but can the 'One Nigerianist' buffoons in the south especially understand?

cocoduck:
It simply means you don't know Mugabe and what he stands for, he did not ruin Zimbabwe even one bit, the Brits are the ones that destroyed Zimbabwe, I love Mugabe with all my heart, the redistribution of land in Zimbabwe did not fail at all as was reported in the foreign media, even the BBC had to apologize for making such reports, I heard this one with my own ear from their world service.

wirinet:
[s]

It is your ancestors that were Buffons. I wonder which resources you people (igbos) are always screaming about. Please list the resources that are/were present in igboland. The only resource I know of that interested the British in Igbo land were slaves.

It was not the British that imposed one Nigeria on us, it was the Igbos. The British gave us the opportunity to go our separate ways during independence, the Hausas and Yorubas were ready to go it alone, but zik and his tribesmen said no, now that the power equation is not in their favour, they throw up all types of tantrum like spoilt brats. You think you can colonize the eastern region and exploit their resources by forcing Biafra on them? You will be in for a surprise.

Yes, the British continued exploiting its colonies resources post independence, it is left for the colonies to come together and free themselves of economic and political exploitation as done by many other British colonies, ie USA, India, Hong Kong, etc. You cannot free yourself by creating another colony.[/s]

Ariani:
The British deserved it, they sponsored the Nigerians 100percent during the war, without the British unlimited heavy weapon supply,Gowon and his troops would have been decimated and annihilated by angry and patriotic Easterners.

Without the British, one Nigeria would had ceased existing in 1966, the North were even tired of one Nigeria and was screaming Araba( Division, secession) in the 1966 northern Riots and Easterners massacre. It was the British who convinced them to re evaluate their Araba stance and change it to one Nigeria, after showing them the rich potentials and Eastern oil wells and promised them 100 percent support to claim with. With their 40 % commission.

A worker is worthy of his wages. The British earned their stake in the Nigerian oil sector, it was won in the battle fronts, and can only be taken from them at the battle fronts.

Sctests:
Harold wilson stood in front of the parliament in 1967 and declared that a neutral Britain is a big victory for the Biafrans and he was right.

Sctests:
Harold wilson stood in front of the parliament in 1967 and declared that a neutral Britain is a big victory for the Biafrans and he was right.

Ariani:
Spot on! Today! The Blood of Niger deltans, that is shell, that is Agip, that is Chevron, that is Mobil. They vampires of the black race, they are having a big feast.

Reyginus:
It's quite unfortunate. The Brits love the show. That Britain(I'd add America) has order is because some countries have chaos. To maintain this position of power that's the best option they could cone up with.

Ariani:
It was not the British that imposed one Nigeria on us, it was the Igbos. The British gave us the opportunity to go our separate ways during independence, the Hausas and Yorubas were ready to go it alone, but zik and his tribesmen said no,

There was never a time Zik or anyone had the power to disintegrate Nigeria, the British never made the disintegration of Nigeria an option. I find it funny when Yorubas assign mystical power of Nigeria disintegration to Zik.

If you have an independent( not Indian press) print evidence of the British ever offering Nigerian regions the option of independent existence, Post it here let me ser. This Ibadan propaganda had lasted a lot, it's time it's totally debunked and expunged.

The North wanted to continue under the British rule, they were delaying the independence day, Zik worked to hasten the independence day. How exactly does that equate to Zik having the mystic powers of dividing the British Nigeria.

Ariani:
ORDER OUT OF CHAOS is the motor of the Caucasian race.

To remain on top of the food chain, the rest of the races have to be in chaos, that they might have order.

The riches in Brussels must be maintained by the squalor in Congo DR.

Reyginus:
Everything you wrote above is true. But then Zik never showed a desire to break the country up.

He was more nationalistic than the other two. What is the point of Nationalism when parties in a Union love their tribes more than the nation?

I still wonder why Zik believed this country is better of as One. I've seen our differences in Culture, Religion, Language, Traditions, etc., and I believe he must have thought about this too.

Then what exactly did he see in this Union that others like Awo did not see? It's simple to put it down to selfishness but is it really possible? I don't think it is but is it?

Ariani:
Zik was naive and selfish, granted. But it will be tantamount to folly, for anyone to insinuate that Zik ever had the powers to divide Nigeria. Cos he never did.

Just for challenging the British right to rule directly, Zik had already been marked to be politically emasculated by the British, and the North was rewarded for being obedient servants.

Damn, Zik couldn't even become a commanding president, he wasn't able to win the Lagos power he so much desired, he never had power to achieve all these smaller feats, yet people will tell us that it was Zik who stopped Nigeria from dividing.

He stopped the North from secceding, he had the power to break up a British set up, but couldn't break up a Yoruba gang up in Lagos, or the British gang up that reduced him to a president with no real executive powers.

Cool story.

Reyginus:
You are right. I don't think he had such powers but he played greater role in actualizing this fragile unity than in splitting. His love for Nigeria was too great he talked about forgetting our differences when others tried to understand these differences. Even in Biafra war he stood with Nigeria.

No one can say it was Zik who formed Nigeria. The British loathed him but for some reasons he thought he could outsmart the Brits by bringing order out of their chaos. A kind of using ones weapon of attack against him. I don't see how it will work in this case. No one can also say he stooped Nigeria from splitting.

Ariani:
I think I can work with the above.

But it must be stressed that Zik appeared to be initially in support of Ojukwu, but switched sides when he saw that the British was backing Nigeria 100 percent while Ojukwu was not able to get any of the Caucasian powers to cancel out the British effect, Zik knew where it was all going to end , he is a selfish slut in that sense.

There are even some who believed that Zik served as a spy for the British against Biafra,too many sh*** passing around.

In the end Zik was a naive individual, speaking with the benefit of hindsight, that is.

Ariani:
I think I can work with the above.

But it must be stressed that Zik appeared to be initially in support of Ojukwu, but switched sides when he saw that the British was backing Nigeria 100 percent while Ojukwu was not able to get any of the Caucasian powers to cancel out the British effect, Zik knew where it was all going to end , he is a selfish slut in that sense.

There are even some who believed that Zik served as a spy for the British against Biafra,too many sh*** passing around.

In the end Zik was a naive individual, speaking with the benefit of hindsight, that is.