₦airaland Forum

oilyngbati:
Battyman! A white man named Frederick Lugard made u a baboon (Nigerian) and you are willing to die to preserve the white man's creation Called Nigeria, which makes you a perfect slave.

You don't give a damn about black nationalism. That is only an emergency crutch you're standing on, to effect your plan to steal the oil of the Niger Delta, under the guise of ''self-determination''.

I believe in a future Unified African Super State, as contained in the AU charter, not a retreat into the very same ethnic fragmentation that led to African vulnerability and consequent slave trade and colonial conquest.

Kemperor:
Just imagine your mentality...

Your comment portraits a person with inferiority complex...

You need a psych doctor

This is what we call PROJECTION.

Definition: ''Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. According to some research, the projection of one's unconscious qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.''

Truth is you and the other folks who 'liked' your comment are suffering from serious racial inferiority complex, as are majority of Nigerians.

If that guy was a Togolese journalist, or some dude from Sierra Leone, would the OP have bothered to post this pic? HELL NO. It wouldn't be considered 'newsworthy'.

The ONLY reason you posted a pc of that UNKNOWN GUY is because he is WHITE. FINISH.

You see, the Chinese don't behave like this. Neither do Indians. Or Mexicans.

In fact they regard western involvement in their political affairs as an insult. An assault on their dignity and independence.

But you people? OHHHH... The very presence of the WHITE MAN in that picture, or in any endeavour you are pursuing, gives it 'credibility' in your eyes. I mean, you people are PATHETIC. No concept of independence. No concept of racial dignity. No shame.

INSTEAD OF PROJECTING YOUR INFERIORITY COMPLEX unto me, who is calling you out on it, you and your shameless ilk need to look seriously in the mirror, and change your ways. Become Real MEN, NOT DEPENDENT LITTLE SLAVES swimming in inferiority complex and white worship. Ok? Thank you.

Sapiosexuality:
Okay. I don't have the energy please.

No problem. Go get some rest.

Sapiosexuality:
Why should anyone stop seeing themselves as Igbo or Yoruba as prerequisite to success? Why must I destroy my identity to be successful? Did Europeans imbibe a single identity to be successful?

Don't misquote me, please. I never said anyone would ''stop seeing themselves as Yoruba, Igbo'' etc. I said they would be made to see themselves as AFRICANS FIRST, before any other ethnic or religious appellation, through a process of social engineering.

And stop mentioning Europeans. I already stressed the fact that they do not NEED to be united, because they lack natural resources. Their economic success is based on totally different paradigms from ours, and is predicated essentially on the exploitation of resource-rich regions, like Africa. So they've no need to unite. It is AFRICA that needs to unite, for reasons I stated earlier, ie to checkmate THEM. Please read the thread properly before contributing.

In the USA where the Europeans settled - a large, resource-rich region which necessitated a giant state, they DID subsume their national and ethno-religious identities in favour of an AMERICAN identity. That is why today, the average American may have Irish, Mexican, African, or Italian roots, but they regard themselves as Americans first BEFORE any of those appellations. THAT didn't happen by accident. It is a result of strategic planning and vision by the founding fathers of that country. The same can be replicated in Africa.

What about Qatar and United Arab Emirates. Two middle eastern states that were empty over twenty years ago. They didn't have to merge culturally with other Asian nations to achieve today's prosperity. They simply raised the awareness of their countrymen.

Qatar and UAE are completely irrelevant to this debate. The two are tiny states of 2 million+ population, each with larger oil reserves than Nigeria. They could virtually sit down all day, and not lift a finger, and still live like kings.

What do these countries have in common? Internal Homogeneity in tribes, culture and religion.

Whatever Qatarians have in common or not is irrelevant insofar as they have the sort of resources they have, for such a tiny population. Leave them out of this debate.

What I can tell you are looking for is who to dominate. Whom to conquer. You don't achieve peace by forcing a unification of diametrically opposing cultural practices. You are more interested in being the world power and ruling over others. Deciding what they do with their lives. To me, that is not what peace means.

What are you talking about? African unification is about emancipation of the African people, not conquest. Read my earlier posts to understand this thread better.

ApexPredator:
Lol
Nigeria is on the verge of total disintegration and your talking about a United States of Africa. Pass the weed you have had a enough.

If it happens, it happens, regardless of what ignorant, brainless people like you are doing in Nigeria.

And WHEN it happens, and you tribalistic idiots start any fracas among yourselves, the African Army will be deployed in your region to deal with you, until you get some sense into your heads.

SirWere:
*sighs*

Same old same old man.
Lofty ideas but ineffective ones.

I believe pazienza's solution is more practical. Let us go back to the round table and willingly set out terms and agreement based on mutual respect not a forced contraption.




What you're suggesting is noble, no doubt. It's very......motivational.


But its just too outlandish.

It's not as 'outlandish' as you think, even though it may seem so now. Ever heard of the African Unification Front (AUF)?

''The AUF was formed in August 1996. The AUF advocates for transformation of Africa into a federation, with the Pan African Parliament as the highest government, overseeing key institutions including a single currency, and one all-African army. The AUF promoted the creation of the African Union in the mid-1990s and continues to advocate for an end to neocolonialism. It has also been active in campaigns against abuses by the diamond industry, weapons traders, and unfair terms of trade in the coffee industry.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Unification_Front

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Africa

So there is solid intellectual backing for the idea.

Sapiosexuality:
What unifies China is their homogeneity. Africa is heterogeneous. How do you unify a heterogeneous people who are unwilling to give away any part of their identity? How do you unify Africa on Religious, Linguistic and Tribal lines? I need real solutions and not a vague statement.

All you need is a group of Founding Fathers, granted power by the AU to form a government, and it's done. America was even more heterogenous than Africa. Groups and races from all over the world form the American nation. The founding fathers of the country simply created a Principle, a Philiosophy, which came to override and subjugate all prior ethno-religious parochialisms among the people. It's not rocket science. It's about social engineering.

It's a long-term project of Africanisation whose ultimate, glorious peak we may not witness in our lifetimes, but our grandchildren and their offspring will. The African Nation will look to CRUSH ethnic nationalism and religious divisions within its territory, using Social Engineering methods. It worked elsewhere. It can work in Africa.

Until the AFRICAN stops seeing himself as Igbo, Yoruba, muslim, christian etc, BEFORE AFRICAN, Africa will continue to play second fiddle to the rest of the world. Our ethno-religious separatism and sectarianism are our greatest undoing and vulnerability.

Here's the ultimate proof that I am right: The Western world absolutely detests the idea of African unification, and will do their utmost to prevent it (or at least delay it).

But it's in the AU charter, so it will happen.

Ah! A white man visited him. Alleluyah. Slave.

Sapiosexuality:
What exactly is more important in forming any nation? Peace or Business? The article didn't impress me one bit.

What greater guarantor of peace is there than for all Africa to form a single nation? Where will there be war? Is there any war in China? Are there foreign peacekeepers in China? Or India? No. Because China and India are single, unified political behemoths. If China was split into 55 'independent nations', by now you would have had war in some of those nations, with western peacekeepers stationed in various parts of the region, like happens in Africa. We are weak because we are divided. Europe can afford to be split into various countries. They lack resources, so there is no reason for them to stick together. Africa, as a resource-rich region, can leverage that resource strength by putting it under centralised political control.

pazienza:
Spot on!

To remedy something, you must trace the genesis of its ailment, in medicine, this is called pathogenesis.

The problem of Africa started with the partition of Africa into unstable colonial entities in the Berlin conference, for the sole aim of exploitation of the indigenous Africans found in those colonial entities.

I disagree Sir. The problem of Africa began long before that. More directly, the problem of Africa just prior to slavery and colonisation, was the fragmentation of the continent into various small, unviable, and easily conquerable states, which made the continent vulnerable to European incursion.

If Africa had been a single empire, or had had say two or three huge empires that covered the entire continent, the slave trade could not have occurred, and neither could colonialism. Nobody enslaved the people of the Mali empire, which, at its peak, covered almost the entire West Africa. Why? Because they were a huge, centralised state, with a powerful army and ruling class.

The Igbos to the south on the other hand, were spilt into tiny, 'independent' chiefdoms, which made them easy pickings for enslavers. Lesson: Consolidation is strength.

Extend that principle to a new Unified Africa, and we are reaching the heights of our possibilities as a people.

Now YOU, are basically advocating a return to that state of fragmentation, which will further make Africa more vulnerable to foreign interests. It will fail, for the same reason it failed the last time.

These colonial entities were created naturally not to be stable, to avoid the people uniting against them, and groups considered least rebellious to colonial powers imperialism were entrusted with power and equipped to keep others in check, it was much similar to how slave camps in the Americas were ran

I agree with getting rid of the nation-states, but only for the purposes of forming a Super African state. This whole idea that the current nation-states are not working because they were 'forced' into being by foreigners, is a seductive idea, but it's really baseless. There's no reason to suppose that African ethnic groups would have developed nations on their own, based on amicable, mutually agreed terms among the ethnicities. Nations simply do not form in that way. So, absent of colonial intervention, we would have remained as we were, ie fragmented and vulnerable.

Africa can never form a China, but we can have real Nations formed by conglomerate of neighbouring groups that share similar socio -political and traditional ideologies, and thereafter, we can reposition the AU to be as strong as it should be, free from control of imperialists.

A mere dream! Tell me. Who and who are those ethnic groups that will mutually agree to form nations? Is it Yoruba and Igbo? Is it Hausa and Tivs? Is it Ashanti and Ewe? There is no reason to suppose that any of these ethnic groups will decide of their own volition to form nation-states. They are ALL competitive, and none regard the other as ''natural allies''. Any unification will in essence be ''forced'' in one way or the other.

We don't need a China, we need strong organic Nations, and an independent aggressively pro African AU to cover our interests.

You cannot be ''strong and organic'' if you are vulnerable and competing against one another to drive down prices of your resources to attract foreign buyers. The AU I repeat, has as its ultimate objective, African Unification, and all African nations are signatory to it. So it's just a matter of time. You probably should get used to the idea.

EzeUche:
I see some things have not changed!

You are still Pan African and I am still pro Biafra.

Indeed.

EzeUche:
Rossikki are you the same as person as Rosike who used to post on Nairaland years ago?

Na me my brotha. How far?

It is actually an exciting thought... Sure, there are ethnic and religious differences that characterize the continent at present, but there is no reason we cannot have a group of highly principled ''founding fathers'' similar to Abraham Lincoln and his friends in the US, who establish the new African nation on a set of national principles that will permeate the entire African landscape, and create an identity of ''Out of many, One'', as occurred in the USA, whose founding fathers adopted the concept of Freedom as their founding principle.

Africa can do something similar, devise its own Principle that will eventually tear down the shards of disunity currently afflicting its people, from religion to ethnicity. A program of social engineering, will be developed, in which every African child will imbibe those principles, from nursery. It will make them see themselves as AFRICAN before Igbo, Yoruba, muslim, christian, Swahili, Zulu, Ashanti etc.

Just as in the US today, the average Americans see themselves as AMERICAN FIRST, before anything like Jew, christian, muslim, white, black, Italian, Irish, Mexican etc.

Can African Political Unification Make It The Next China?


China was no different from Africa in the 1970s. But simple economic policy changes brought about their transformation. They banned or imposed very high tarriffs on imports and looked inwards. For many years the average Chinese rode a bicycle. They said, ''we will not import cars till we produce our own''. They rejected IMF and World Bank prescriptions etc. The reason China COULD do this without the usual western backlash of sanctions, threats, sabotage etc, was because they are a SINGLE, HUGE, resource-rich country of 1.4 billion people with a SINGLE central govt.

China is what Africa could become in 20 years if it got rid of its nation-states, became one single country with a single central government controlling all its resources. Many don't know this, but the AU charter actually specifies African political unification as the long-term objective of the organisation.

China's population is 1.4 billion, while Africa's is 1.1 billion. Technically, there's no reason Africa cannot be one country. China can pull more weight today because they are a single, impenetrable fortress, housing massive human and natural resources, under a single government's control and direction.

Because Africa is divided into 55 'independent' countries, a nation with no resources like Britain, can impose sanctions on resource-rich Zimbabwe, rather than AFRICA imposing sanctions on Britain, as it could.

Because Africa is divided, its nations compete to get foreign exchange by driving down the prices of their natural resources - copper, gold, diamonds, cocoa, oil etc. African nations are price takers, and not price givers, on the international commodity markets.

A Unified Africa would be Price Givers, not takers. There would be just ONE PRICE for African cocoa. ONE PRICE for palm oil. ONE PRICE for copper. ONE PRICE for iron ore. ONE PRICE for gold. ONE PRICE for diamonds. etc etc.

Today, there is a race to the bottom, in terms of pricing, by the various 'independent' African nations, each desperate to attract international buyers. It should not be that way. We are losing out big time.

In a single African nation, the African government will demand and get high prices for all its commodities on the international market, ensuring a revolution in the living standards of its population, even before industrialisation.

No western country could exploit small, resource-rich areas like Liberia, Sierra Leone etc, or collude with local officials in Congo to cheat the people, if Africa were a single country like China. Or influence elections, like the French did in Ivory Coast.

The indignity of having foreign ''peacekeepers'' on African soil will end immediately a single African nation is established.

Can you imagine western peacekeepers anywhere in China?

Africa as a single country will automatically become a world power, by the sheer virtue of the resources it commands as a country.

Can you imagine the power of a government that controls over half the world's supply of gold and diamonds? Plus healthy percentages of its copper, iron, rubber, timber, coal, and oil? PLUS has a single African currency? I mean, if the African government sneezes, the world will catch a cold.

The African government can DEMAND that all foreign trade involves direct technology transfer, to speed up African industrialisation.. Other countries will say ''Yes sir''. Can they refuse? Impossible.

That is the ONLY WAY Africa will become like China. Political consolidation. Centralisation of African power and authority. It's the way we should be headed if we are serious as a people. We cannot afford to be divided, being a resource-rich region. Political CONSOLIDATION is what gives power to having those resources.

The enormous financial resources that will come under the control of the African government will mean that they will possess a formidable military combining the various national forces from Cape to Cairo, and could pursue heavy research in various scientific endeavours, including nuclear and space research.

The sky would be the limit.

crownprince102:
It's better to leave this alone with it mentality...


Their some things we can't just change. I'm amaze some people can be thinking like this in Nigeria despite our situation.


He believes it will take centuries to reach great height. Singapore did it in less than two decades.

I already explained why Singapore ''did it in less than two decades''. Either read the thread properly or go back to the celebrity section.

trillville:
please is china also part of the western nation conspiracy? give me a good excuse for why china is different.

China was no different from Africa in the 1970s. But simple economic policy changes brought about their transformation. They banned imports and looked inwards. For many years the average Chinese rode a bicycle. They said, ''we will not import cars till we produce our own''. They rejected IMF and World Bank prescriptions etc. The reason China COULD do this without the usual western backlash of sanctions, threats, sabotage etc, was because they are a SINGLE, HUGE country of 1.4 billion people with a SINGLE central govt.

China is what Africa could become in 20 years if it got rid of its nation-states, became one country with a single central government controlling all its resources. Many don't know this, but the AU charter actually specifies African political unification as the long-term objective of the organisation.

China's population is 1.4 billion, while Africa's is 1.1 billion. Technically, there's no reason Africa cannot be one country. China can pull more weight today because they are a single, impenetrable fortress, housing massive human and natural resources, under a single government's control and direction.

Because Africa is divided into 55 'independent' countries, a nation with no resources like Britain, can impose sanctions on resource-rich Zimbabwe, rather than AFRICA imposing sanctions on Britain, as it could.

Because Africa is divided, its nations compete to get foreign exchange by driving down the prices of their natural resources - copper, gold, diamonds, oil etc. African nations are price takers, and not price givers, on the international commodity markets.

In a united Africa, there would be only ONE PRICE for African cocoa. ONE PRICE for palm oil. ONE PRICE for copper. ONE PRICE for iron ore. etc etc. Today, there is a race to the bottom, in terms of pricing, by the various African nations, in order to attract international buyers. It should not be that way.

In a single African nation, the African govt wil demand and get high prices for all its commodities, ensuring a revolution in the living standards of the population.

No western country could exploit small, resource-rich areas like Liberia, Sierra Leone etc, or collude with local officials in Congo to cheat the people, if Africa were a single country like China. Or influence elections, like the French did in Ivory Coast.

Africa as a single country will automatically become a world power, by the sheer virtue of the resources it commands as a country. Can you imagine the power of a government that controls over half the world's supply of gold and diamonds? Plus healthy percentages of its copper, iron, rubber, timber, coal, and oil? PLUS has a single African currency? I mean, if the African government sneezes, the world will catch a cold.

The African government can DEMAND that all foreign trade involves direct technology transfer, to speed up African industrialisation.. Other countries will say ''Yes sir''. Can they refuse? Impossible.

That is the ONLY WAY Africa will become like China. Political consolidation. Centralisation of African power and authority. It's the way we should be headed if we are serious as a people. We cannot afford to be divided, being a resource-rich region. Political CONSOLIDATION is what gives power to having those resources.

The enormous resources that will come to be under the control of the African government will mean that they will possess a formidable military combining the various national forces. It can pursue heavy research in various scientific endeavours, including nuclear and space research. The sky would be the limit.

crownprince102:
Every morning, I will kneel and thank the good God I don't reason like you.


Till we find ourselves in the position of Libya and South Sudan, you won't keep saying nonsense.


It is same people like you that will be applying for American visa and yet feel the country is good


Talking about Asian Tigers, they use their intellectual capability to develop their nations.... what is the technology level here?


South Korea has a lesser GDP per capita than ours at independence. We were a preferred investment destination to Japan at the same. where are they now? where are we?


please don't quote many anymore, I'm sick of this argument.

You are ignorant. South Korea is among the 'tiger nations', whose rise I have explained above. If you cannot use your brain to decipher what was posted, that's your issue. Tell me. Why is Cambodia not like South Korea? The two countries might as well be on different planets, considering their respective level of development. Yet they are virtually next door neighbours. Why is that?

What about Nepal, Bangladesh? Sri Lanka? Vietnam? Burma? Laos? Bhutan? Mongolia?

These are countries that are worse than many places in Africa, yet they are brothers and neighbours of South Korea. What accounts for the discrepancy? Continents after all, tend to develop in tandem. In unison. But in Asia, it's different. Why is that?

It is because of the ARTIFICIALITY of the 'Asian Tiger' phenomenon, and the deliberate, direct western intervention in the ''chosen countries'' that brought it about.

trillville:
is Malaysia like Kuwait? you have an excuse for every country on the list.

It is not ''excuse''. It is called Research and Using Your Brain by studying the country's HISTORY.

Malaysia was among four or five selected countries which the victorious western allies decided to partner with to create capitalist outposts in Asia to counter rampaging communism. They were granted unprecedented access to western markets, granted favourable credit lines, granted technology transfer and western investment. That is why they turned out that way so quick. Look at Cambodia or Nepal to see how they would have been without that western intervention post WW2.

face facts. majority of countries are run on taxes. taxes create a social contract between the leadership and the people. He who pays the piper dictates the tune.

granted majority of Nigerians tend to be docile towards standing up for their rights, but the richer in society, the politicians, would certainly not let their adversaries in government off the hook without whooping up sentiments when their personal funds are being siphoned. Nigeria needs taxes, preferably progressive taxes that tax the rich higher.

You cannot reduce Nigeria's problems to mere ''non payment of taxes''. It's far more complicated than that.

trillville:
excuses excuses excuses.

.

It is COMMON SENSE, not ''excuses''. It is your failure to use your brain, that makes you compare Nigeria, with Kuwait.

If I give your village $100 billion today, will it not transform overnight to a 'Kuwait'?

Kuwait has 3 million people. Qatar has 2 million people. Yet they each have larger oil reserves, and export more oil and gas per annum than Nigeria, with its 200 million people. Yet you are wondering why Nigerians are not living as well as people in Kuwait and Qatar. Honestly, you need a refund on your education. This is basis mathematics.

nigeria is messed up because we had military rule for a long period, and we don't pay enough taxes. it is as simple as this

At least you are using your grey matter here a bit. But the fact we went through military rule etc, is itself part of our history, and there was a reason for it. So you confirm my initial point, that every country is in its current situation due to a specific set of events in its history and development. We can even go beyond that military rule. Afterall something led to military rule. And something led to the something that led to military rule. This is why it makes little sense pointing at these other countries and asking why we are not like them. It's a question that assumes we ALL have the same histories.

crownprince102:
Austria - 1955

Don't be ridiculous.

Iraq - 1932

If they put you in Iraq today, you will scream to be returned to Nigeria.

Israel - 1948

Tiny population funded and armed to the tune of billions of dollars per annum by the US.

Kuwait - 1961

Tiny country with under 5 million people, with bigger oil reserves than Nigeria. Do the math.

Malaysia - 1957

Asian 'Tiger' funded and granted unprecedented market access and technology transfer by the western powers after WW2 to create capitalist bulwarks against communism. Compare with its brothers/neighbours like Cambodia, Nepal, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc, that did NOT receive such western support.

Qatar - 1971)

Same as Kuwait.

Singapore - 1965

Same as Malaysia.

Why do we reason this way?


Are you saying we never had chance to become developed?

Development doesn't happen overnight in most countries. In MOST countries, it takes CENTURIES.

The problem with many of you is that you don't research. You don't study. You see things on a superficial level. Behind EVERY country, whether developed or otherwise, there is a unique history, which accounts for its present condition. You cannot just start listing out countries and saying '''SEE? Why are we not like them'' It is an illiterate approach to a very complex issue.

crownprince102:
Sir, the question is;


Why haven't we become developed as they are?


It's we let go of third world thinking like yours, we need to think wide and large to make Africa a better place.


#iBelieveWeCan

Why aren't we as developed as they are? Probably because we just gained our independence 50 years ago compared to some of the countries you listed that have been independent for over 400 years, like Holland!!

Either that or they are tiny oil kingdoms with more money than people. Or a few Asian ''tiger nations'' developed by an influx of western capital post WW2, like Singapore.

Truth is, Nigeria is a new kid on the block in the international scheme of things. A huge population too, with 200 million people to cater for. Asking why we are not like Holland or Germany is the height of tomfoolery. Please, OP, use your time for more fruitful concerns. YOUR job is to contribute your quota and leave the rest for others, and the next generation. To build up a country like Nigeria will take at least another CENTURY, so just accept that you come from a developing nation. There's no crime in it. In fact, 80% of countries on earth are developing countries. Germany, Holland, Singapore, UK, US etc are actually the exceptions.

melodyogonna:
Let them come and do this in nigeria, let police, civil defence, navy, airforce, sss, dss, neiborghood watch even FRSC use tear gas and iron bullet to teach them how to protest

YOU LIAR. PEOPLE PROTEST IN NIGERIA EVERYDAY. Tear gas is only used by police when violence erupts. If those protesters in London turned violent, police would use tear gas and rubber bullets, like they do in Nigeria.

Peaceful protesters are NOT shot by the police in Nigeria. And most certainly not by the navy, airforce, sss, or civil defence. STOP LYING.

slap1:
This is why some Nigerians prefer UK prison to living feeely in Nigeria. The system works!

You're welcome to go and stay in prison in England, mumu, afterall you will be surrounded by white people which is your lifetime dream, as a slave...... Meanwhile their system certainly ''did not work'' for those estimated 400 people who perished in this totally avoidable incident.

Strange how in your inferiority complex, even a deep govt failure that leads to massive loss of lives in a western country translates to nothing more than ''their system works'' in your slaveboy head. Perhaps if your children or siblings were in that building, you would be more circumspect.

zubydave:
I think the problem with us-Nigerians, is that we are cowards and too sentimental. If it were to be this country that such an incident of fire occurred it would have been politicized, every one thinking of how the horror affects us or not- and how we don't want to die protesting for our rights as a nation. Mr A would say; " I have a shop to open", and Mr B would feel; " why should I be the one out there protesting, should it be of any concern to me". We are our own problem- every single one of us.

I think you are wrong, as are the vast majority of you here typing your usual anti-Nigerian rubbish.

Here are the facts. A government-run apartment building in London housing 125 families, or roughly 600 people, got burnt down as the residents were sleeping in the middle of the night, with very little govt support for those affected, fire services impotent in stopping the inferno, no sign of any survivors, while the govt claims the death toll is 30.

The people are outraged at what seems to be a massive govt cover-up of the death toll, which many are saying is over 400.

Shockingly, the residents were asked by the fire services to REMAIN INSIDE their flats as the building burnt, which many say is responsible for the high death toll.

Now people on this thread are saying that if a similar tragedy occurred in Nigeria, people would be too scared to protest. THAT IS A BLATANT LIE.

One person even said ''if you say 'murderers' in a demonstration in Nigeria, you are on your own''. THAT TOO IS A BLATANT LIE.

In fact I was just watching a minor demonstration somewhere in Ogun state shown on Channels TV, in which people were protesting over some minor incident over late salaries, and all sorts of unprintable words were being uttered by the protesters, and nobody went and shot them. They were FREE to air their grievances, just like the people in London are doing.

So people should please stop coming on here to LIE about Nigeria out of their inferiority complex, and natural instinct to subordinate themselves to westerners in all things, especially where a clear case of western govt corruption and incompetence is been aired. They are human beings too, so it is VERY MUCH OK to criticize their failures.

EgunMogaji:
Ethiopia has a national airline, Nigeria does not.

#Shame

USA does not have a 'national airline'. Neither do the UK or Germany.

More like shame on you for being so ill-exposed as to not know that a nation does not actually need a ''national'' airline.

One has been reading of late, comments made by some prominent Igbos to the effect that Igbos should ''return home'', following the recent declaration by Arewa youths or whomever.

Such calls have been made, predictably, by those Igbos who do not earn their living in the north etc. Actors like Bob-Manuel Udokwu. Pampered people who can barely relate to the circumstances of the average Igbo trader working in Kano.

See, that guy is in Kano for a reason. There is an Igbo saying, that a toad does not run around in the daytime for nothing. Something must be after its life.

That guy would much prefer to live and work in his eastern homeland. The reason he doesn't is because it is UNECONOMICAL to do so, in comparison to other parts of the country.

The truth is that the south-east has market saturation. The average Igbo trader will need to work 5 times harder in his homeland to earn what he earns in Kano.

Or Sokoto.

Or Ibadan.

Or Bauchi.

Or Ilorin.

Or Lagos.

Those areas are like living goldmines for Igbo entrepreneurs.

The villages and cities of Igboland are bulging with the mansions and edifices derived from working in those places.

Thus, asking Igbos to ''return home'', is like asking them to commit suicide. It is just as silly as the 'Biafra' movement itself.

Both uneconomical, both lacking in vision or analysis, and both utterly contemptuous of the overriding effects of their ethnic fanaticism on the economic well-being of their 'beloved' people.

forkadict:
This country disgusts me

You're ridiculous. In football you win some, you draw some, and you lose some.

Get over it.

Brazil that lost 7-1 to Germany in front of their fans at the famous Maracana Stadium, what should they do? Kill themselves?

iluvpomo:
[size=7pt][/size]
Only a mügu will blame "white imperialism" on the super eagles failures.
I'm sure you will also blame the "white man" for the corruption of Nigeria's leaders.
GenBuhari .... please keep your nonsensically funny conspiracy theories out of the sports section please ...

Keep quiet. What do you know? Researchless goat.

Whatever happened to real African beauty?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/c5/50/ebc550445d0610fed17f1607f5569562.jpg

Please, this is what you call African beauty.

You people should stop flooding this forum with those masquerade-looking yellow paw paw things you call ''most beautiful girl in Nigeria or Africa'' or whatever nonsense that comes into your heads.

Thanks.

''Most beautiful'' because she tried the hardest to look like a white woman, complete with fake blonde hair, powdered, lightened light skin and all the other crap she's got on her face.

Rubbish.

reel14:
where's your forensic and DNA evidence to buttress your claims?

your archaeological findings needed too

What DNA? It is the people in Israel that you should be asking for DNA to prove they are Jews, not Igbos or other African Jews.

The modern 'Jews' of Israel are folks from Europe, ie Germany, Russia, Poland etc. They are 'Jews' by conversion to Judaism, not by blood. So who are you going to compare Igbo DNA against? The original Jews were blacks, who were driven out of the region in ancient times, and many of whom fled into Africa. Igbos were among those groups. That's all you need to know.