₦airaland Forum

And how many people did Chavez killed or planned to kill when he attempted a coup d'etat to become a president?

US is not sponsoring any coup attempt.  That is just a figment of his imagination.  From the information I have, the U.S has even informed this same Chavez of 2 attempts at his life.  This is how he repays the U.S.

A man of strength is one who shows restraint in his character and demeanour.  Chavez has just shown himself to be no more than a thug in a position of honour.  Even Democrats who are always against Bush have come out to condemn this out of line maverick.  His language is condescending to the office he occupies.

He accuses Bush of being a drunk.  Unknown to a lot, Bush gave up drinking over 20 years ago.  This attests to his strength of character.  Saying Bush gained power through the influence of his Dad just shows how childish and premature Chavez is in his thinking.  So if Hillary becomes our next president, he will taunt her of becoming a President based on her husband's influence?  So what if that is the case!!!! We are waiting to see what his own kids will become in the future.

As far as I am concerned, he ridicules our country, our people and the office of our president by coming on our shores and sanying such rubbish.  Bush has shown he's got character by not even responding to such talks.  Chavez is such a low-lifer.

Maybe the current affairs should also look at the irony that while Chavez has the audacity to come into the US and lambast our President, none of his citizens dare express their opposition to him without consequences. He so much believes in the freedom of speech which he excersises without restraint, but wont extend such freedom to his people. What a hypocrite.

Hmm. Another thread for U.S. bashing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Olabowale,

I can't but be amazed by the level of ignorance you have displayed for all to see on the World Wide Web.  Firstly, I assume by your lack of denial that you agree to Muhammad's chequered history of blood-letting.   Secondly, are you trying to change history by trying to twist and make Jesus appear to mean what He never said?

Jesus is someone who practiced what He preached and preached what He practiced (I believe same can not be said of Muhammad).  In what instance did you see Jesus violent and killing someone?  He was such a man of peace that He even healed the one who came to caprure Him and crucify Him.  To those who crucified Him on the cross, He prayed that God may forgive them because they do not know what they do. 

I am also at a loss why you would want to prove your points from the compendium of God's thought called the Bible, which you have roundly condemned as fabricated and erroneuos.  Does it become a Gospel truth when you choose to use it? 

Forget about converting me to a Muslim.  No rational person will move from light into darkness, from peace into turmoil and from paradise into hell.  Christianity offers me salvation, peace, healings, joy, righteousness, comfort, prosperity etc,   Does Allah so much as offer you a guaranttee of any of these?

@Drusilla,

Your point about the Christian history is noted. However, I want you to understand that everyone who hears of such understands that those who did it are actually not followeres of Christ. Jesus never stood for anything violent, rather he preached peached peace and gave up His life for it.

On the other hand, the problem I've had with islam is the very fact that their founder and leader was indeed a violent person. While violence can never be attributed to Jesus, it was part and parcel of the lifestyle of Mohammed.

Herein lies the diference between both religions. Anyone who kills in the name of Islam can point at Mohammed as being an example, while anyone who practices violence as a Christian can never say he/she lived through the examples of Jesus or His early disciples.

Eazyman,

It is obvious that your statements are not borne out of the "mind of Christ". You reason like mere men and you have left out a big factor in all these calculations and inferences: God.

Brown eyes as far as the CHRISTIANS are concerned the bible is' holy'

And according to your koran, God's Word which includes the gospels and Torah cannot be changed under any cirscustance. So are you telling us that which your Allah supposedly authors in unholy?

@4_Play,

What get on my nerves is the persecution complex of most muslims.There is a cult of victimology in Islam and this is used as excuse to carry out all sorts of atrocities in the name of lashing out against injustice

Your statement above is so true. I have often wondered if they are the only once who suffer injustice around the world. There is injustice everywhere. If we should all take a look within our nuclear (not to talk of extended) families, I am sure some will feel and see some trace of injustcie as well. So at what point and who regulates which injustice deserves to be attacked by the use of terrorism? At what point and to what extent is terrorism a solution? So does every case of injustice deserve an armed response? And is their a perceived reward for those who engage in terrorism? Will terrorism bring justice out of injustice?

Unfortunately, no one within the religion of Islam is asking hard questions, and when those on the outside are trying to engage them in dialogue as the Pope as just done, they just flare up again in wild rage. If this is a religion of peace, I just can't imagine what a religion of conflict will bring.

Bush's ratings is over 50% with regards to his defence of the homeland, it is the overall ratings that is at 40%.

So why don't they respect our faith and secularities too? 

I've never said all Moslems are terrorists.  I've only said the religion and the founder of the religion led a bloody campaign during his time.  All who commit attrocities in the name of the religion will have an excuse in Muhammad for their action.

No man who claims to be a Christian can lay any blame of violence on Jesus Christ.  It just wont stick.

@Afam,

I said his ratings was rising and not that it is very high. Don't misunderstand me.

I never said Osama represented the Islamic faith. I have insisted all along that Mohammed is the role model for every muslim and that they all take their cue from his sayings and his lifestyle. Understanding Mohammed's sayings and lifesyle is what will give us a better understanding of their mindset.

You have made a case consistently that the cause of the violence is injustice. May I ask what injustice suffered by these muslims that has led to the killing of that Nun. Does the Pope's personal opinion amount to meting out injustice? If Christinas are like these folks, there would have been a lot of mosques up in flames by now with the burning of the effigy of the Pope. But since they have the 'God- given right' to the monolpoly of violence in response to every perceived notion of injustice, then they will continually subject the rest of us to these acts of terrorism.

You made a note-worthy statement earlier about being ready to die for your faith. The difference between you and the average muslim out there is that while you will lay down your life for your faith, they are ready to kill you on account of their faith. These are two different mind sets altogether. If there were more people like you in the middle east, suicide bombings will never take root as it has today. And why do you have such a mind-set? Because you have seen the examples of Jesus and His early Disciples. Same is true of Muslims, the examples of Mohammed and his early followers is what makes them what they are today: peaceful when convenient and violent when provoked.

@ Afam,

Here's the link you wanted.  http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/15/032930.php   http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=4418 http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17498.html

I have not provided you with any contradictions.  A Senator's stand is not necessarily that of his constituency.  I have heard a Senator say that his conscience guides his decision ahead of his constituency.  Bush is rated very highly with regards to defending America from terrorism. That is an indisputable fact.

babs787,

There is a way to read the Bible. The scriptures call it line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and a little there. But obviously I cannot expect you to understand and follow that rule.

Here is the quotation from the book of Romans in context:
5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

The issue the Bible is talking about here is the sin nature. If you notice, it is this sin nature that eventually brings death. If we do not have a sin nature, then no one will die. This sin nature is resident in our flesh and it is contrary to the will and nature of God. Perhaps you need to ask yourself one question, why is it that every man born of woman always sin. Can you mention anyone other than Jesus that lived a sinless life? Doesn't that tell you something? Even mohammed, whom you guys claim to be the best human being ever was a notorious sinner who wasn't sure if he'll keep a date with those virgins in Al-janna.

No man inherits an original sin as you have claimed ('cos the Bible didn't say so), but we all inherit a sin nature. A further study in the book of Romans will reveal this concept to you better.

You all shouldn't take my statements to mean what I did not intend.

Making jest of people's religion is not the best thing to do. However, we need to understand that the guys have not done anything "illegal". Those cartoonists have not done anything against their constitution and have not violated the law of free speech. However, we all know that "with great power comes great responsibilities" (one of my best quotes of all time from Spider Man movie), so we would have expected those cartoonist to have shown more sense of responsibilities by refraining from such provocative posts.

On the other hand, that someone hurts your sensibilities is not enough ground for you to go on a mad rampage. Make fun of Jesus all you want, claim he is a homosexual, a sexual pervert or whatever else you want to say. That will not make us as Christians, go on such mad rampage. Rather, we will use all our constitutional means to get a redress, and will go all out to educate you and enlightene you, but never blow ourselves up in hope that killing you will be doing God a favour.

Jesus said, there will always be offences, but then, who are you to cause a greater offence by killing other people. We can't step into their countries, yet they are willing to dictate to us what we should do in our countries through threats and intimidation. Until they learn that peace is more effective than the sword, then it will continually be a tit-for-tat. No amount of threat and terror will change the free world. A peaceful, and purposeful movement stand a much better chance.

Democracy at work here, I hope Bush respects the will of the senate as they respresent the Americans.

What you do not understand is that Americans are more in support of Bush when the issue is homeland security. The only problem he has is Iraq and that is the cause of his falling, now rising polls.

we are a religion of peace and tolerance

I wonder why I do not I believe this!

Well, thankfully, while some of us applaud the Pope for such a wrong statement, the Pope has stated that he was deeply sorry especially for the problems the statement has caused.

I only hope that more and more people will be bold enough to apologise when they make mistakes as no one is perfect.

For those promoting war and hatred, leave discussion forum and head to the war zone to prove your point.

That the Pope is sorry for the resulting mayhem that his statement has caused does not mean his statement was wrong. Rather, it means he was naive enough to believe that he can discuss real issues with muslims who are definitely not on the same rational wavelength with the rest of civilization. So now it is wrong to discuss Islam in any way, yet they blast their damned loudspeakers early in the morning to disturb our neighbourhoods, it is wrong for a cartoonist to carry out his lawful, constitutionally protected right to free speech in order not to hurt the shallow sensibilities of these people. Even a Pope can not call them to dialogue through reason while establishing the fact that the perception of Islam as a religion of violence is not something that started today.

All I can say now is for every body to watch out. There is a Jihad coming close to your doors, and woe betide you if you dare say anything about the 'religion of peace'.

How come no one has picked up on my statement about the Jewish terrorists in the 1940s? Could the reason be that they don't fit into the 'criteria' for being a terrorist i.e Muslim?

So are you trying to justify terrorism by that statement?

@dearzi,
That is a very funny one coming from you. I am laughing in tongues right now.

No one doubts the callings and the visions of Pastor Chris. Infact, I applaude them and wish him well. However, are we not supposed to ask questions when we see things contrary to God's Word? Because a MOG started well doesn't mean he will run well or end well. The admonition to WATCH is for everyone including Pastors. There have been great men of God in the past who started well but fell into error. This is what we all must watch and pray about, especially for our pastors. We are not just supposed to take everything hook, line and sinker, but to also ask hard questions and keep our allegiance primarily to our Saviour.

It is difficult to stand on against a popular flow as we have seen the Pope do now. Many will question his intentions and maligh his person, but he has spoken what needs to be spoken and it is up to the rest of us to take action from there. Same is true in this case.

I came here just to confirm if what I read about Pastor Chris was true. I am really concerned about the man. You know, while many are just crazy about ministry and what Christ Embassy is doing, the emphasis should first be on the Minister before his ministry. That is what the scripture teaches. I pray for him, 'cos it will be so disastrous if the enemy has his way in his life, and in my honest opinion, I can see him encroaching and taking a foothold.

Islam does not agree with any person doing evil Afterall, there is a verse of the Qur'an that encourages one to enjoin goodness and forbid evil deeds.

How about other verses that encourage the killing of infidels? What about several hadiths? What about the life of Mohammed who led Jihad by example? How do you balance all these?

Consistency should be the watch word as we saw in Jesus. he was peaceful at all times whether provoked or not. Even to the point of death, he was blessing and not Jihading. That is the true example we need to follow. But since you are all bound to follow Mohammed's example, we can only expect you to be peaceful or violent when you consider it politically, socially and personally beneficial.

Can someone please give us the full meaning of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. While some will want to put every blame on Bush, they will never come up with what should be an acceptable alternative. What some will regard as a violation of their personal dignity means nothing to others. I am reminded of El Hadji Diouf who went crazy on a football lfan just because the guy touched his head in a show of affection. If someone like that was a terrorist, he would be in a position to sue his interrogator for violation of the Geneva Article 3 if they so much as touched his head. This is why that Article has to be clarified and Bush has done the right thing by asking Congress to clarify its meaning. Is this too hard for reasonable people to understand?

@kaecy5,
I agree with you to a great extent about the place of religion in world conflict. It is unfortunate, but that is what it boils down to on the long run. Civilizations are at war, and the defining instrumentalities of these civilizations are Christianity and Islam.

I applaud the Pope for his statement, and I think he is a very bold and brave man. While many of us will like to sweep the real issues under carpet, he believes it is time to address them in a spirit of dialogue. Those who take his statement out of context are just so insincere. Of course we will expect outrageous reactions from muslims all over the world. That is not the fault of the Pope. If their religion teaches them to seek peace and eschew violence, then they will have learned to pursue their grievances through other means. Unfortunately, the Pope's statement has only given them an excuse to go on a mad rampage again. With or without the Pope, they will always find an excuse to be violent so as to kill or be killed in the name of Allah for bountiful reward in the hereafter.

The German Chancellor has defended the Pope and I believe those who are not intimidated by a political or civil backlash will voice their support of the Pope.

I find those who compare Christianity with Islam (citing their history) to be shallow of understanding. If you notice, the Pope made direct mention of Mohammed, the founder of Islam. If indeed, we are trying to do an unbiased comparisons of both religions and what they stand for, then we will compare Mohammed's example to Jesus', and not compare the adherents of both faiths who may not have followed the teachings and admonitions of their leaders in toto.

To Muslims, the Pope's statement should get them thinking why the world considers them and their faith violent. Their reaction should be to find ways to launder their image through the mass media and a genuine effort to seek peace with people of all faiths. Rather, they will be true to their nature and our fears, and go on a bloody carnage again. What a religion of Peace indeed.

@babyosisi,

You sure made an impression for someone just passing by.

@brown-eyes,

Isn't it self-eplanatory? He wants a legal clarification of the Geneva commoon Article 3.

To be candid, that article is really vague. Under the article, someone can claim that it is utmost degrading for him to be interrogated by a woman. They could site their cultural and religious reasons to back this up. This is why a legal interpretation is required. The interpretation should not be left to the judgement of those carrying out the command, but to the congress. This is what Bush wants done.

@Brown-eyes,

Here is what Bush has to say about Article 3. Why do you just choose to lie and misrepresent what the man is trying to do.

Q: Thanks very much, sir.

What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?

And Sen. McCain says your plan would put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

BUSH: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like — it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they're doing is legal.

You know, it's a — and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

The first question that we've got to ask is: Do we need the program?

I believe we do need the program. And I detailed in a speech in the East Room what the program has yielded; in other words, the kind of information we get when we interrogate people within the law.

You see, sometimes you can pick up information on the battlefield, sometimes you can pick it up, you know, through letters, but sometimes you actually have to question the people who know the strategy and plans of the enemy.

And in this case, we questioned people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we believe ordered the attacks on 9/11, or Ramzi Binalshibh or Abu Zubaydah, cold-blooded killers who were part of planning the attack that killed 3,000 people.

And we need to be able to question them, because it helps yield information, information necessary for us to be able to do our job.

Now, the court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law.

These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people. And they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.

And we believe a good way to go is to use the amendment that we worked with John McCain on, called the Detainee Treatment Act, as the basis for clarity for people we would ask to question the enemy.

In other words, it is a way to bring U.S. law into play. It provides more clarity for our professionals.

And that's what these people expect. These are decent citizens who don't want to break the law.

Now, this idea that somehow, you know, we've got to live under international treaties, you know — and that's fine; we do. But oftentimes the United States government passes law to clarify obligations under international treaty.

And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, that it's very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want that.

I believe Americans want us to protect the country, to have clear standards for our law enforcement, intelligence officers, and give them the tools necessary to protect us within the law.

It's an important debate. It really is. It's a debate that really is going to define whether or not we can protect ourselves.

I will tell you this — and I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can imagine. And I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice. These are the people who are going to represent those on the front line protecting this country.

They're not going forward with the program. They're professionals — will not step up unless there's clarity in the law.

So Congress has got a decision to make. You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America.

Chxta,

While this conflict may have been caused primarily by perceived injustice, the reaction and violence that accompanies it is a result of a religious agenda. That is my point here.

And it is that same religion that provides the fuel for the crisis to have deteriorated this far. Assuming there is a denounciation and a curse in the Koran for all who kill others, do you think we will have the suicide bombings at the rate that we are experiencing today?

@Brown-eye,

I am aware of Powell's opposition. But what exactly is Bush's stand I ask? What about other opinions that are diametrically opposed to Powell's

@Afam,

I know what Article 3 states.  I only wonder if you know what Bush is trying to do with respect to that article.

The issue of military lawyers was stated because these are influential and non-political group that has an opposing view to what you stated.  I just wish you will consider their opinions too and not single out Powell and later 3 more senators who opposed Bush.  Whne Bush acts unilaterally, na wahala, and when he goes to congress again, you claim he is a liar.  Where is justice now?

Unfortunately, until I see a transcript of your accusation of Bush saying he went to war based on what God told him, then I will assume you have only stated your assumption.  So far, your conjectures have been wrong about Iraq and the Article 3 issue which are widely recorded.  Why then should I take your statement seriously about Bush saying God told him to go to war.  For all I know, it could be another wrong conclusion of what you may have thought you heard.

Bush never lied about the reason for the invasion of Iraq.  He only made a wrong conclusion from the evidence he had.  Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the war based on the same evidence.   The only way I can say Bush lied is if he doctored the report and evidence that the CIA and other agencies brought forward.  Until that is proved, then I see this as another smear campaign agains t his person.  And as you acknowledge, every human is prone to mistakes, and the Iraq war might just be a very bloody one.

@winteric,

What is ticking you off so much?  Abeg cool down o.  I have no problems with you and I wonder who is instigating this venom. 

If you want pay your tithe, if you want don't pay it.  Afterall all, all service to God must be done willingly.  Jesus said "whosever WILLS, let him come."

You are the one that has shown an intolerance to other person's belief and you have the temerity to call me bigoted. Na wa for you o.

@donnie,

You just proved me right. Signs and wonders does not prove anything. It is a gift of the Holy Ghost. The Corinthian church was the most gifted church we know in history, yet they were the most immoral of all. Gifts and callings are without repentance, but we must run our races in such a way as to obtain.

Your twisting my words and using the scripture out of context to tell me not to be 'careful' is part of the lack of knowledge I talked about. While I was talking about "watch" as Jesus expressed, you are quoting scriptures that has to do with "worry" and "anxiety". Learn to use the Bible biblically.

The examples you mentioned in the scriptures does not validate the experience he claims to have had. None of those people saw any of the saints. They all saw Jesus. I have never known the Lord to take attention off Himself. Even visions must be validated by scriptures.

I know Pastor Chris enough to know I should be careful with him. For him to validate the ministry of that man called Joshua says all i need to know about him. I know Pastor Chris is called, but that does not mean he is right.

The best that I can do is what the Bible adjoins. I should mark such a man and stay away from him believing God to make him see his wrong ways. Perhaps that can lead him to repentance through our prayers and his humility.

@dayokanu,

TayoD
Because of the desire to go to alJanna on time before the stock of 72 virgins and pool of beer gets exhausted that is why Arab moslems are blowing themselves up But Mandela and Martin Luther never beleived in such inanities

That is exactly what I am saying. There is a galvanising force and a blanket authorisation to do this evil from the koran. Until we address these teachings found in that book and in the lifestyle of that prophet, then we are going to keep seeing this cycle of violence.

@Afam,

So what exactly is the role of religion in this?  Why arent we addressing that as well? 

The military background of the opposers doesn't really come into play here.  Why did you mention that?  Because I said the military lawyers backed President Bush?  What about the other senators that are in support of the president's initiatives?  Are they on his payroll?  I have asked you what Bush wanted from Article 3, and you have failed to give an answer.  What exactly does Article 3 says?  And in my interpretation of the Geneva convention, I really don't believe it should cover the terrorists we are dealing with today.  That is my opinion and I have my reasons for saying so.