₦airaland Forum

We were told that Dangote has the capacity to refine our total consumption and even a bit more for export.
Then we have our national refineries. Someone is not telling us the truth

Golan007:
May surprise many:

United States imports Refined Petroleum primarily from: Canada ($15.5B), South Korea ($5.93B), Mexico ($5.52B), India ($4.87B), and Russia ($4.73B). The fastest growing import markets in Refined Petroleum for United States between 2021 and 2022 were Canada ($5.07B), Mexico ($2.64B), and Saudi Arabia ($2.4B).

I guess we are just trying to be like the US😭😭. Remember our president is a Chicago boy.

We were told that Dangote has the capacity to refine our total consumption and even a bit more for export.
Then we have our national refineries. Someone is not telling us the truth

MzeeMachiavelli:
How are those fighting for their land be labeled terrorists?
Whether you like it or not Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
Let the Polish Jews, Ashkenazic bastards go back to Russia, Ukraine and German homeland.
And as for the ignorant christians I am not against you sucking dicks but I don't think Israelis dicks is a healthy one to suck.

Who says it's their land. What land were the idiots of October 7th fighting for? Was it Gaza because Gaza already belonged to them.

Akhaz024:
When injustice is allowed people will go into every length to seek for it, which might be devastating in the long run.

You said it all started October 7, you have forgotten the oppression of Palestinian by Israel and America. Israel and the US have been jeopardizing the creation of a Palestines state for years and they will just sit and watch.

Some of this hamas official are born in a refugee camp, and you think such person will just fold his arms and watch injustice passing by.

Thousands of Palestine are been jailed by the Israeli authority, imagine exchanging one Israeli hostage equal hundred of Palestinian been released.

In any where you find yourself uphold justice so you won't be a victim of injustice

What are you saying. America has been the biggest aid giver to the ungrateful Palestinians. America has brokered more peace deals than any nation for the idiot Palestinians.
Wars have consequences?

AbuTwins:


See Backstabbers!

Blessed are those who betray agreements for they shall own the land! Israel-Trump 1:1!

We all forget we can also die anytime!

It's ok to betray terrorists. And yes, from Saturday, more of your Hamas brothers will be dying at anytime.

JuanDeDios:
Mr Trump is about to change the world. Might be a world war or two before he's done. Or not - no one can really say for now.

Are you ready to go to war against him? Oga, no one is ready to fight America over Gaza

God1000:
Nonsense, they are making this threat after Donald Trump issued a similar statement, israel is the one violating the ceasefire agreement

They can never extinguish the people of Palestine.

Arab countries should come together and give Washington ultimatum to end this genocide or get kicked out from the region, close down all their military bases from Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, irag, Egypt, Saudi Arabia

We both know Arab countries will do no such thing. Who told you the Arab countries care about the Palestinians. Once upon a time, the king of Jordan cated about them and in return, the nearly took his life.

Golan007:
We are aiming for August, 2025.

Let's go.

Ok

Golan007:
I'll bet on it.

I love your courage. If Tesla shares go up, you will become a DOGE fanboy for the rest of the year and if it is down, I will have to create a post against DoGE and Elon. Tesla started the year at 379.28 and is now 328.50 USD

Golan007:
Tesla recalled all Cybertrucks Friday after federal safety regulators contacted the company over malfunctions with the vehicle’s accelerator pedal. New Cybertruck orders have been reportedly cancelled or stalled. The news follows numerous reports of embarrassing Cybertruck failures

I know you are aware of its failure.
Feigning ignorance has always been your forte.

Sir would you want another bet, that by August, Tesla stock will be higher than it was at the start of the year?

Gandrova:
What can you deduct from the crisis?
So what your own assignment?

Oga, I just wrote what I deducted above.
Now my assignment.
1. How did Palestine, Egypt Algeria Morocco Jordan Syria and Iraq because Arab land?

2. What was the state of the Jews under Arab rule in Palestine (were they second class citizens)

3. What do you know about the Arab riots of 1929. Was it the Jews or Arabs that began the killing and taking over the others land in 1929?

4. Why did the Arabs support the Nazi in WW2?

5. How many Jews were robbed and kicked out of Egypt Algeria Morocco Jordan Syria Libya and Iraq in the late 40s and early 50s?

After you provide answers to these, now answer, do you still feel that the Arabs have a right to even a square foot of the land of Israel?

TheDevilsBride:
Forgive me as I laugh at this statement, because I believe you've already attempted, not once, not twice, but thrice, to distill my position into a coherent mess, and each time, your words have ended up in a jumbled heap, like a laundry basket. I'm starting to think that the greater illness here, lies not in my argument, but in your inability to grasp it.



Smh, there you go again, cross-eyed, misrepresenting a clearly written position. If I see someone making a biased statement and I immediately retract it after realizing that error, that's a large row of planets away, from someone who maintains and defends racist views for years, or an institution that systematically enforces discriminatory policies. The scale, duration, intent, and institutional entrenchment matter enormously when analyzing bias, but you don't wish to hear this. Your brain simply can't grasp the concept of nuance, lmao.



Failure to distinguish a rescinded memo, from centuries of institutionalized oppression suggests to me that you're the one, doing the shallow diving here, into the kiddie pool of false equivalences. What's the point of summarizing what I say, when you're fully committed to rhetorical jijutsus, and context-free analysis, hmmm? At this point, mate, just hang your coat.



All you've being doing here can be likened to stubbing your toe on the kitchen stool, and crying that it is exactly the same as being hit by a meteorite, because they both involve impact. I'm not obligated to entertain such ridiculous equivocations.



I've maintained throughout my submissions, that institutional response must be evaluated within its proper context, but no matter how times it is pointed out to you, alas, it must elude you like water through a sieve. My position never changed; you're just not poised enough to understand how complex the topic really is, as opposed to the simplified strawman you've been so enthusiastically tilting at. Your amusement is expected though, when you're accustomed to seeing everything in black and white, red becomes so fascinating, lol.



Match:

> Institutional bias crystallized into policy, defended at every level, and maintained despite years of protest.

vs.

> An overreach that the institution's own safeguards caught out and corrected immediately.

If you still struggle to see the difference, then perhaps remedial classes are in order, lmao.



Let's go further into the distinctions here:

So, the post-9/11 surveillance was:
1> Deliberately planned and implemented as policy.
2> Defended and maintained despite clear evidence of bias.
3> Resisted change at multiple institutional levels.

The FBI memo was:
1> Promptly corrected when identified.
2> Acknowledged as inappropriate by the FBI leadership itself.
3> Not defended as policy.

QED



Scale and context, buddy. Scale and context. Do you even remember how this investigation started, hmmm?



By this logic, a security camera at a bank and the NSA's satellite network must basically be the same thing, lol.



Not that I'm surprised that you'll miss it, as you can't tell your left from your right anyways, but the quantity of memos was never the point. It's the institutional entrenchment and systemic nature of the policy that matters.



Is it your argument that the presence of similar elements, translates to two separate situations being equivalent? Do you realize how thick and shallow this assertion truly is?



Is there proof of this nonsense claim, or is this just another one of your cheap, unnecessary lies?



...he declares, by his own opinions, in a case of exquisite irony, lol, smh.



So you've graduated from mind reading to alternate reality construction. Incredible. Your talents are truly expanding .



...and here we go again with the trite and unfounded slavery comparison. It's starting to resemble the argumentative equivalent of you pulling the fire alarm because you can't make a convincing argument, lol.



Mate, you've just spent several paragraphs, over the last two days, declaring your own understanding to be superior. Your self-awareness here is approaching absolute zero.

You are now repeating yourself and going around in circles. I am sure we will have other discussions.
For you to say that because the 9/11 case was policy and the one against Catholics was not, hence there was no bias against Catholics shows how despite you are getting.
Just so you know, it is much easier to hide bias when it isn't policy and that's why it took someone from the inside to leak the whole thing.
So if a racist cop beats up a black kid, I guess you will say that it isn't racism since it's not police policy even if the police chief does nothing about it until it leaks to the public. That argument is weak and pathetic even for your standard.
I noticed that you keep repeating and have not added any new points to the discussion.
I suggest we postpone until another topic connects us again. What say you?

TheDevilsBride:
It is a documented fact that the previous FBI leadership already acknowledged the error, and corrected it, irregardless of future leadership changes, so you're still fighting ghosts my dear.



Just because there's a new nominee for the office of FBI director, who has potentially different views, doesn't retroactively validate or invalidate any previous actions. Each institutional response is evaluated independently based on its own alignment with the constitutional principles and law enforcement standards that have been established. So what are you on about, hmmm?



You may keep telling yourself that, until you're purple in the face, but the reality here is that in this discussion, I have cited documented actions, such as the creation of the memo review, it's rescission, official statements from the director etc etc, while you're here inferring institutional bias from a simple administrative error. Methodology: that's the key distinction in the way we have both approached the evidence.



You're asking the wrong questions, I'm afraid. The question of whether the FBI made a mistake is completely irrelevant, as they clearly did and have admitted it. The question here, is whether that mistake constitutes evidence of systematic bias. A single corrected error doesn't offer enough gas to support that broader claim, just as a single rainy day does not necessarily prove a climate pattern.



...and for the umpteenth time, this is exactly the reason for which it was rescinded. You're conflating a withdrawn analytical framework, with active surveillance.



Going undercover is arguably the primary investigative method of the FBI, lol. They use it in investigations across all demographics, from Wall Street, all the way to Walmart parking lots, so this is a puerile charge. Are we to clutch our pearls and cry persecution every single time law enforcement agencies use investigative methods that are well established? Perhaps you'd prefer them to send a formal RSVP before conducting surveillance, hmmm? "Dear Potential Suspects, We cordially request your attendance at your own investigation...", lmao.



The absurdity of this position rather speaks for itself, since the FBI concentrates mainly on specific leads and threats, and not demographic quotas. It's almost like you ignored the true origin of how this investigation started in the first place, from an extremist member of a subgroup with bizarre ideologies, who relate strongly to the Catholic faith. Based on the circumstances and nature of the case, the FBI needed to focus their investigation on Catholic extremists/radicals. But I'm guessing based on your logic, they should have gone ahead to find some Buddhist rascals to balance the books, even though the case had literally nothing to do with Buddhists or Buddhism.



So essentially, this is your argument: When an institution makes a mistake and corrects it, this somehow constitutes proof of their initial malicious intent. Now, read that last sentence over and over again, and if it still makes any sense to you, please walk me through the logic behind it. Maybe you can even break it down using syllogisms, because right now, and truly no offense intended, I think this is the most braindead, disingenuous, absolutely retardéd argument I've seen anyone make this year, with a straight face, no less.



Then perhaps, you have mixed up the definitions of those two words "evidence" and "opinion", in your head, because what you've provided here is simply your own interpretation of the case, and your interpretations don't magically transmute from subjective analysis into objective fact, by simply calling them "clear evidence".



Are you suggesting that just because institutional responses vary based on leadership, we should therefore, not consider institutional responses as valid arguments unless of course, presumably, they happen to align with your preferred narrative?



The reasons have long been provided. You just pretend not to see them, because you don't like the taste of defeat, lol.



False equivocation. This is yet another instance of you loading up bullets to shoot yourself in your own foot with, just like you did when you brought up JWs in the army discourse, lmao. If you were the least bit aware, of the vast difference in scale, scope, duration, and institutional entrenchment between those two situations, you wouldn't even think of comparing them. Now look at you here, attempting to draw a spurious parallel between a case of years-long systematic targeting, which included warrantless wiretapping, religious and ethnic profiling, and even the creation of entire programs specifically aimed at targeting Muslim communities, and comparing it to a single memo that was promptly rescinded, the moment its overreach was identified. Abi did you forget, that the targeting of Muslims continued, even in spite of mounting evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of their approach?

I mean, the singular fact that we can readily acknowledge and criticize the FBI's post-9/11 overreach, while also recognizing their swift correction of the Catholic memo, curiously enough, serves to demonstrate a proper example, of institutional evolution and learning which is precisely the opposite of what you've been trying to prove here, lmao.



I can recognize when an institution makes a mistake, and promptly corrects it, but how this translates to me blindly supporting everything it has ever done, is a puzzle you have to solve for me by yourself, lol. Also, this rather desperate attempt from you to try and pigeonhole me with a particular viewpoint, reveals more about your binary thinking, than my position.



The fact that you felt the need to reach out for such dramatically disparate comparisons, from 9/11 surveillance to banana republics, is a very spectacular demonstration of how shallow your original argument was. I've never seen someone reach so much, without actually getting anywhere, lmao.

Let's summarize everything you are saying and see how much sense it makes.
You believe you believe that as long as a wrong action is corrected, it doesn't qualify as bias. By your argument, slavery of blacks was not bias. It was corrected.
Whenever your argument is extended to any other event, it stops making sense.
It's a very shallow argument.
The fact that you are scare to compare this to any event I mentioned shows that your argument can't stand the test if time. It is very weak.

Again you have clearly changed your thoughts on institutional response. I am happy I was able to correct you Abit. Please go back and read your first thoughts on institutional response. It was very funny.

The FBI'S Post 9/11 actions where corrected does that not qualify as bias? If it does, point out how it is different from this case. That would be an intelligent response from you.

You say I am guilty of False equivocation and the major difference you were able to spot out is that one took a longer time than the other. By your measure, everything is false equivocation. No two events are exactly the same or take the exact time. So that's not a serious argument. Now let's look at the similarities.
Specific religious groups were wrongly targeted for investigation and were spied upon. The 2 cases are extremely similar coming from an organization with such history. Again you have a slim point when you say wiretapping was involved in the Muslim case. But I guess you don't know that wiretapping is only a form of spying. Spies were planted in the Catholic case also. Another huge difference you spotted was that just one memo was all it took to enforce the Catholic targeting. You did not state how many memos were needed in the post 9/11 case. I guess you think that the more the memos the more serious the case. You are only being childish with your argument.
Let's get a bit serious and point out the similarities.
In both cases, groups were targeted because of religion. That called bias.
In both cases spying was involved. And it was hidden from the public until it was leaked.

It was you who proved that institutional response is not a valid point because it is only used when the response aligns with your emotions. So yes, it's not a valid argument. It's a nonsense argument.

Clearly you don't understand what evidence is. I never gave you my opinion, I gave you the facts as they are. I know that if not for this argument, you will agree that when people are targeted for their religion it is bias. But we are arguing, so you can never agree.

To you, a corrected mistake can no longer be labeled as bias. We both know that you are only inventing things for the sake of argument. If not, by your definition, black slavery was not bias, it was corrected.
Less I forget, you said something about the taste of defeat. I really hope you were not insinuating that you won the argument because that would be a very unwise thing to say.
Declaring yourself victorious without an umpire is very dumb. Imagine students in charge of grading their exams, no one would ever fail. Or imagine a professional football game without a ref.
I cannot declare victory because I have not been able to pull you over to my side. To me, that's the purpose of these public discussions. I don't see the point in killing a goat and declaring victory when you are still where I met you. You still believe that targeting a particular religion in not bias.

TheDevilsBride:
It is a documented fact that the previous FBI leadership already acknowledged the error, and corrected it, irregardless of future leadership changes, so you're still fighting ghosts my dear.



Just because there's a new nominee for the office of FBI director, who has potentially different views, doesn't retroactively validate or invalidate any previous actions. Each institutional response is evaluated independently based on its own alignment with the constitutional principles and law enforcement standards that have been established. So what are you on about, hmmm?



You may keep telling yourself that, until you're purple in the face, but the reality here is that in this discussion, I have cited documented actions, such as the creation of the memo review, it's rescission, official statements from the director etc etc, while you're here inferring institutional bias from a simple administrative error. Methodology: that's the key distinction in the way we have both approached the evidence.



You're asking the wrong questions, I'm afraid. The question of whether the FBI made a mistake is completely irrelevant, as they clearly did and have admitted it. The question here, is whether that mistake constitutes evidence of systematic bias. A single corrected error doesn't offer enough gas to support that broader claim, just as a single rainy day does not necessarily prove a climate pattern.



...and for the umpteenth time, this is exactly the reason for which it was rescinded. You're conflating a withdrawn analytical framework, with active surveillance.



Going undercover is arguably the primary investigative method of the FBI, lol. They use it in investigations across all demographics, from Wall Street, all the way to Walmart parking lots, so this is a puerile charge. Are we to clutch our pearls and cry persecution every single time law enforcement agencies use investigative methods that are well established? Perhaps you'd prefer them to send a formal RSVP before conducting surveillance, hmmm? "Dear Potential Suspects, We cordially request your attendance at your own investigation...", lmao.



The absurdity of this position rather speaks for itself, since the FBI concentrates mainly on specific leads and threats, and not demographic quotas. It's almost like you ignored the true origin of how this investigation started in the first place, from an extremist member of a subgroup with bizarre ideologies, who relate strongly to the Catholic faith. Based on the circumstances and nature of the case, the FBI needed to focus their investigation on Catholic extremists/radicals. But I'm guessing based on your logic, they should have gone ahead the find some Buddhist rascals to balance the books, even though the case had literally nothing to do with Buddhists or Buddhism.



So essentially, this is your argument: When an institution makes a mistake and corrects it, this somehow constitutes proof of their initial malicious intent. Now, read that last sentence over and over again, and if it still makes any sense to you, please walk me through the logic behind it. Maybe you can even break it down using syllogisms, because right now, and truly no offense intended, I think this is the most braindead, disingenuous, absolutely retardéd argument I've seen anyone make this year, with a straight face, no less.



Then perhaps, you have mixed up the definitions of those two words "evidence" and "opinion", in your head, because what you've provided here is simply your own interpretation of the case, and your interpretations don't magically transmute from subjective analysis into objective fact, by simply calling them "clear evidence".



Are you suggesting that just because institutional responses vary based on leadership, we should therefore, not consider institutional responses as valid arguments unless of course, presumably, they happen to align with your preferred narrative?



The reasons have long been provided. You just pretend not to see them, because you don't like the taste of defeat, lol.



False equivocation. This is yet another instance of you loading up bullets to shoot yourself in your own foot with, just like you did when you brought up JWs in the army discourse, lmao. If you were the least bit aware, of the vast difference in scale, scope, duration, and institutional entrenchment between those two situations, you wouldn't even think of comparing them. Now look at you here, attempting to draw a spurious parallel between a case of years-long systematic targeting, which included warrantless wiretapping, religious and ethnic profiling, and even the creation of entire programs specifically aimed at targeting Muslim communities, and comparing it to a single memo that was promptly rescinded, the moment its overreach was identified. Abi did you forget, that the targeting of Muslims continued, even in spite of mounting evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of their approach?

I mean, the singular fact that we can readily acknowledge and criticize the FBI's post-9/11 overreach, while also recognizing their swift correction of the Catholic memo, curiously enough, serves to demonstrate a proper example, of institutional evolution and learning which is precisely the opposite of what you've been trying to prove here, lmao.



The fact that I can recognize when an institution makes a mistake, and promptly corrects it, is not the same as me blindly supporting everything it has ever done, and this rather desperate attempt from you to try and pigeonhole me with a particular viewpoint, reveals more about your binary thinking, than my position.



The fact that you felt the need to reach out for such dramatically disparate comparisons, from 9/11 surveillance to banana republics, is a very spectacular demonstration of how shallow your original argument was. I've never seen someone reach so much, without actually getting anywhere, lmao.

Do you really know anything about the case? Let's be sincere you really knew nothing about this case until I brought it up.
The FBI leadership did nothing about the case until its documents leaked to the public. Please educate yourself better on the case. Before the leak, the FBI didn’t take visible action to address concerns. It was only after public backlash that the FBI retracted the memo, with Director Christopher Wray stating it was against agency policy and should never have been issued.
That's not how you want the FBI to be run. You don't want your FBI to react to bias only after pubic outcry.
Secondly, the evil officers involved were not sacked.
Now your institutional response argument makes less Sense the more your make it.
Remember, you said you only believe in institutional response.
Trump's executive orders all fall under institutional response. How come you are not in support.
You pick and choose which institutional response to agree with.
In essence, you have zero regards for institutional response unless it aligns with your beliefs.
That means your entire argument is really based on nothing except you don't like Trump's executive order.
Your support of the FBI is base on those same emotions.
Do you know why the FBI director was saddened by the actions of his boys?
It is because their actions clearly showed bias. They investigated a people because of their beliefs and branded them as radical. Oga, that's the definition of bias.
If the evidence is not clear enough for you then nothing can.
If you investigate me because of my religion, how is that not bias.
Again, I disagree with you. A single corrected error could be enough to show bias. Especially if it was not corrected until public outcry and hearings.
The FBI corrected it's single bias against japanese Americans in WW2. Would your u erase history because it was just one error?
The after 9/11 Muslim bias was just one error and it has been corrected so let's delete history and claim it never happened.
Learn to apply your theories all through. If it doesn't make sense in one case then discard it.
Lastly, you call my argument shallow because you can't provide answers. Anyone can call the other persons argument shallow. It doesn't mean anything if you can't provide answers to simple questions.
Oga, are you ok with the institutional response of the FBI in the case of the 9/11 Muslims or in the banana republic era?
If no, then your institutional response argument in nonsense but if yes then I can say your argument is coming from an honest please.
I will accept that you take institutional response very serious and I will try to educate you on the dangers of accepting the institutional response.

Electorate:
Just imagine Elon Musk playing with our intelligence:

"Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, confirmed that the bid—backed by Musk’s AI startup, xAI, and a consortium of investment firms—aimed to take control of OpenAI and reinstate its founding commitment to serving the public good rather than operating as a for-profit enterprise."

Someone that turned a Twitter that was serving the public good into a for-profit enterprise is now saying he wants to turn an OpenAI from a for-profit enterprise into serving the public good.

ELON MUSK IS A CON MAN, DON'T SELL TO HIM.

Elon Musk is only good at acquiring already established businesses to boost his fortune, the only business he started from scratch TESLA electric cars is currently doing poorly. Elon Musk ain't a selfmade billionaire abeg, He is just an opportunist.

He is currently an American Oligarchy via Donald Trump...watch how he will corner some American industries into his personal estate thanks to puppet Trump.

Where do you get your news from sir. Twitter was always a for profit enterprise.

heniford2:
if the leave SA will be another glorified area like Zimbabwe

I tell you

GanagiBitrus:
Kids mentality. There is no marriage without stress. It's your ability to manage the stress that makes you a wise & matured person.

Fact is, As long as you are alive, you'll always face stress either from women or from your fellow man or from circumstances beyond your control.

Stop calling people kids because you don't agree with them. That way, you make it impossible for them to buy your ideas. While I agree with most of what you say, if you want to be that man who sells his ideas, learn to persuade. Your very first sentence is enough to put away many of those who would have learnt from you.

Golan007:
Cry more.

oya na no wahala. Anytime I have time to correct your falsehood, I will cry more ok

Gandrova:
I guess you were still in creche or not yet born when the Intifada started.
Like I said earlier, you have a phone and data Google the history and safe your self illogical explanation.

I just took your advice to google the Intifada and here are some of the things I learned from Google.

1. The intifadas were escalations in violence against civilians, sparking widespread fear and necessitating harsh security responses. The Second Intifada, in particular, is remembered for suicide bombings in public spaces, leading to a significant shift towards more defensive measures.

2. The start of both intifadas was unprovoked, with the First Intifada following a traffic accident and the Second Intifada often linked to Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, which was a pretext for violence rather than a genuine cause.

3. The intifadas led to a drastic change in daily life for Israelis, with frequent security checks, bombings, and the constant threat of violence making normal activities like shopping or going to school fraught with danger.

4. The violence during the intifadas had a profound economic impact, damaging tourism and business, while also taking a psychological toll on the population, shifting public opinion towards more conservative and security-focused policies.

5. The violence, especially the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada, deepened Israeli distrust towards Palestinian intentions, with many concluding that the goal was not coexistence but the destruction of Israel.

6. Post-intifada, Israel implemented long-term security measures, including the construction of the West Bank barrier, which was seen as vital for preventing attacks but criticized for its impact on Palestinian movement and land.

You can see that I did your assignment now are you ready to do mine?

SoftSport:
It’s crazy how something as simple as “where you’re born” can spark such huge debates, especially when politics gets involved. You’d think the 14th Amendment would be pretty clear-cut, but here we are, still debating it over a century later, what a time to be alive!

Amendments can be changed and argued in court. Trying to change the law and becoming like the rest of the world is not a bad thing. Lastly, learn to be honest, the argument is not about “where you’re born” No one will argue and tell you that you are not born in the US if you are. It is an argument about citizenship. That's all

Golan007:
Cry baby.

It must always end with you insulting me, lool. The moment you get uncomfortable with the topic, you have to deviate to fighting me. I can only laugh. There is no argument that is superior to the truth that is why I can always remain focused on the point and see no need to call you names

Golan007:
Boo hoo!!

I love this response. It tells us everything about you and the weakness of your position. No wahala, I am here to correct you whenever I have time

Golan007:
Who cares?

The story does not end in 2025.

They should leave for US.

I understand you don't care about bad governance, poverty, and corruption. It's true that the story does not end in 2025 but it is only getting worse. But then you don't care so no problem.

Golan007:
They can always leave.

Just like the British left Nigeria in 1960 and we have overcome poverty, corruption and bad government.
Just as the white were forced out of Zimbabwe and it went form one of the biggest food exporters in Africa to overtaking the US in GDP.
Just as the indians were chased away from Uganda and Uganda became the center of commerce in Africa.
Should we keep going?

TheDevilsBride:
...and you're relying on a primary misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and opinion.



...coming from someone with a persecution complex so elaborate, it deserves its own Netflix series.



The structure of your assessment here is amusing: "Was it wrong? Yes. Was it bias? Yes because I say so". A true testament to the non-existence of your logical rigor.



Defending the concept of institutional accountability isn't quite the same as defending the FBI itself, but then again, you've already shown repeatedly, that nuance isn't exactly your strongest suit.



If you seriously think executive orders are famously permanent, and are unassailable pieces of governance, as opposed to basic political tools that change with each coming administration, then I can only smh, and laugh at your naive presumptions, lol.



The irony here is thick enough, to spread on toast, given that your entire case, rests firmly on your creative interpretation of the facts.

This idea that you are on the side of institutional response is just a cover. If the institutional response of the FBI is no longer in line with your argument, will you still accept it. We now have a new FBI director with a very different opinion and institutional response from the formal so are you still on the side of institutional response or was it only a pretense to protect your argument?

It's funny that you decide that your opinion is evidence.
All through the discussion, you have only depended on your opinion.
Was the FBI bias in it's action against catholics? Yes it was. And the evidence say so.
Let me lay the evidence below. You tell me if it is opinion or clear evidence.
1. The FBI’s leaked Richmond memo labeled "radical-traditionalist Catholics" (RTCs) as potential extremists, suggesting they could be monitored for domestic terrorism. This singled out a specific religious group based on their beliefs rather than actual threats.
2. Reports indicated that the FBI considered using informants or sources within Catholic churches to monitor members, a tactic that echoes historical abuses against religious minorities and implies unwarranted suspicion.
3. While many extremist groups exist across various religious and ideological backgrounds, the FBI’s disproportionate focus on Catholics raises questions about why similar scrutiny wasn't applied to comparable groups with a history of violence or radicalization.
4. After public backlash, the FBI distanced itself from the Richmond memo, with officials acknowledging that it did not meet investigative standards. This suggests an initial willingness to act on anti-Catholic bias until it was publicly exposed.
Now I have given you clear evidence and not opinion.
Lastly, institutional response always depends on who is in charge of the institution. If you only accept certain institutional response, it's dishonest to use institutional response as your argument. Look for a better reason.

Let me ask you, was the FBI"s institutional response biased to Muslims after 9/11?
Do we have evidence that it was biased?
I really want to see you support the FBI 9/11 response since you must always be on the side of the instructions.
We can also discuss the CIA's actions in the do called Banana republics since you must always take side with institutional response?

TheDevilsBride:
Hopefully, your summary won't miss the point as well.



So it seems, however, there is a compelling difference: I rely on evidence and institutional response; you rely on persecution fantasies.



Smh, I can still detect some subtle misunderstanding with this summary, but I'd rather not keep flogging the poor, dead horse.



I understand your position perfectly. Doesn't make it any less incorrect.



Again, so it seems.



Like I told you before, I appreciate the attempt at civility. It's a refreshing experience in this website filled with trolls, bigots, and overly sentimental folks.

Let me rely to one one of your points. You rely not on evidence, but on a narrative. The same evidence was provided to us but you decided to run along with the narrative that suites your argument.
Was the action of the FBI wrong? Yes. Was it bias? Yes it most certainly was. But you chose to be defender in chief of the FBI nothing more. You did not depend on evidence or institutional response.
A little bit more on institutional response. The instruction of the presidency has responded with an executive order and you are clearly not depending on it. You choose your institutions. So let's be honest about one thing, you only depend on your emotions and your argument.
Let me ask you, since we both watched the Senate hearing, what was the FBI director's excuse for not firing the boys that messed up?
Go back and watch the interview. He gave no reason. He defended by saying that some of them are Catholics. That's the kind of institutional excuse you depend on.
I choose the instruction that punishes wrong doers in government over the one that protects them.
This idea that you are on the side of institutional response is just a cover. If the institutional response of the FBI is no longer in line with your argument, will you still accept it. We now have a new FBI director with a very different opinion and institutional response from the formal so are you still on the side of institutional response or was it only a pretense to protect your argument?

Gandrova:
Hamas should be destroyed so that IDF would now crushed innocent Palestinians and claim their land Clapp for your self.

I don't know how you see things. The only reason Israel attacked Gaza and over 40k people died was because of Hamas. The Palestinians are safer without Hamas. Before this war, tens of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel and no one harrassed them. Hamas only makes life unsafe for the Palestinians. I guess someone taught you that Hamas is protecting the Palestinians. That person lied to you.

Gandrova:
You don't need to agree with me.
Because you are happy with the development in Gaza.

No, I am not. I wish Hamas is destroyed and the people of Gaza embrace peace. But we both know that's not possible. These people have shown again and again that they hate peace. So I don't mind finding them a new home for the sake of peace.

Threedoorsdown:
Not everything is about religion to me and i am not just referring to gaza but all other actions he and Elon has taken since ressuming office. I am not even supporting the arabs or terrorism



Anyway it's just my opinion.

I get it is your opinion but which action in particular!?
Donald Trump is probably the most upfront politician in recent American history. He is simply fulfilling his promises to his people. That's the definition of democracy. He is doing what he told us he will do. I believe you should respect that even if you disagree.

Gandrova:
Kindly go back to the history of the Intifada.
Be open minded in terms of decision taken.

Because I don't agree with , you think I am not open minded?

Threedoorsdown:
Trump and elon musk are really moving like anti christ yet Christians are so blind and hailing them on.

To people like you, everything must be about religion. Trump is trying to achieve peace in the middle east and he is tired of doing the same thing with no results. The Arabs were given Authority over Gaza in 2025 and they turned it to a den of terrorist? They don't deserve the land anymore.
There is a price for terrorism.

Gandrova:
Only beast would support Donald Trump with such proposal.
Imagine asking Palestinians to leave their land.
It's the highest form of insults on their personalities.

They were given the land in 2005, they turned it to a den a terrorists. They don't deserve the land anymore. Peace over political correctness.
Let a 3rd party take up the land.