₦airaland Forum

Fryx:
For a boy. Cool. But not a girl.

Girls are naturally exposed at that age. Giving her the go ahead can cause her to make mistakes. At that age, you can teach her how to be emotionally strong to handle stupid boys like this instead. So that she won’t grow into a bitter woman.

But that's not possible as I would not want my boy to date his fellow boys. I want him to date good well brought up girls.

budaatum:
Many is not all. And I will say, some. In my own opinion, no coup in Nigeria has revolutionised much. Revolutions are after all judged by their eventual outcomes and not just because people revolted.

The French Revolution, which did have a coup, is required learning in Western liberal education. Perhaps study it so you understand why.

Again, let's stick to your definition.
The July 1966 coup for example meets all your criterion for a coup. Unless you want to change your definition.
Yes the french revolution also qualifies as a revolution and the Iranian revolution and the ISIS war and I can go on and on. Communism in Russia and China, Even Hamas taking over Gaza.
All these meet your standard. Unless you are no longer comfortable with that standard.
So back to my question sir should we list revolutions of the last 100 years to see if revolution is actually a good idea?

Fryx:
A girl has no business with dating. Neither do a boy.

Lol under who's rules?
Dating is actually part of the maturing process.
It's a great way for girls and boys to learn social skills and to start understanding the opposite sex.
It's actually not a big deal.
I will definitely encourage my kids to start dating when they are at least 16.
I look forward to having that discussion with my boy about how to treat a woman, and answering many of his questions about relationships.

Fryx:
A man.

If a girl is going to date a man, then what should a woman date, a boy?

budaatum:
I hope you realise that others may read what I posted and come to a different conclusion to the one you've come to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

Let's stick to what you posted. No need for different conclusions. Let's judge every revolution by what you posted.
And for your post, many coups meet the definition of a revolution.
With that established and with your parameters, can we now name the revolutions of the last 100 years and see how they went?

Fryx:
The girl was dating a boy.

No, the girl for date monkey before. If you don't expect girls to date boys, then what should they date?

budaatum:
No it does not mean that! A coup is not an uprising of the common citizens of a nation.


That would be rather pointless since you don't seem to know what a revolution is or even what can be accepted as positive or negative consequences. All the same, I present intelligent use her mind Eve revolting against the ignorant rubbish stupid Adam told her.

Not many would settle for their current oppression for fear that revolting against it would be worse for them. Some of us would rather die free people than live as slaves.

Sir by your definition, a coup is definitely a revolution. Let's stick to your writing definition.
In case you forgot, here is your definition once again.
In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's state, class, ethnic or religious structures.[1][2][3] A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means (such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence).[1]
From this, a coup qualifies as a revolution.
It says nothing about the ordinary masses.
And if you don't accept a coup to be a revolution, then it's inconsistent to call Nigerian independence a revolution because the ordinary masses had zero contribution to it. At best, it was a few elite that struggled for it.

budaatum:
A dictionary will not sufficiently educate you. Please read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

Let's hold on to your definition. This means every coup is in fact a revolution. Every corrupt government that has ever gained power is a revolution. Every civil war is a revolution. This includes terrorists like Boko Haram. They have clearly revolutionized security and religion in the north.
If you choose such a broad definition, them there is no need to call for revolution, it happens all the time. A PC coming to power was clearly a revolution.
Has this been your point all along?
Again, by your definition, was Nigeria gaining independence a revolution?
Could you and I together look back for just the last 100 years. You point out all the good revolutions and I will point out those with negative consequences.
How about that?

budaatum:
The Glorious Revolution is the sequence of events that led to the deposition of James II and VII in November 1688. He was replaced by his daughter Mary II and her Dutch husband, William III of Orange, who was also his nephew. The two ruled as joint monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland until Mary's death in 1694. The Revolution itself was relatively bloodless, but pro-Stuart revolts between 1689 and 1746 caused significant casualties, while the political movement known as Jacobitism persisted into the late 18th century. William's invasion was the last successful invasion of England.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

Yes a revolution can be bloodless just as coups can be bloodless but it always involves the use of force .
It's very easy for you to find a link to a revolution that took place in the 1600s but you won't see Wikipedia saying Martin Luther king Jr led a revolution because he didn't.
Non with you find and one claiming that Peter Obi, or Atiku are revolting against the government just because they are opposition politicians.

budaatum:
I guess you wouldn't do anything then, since you have no guarantee anything you do will work until you do the thing and find out.


The wise Igbos will tell you that if they say yes and their Chi does not say yes with them, they will get another Chi.

No, I am not telling you to revolt against your God. What I am telling you is that no god should threaten you with death if you nourish yourself with knowledge, and any god who tells you to remain naked and enslaved and ignorant should be revolted against.

Go study Jesus Christ. His entire teachings can be summed up as "eat the fruits of knowledge so that you can free yourself". Unfortunately, most listen to their pastors instead who enslave you into tithing.


You obviously don't know what a revolution is, and likely think it means fighting and killing, despite telling you that democracy is a peaceful way of revolting that was introduced to avoid revolting by fighting and killing.

Take Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi. What they did was precisely a peaceful revolution against the status quo, which did result in positive change. And Apartheid would not have ended if the entire world had not joined in to revolt against white minority rule.

Martin Luther king Jr did not revolt sir. Even if I don't know the meaning of revolution as you claim, we can always look into a dictionary.
They did not revolt against the status quo. They used other means of change.
Again, elections and revolution are not the same thing.
Please let's base our discussion on the dictionary. No need to extend the meaning of revolution or to revolt. Martin Luther king Jr never revolted against the American government.

budaatum:
Nigerian independence was precisely a revolution against the British master, and June 12 was indeed a revolution against military rule, but if you don't think we are better off ruling ourselves and our democracy despite current hunger, then all I can suggest is you go fill the gaps in your history.

As Samuel Sharpe once said when he revolted, “I would rather die upon yonder gallows than live in slavery".

I disagree and history disagrees with you.
The British freely gave us our independence.
We had zero means of obtaining our independence from them.
The late 50s and early 60s was a time when colonial rule was no longer fanciful and was getting very expensive.
As for June 12 1993, it was an election not revolution. Big difference.

budaatum:
Not revolting is like telling alimanjeris in the North who are kept ignorant to be content with their ignorance and enslavement.

A God that tells one to remain ignorant or they will die if they acquire knowledge must be revolted against because it is not knowledge that kills, but ignorance and the lack of knowledge.

In fact, that Eve story was written precisely to ensure you don't revolt against your masters by making you believe the lie that revolting would result in you surely dying on the day that you eat thereof. And as you can read below, they did not die on acquiring knowledge but lived to almost a 1000 years.

That said, I feel you. Some, I guess, like being oppressed and enslaved. When some people wanted to revolt against their slave masters in America, some slaves reported them to their masters and they got whipped and sold. Funny thing is, Americans revolted against their master Britain, and have now become masters of the world just live Eve did

I would rather revolt and die than be a slave and eat, while some would rather eat than revolt and be free to provide their own food from the sweat of their own brow. That's probably why Nigerians did not revolt and elect a different party at the last election. Only thing is, their not revolting has now resulted in them being hungry.

Nice philosophy but I don't believe in doing things that don't work.
According to you, man should revolt against his God. But I ask, to what point?
There are better ways to improve society, ways that actually work. There is no science behind a revolution. It's just a careless act with an undetermined outcome.
Mary Slessor did not stop the killing of twins via revolution.
Martin Luther king Jr did not lead a revolution.
Apartheid in South Africa did not end because of revolution.
Slavery was not abolished via revolution.

budaatum:
And your point is incorrect. The people who revolted, including us Nigerians who revolted against British and military rule, and history, would tell you their revolution made their lives much better than it was under those they revolted against.

So the Nigerian independence was not a product of revolution. It just happened with the change in times. And it led to a very corrupt democracy that ultimately ended up in 2 coups and a civil war that millions were killed.
Please sight a better example.
And there had never been a Nigerian revolution against military rule.

budaatum:
Nigerians have not revolted many times. What we do is protest, and that is not the same as a revolution, which is the successful uprising of the people and a change of the status quo. If we want to consider our revolutions, the revolt against the British for independence would be one instance, and June 12 that resulted in democracy would be another. The Biafra War would have been a third, but it was unsuccessful, and would be a revolt, but not a revolution per se.

As for revolutions " not necessarily making things better", that depends. Many would tell you Eve revolting against the lie that nourishing herself with knowledge would result in her death was not better, but the evidence, that she and her husband became self-employed and went on to populate the earth, and lived for almost 1000 years, is better in my book, but I guess that might be because I abhor slavery.

Yes and like Eve, we continue to revolt against God each time we sin. Not really a good thing.
Bro, revolutions bring negative outcomes nine times out of ten.

budaatum:
China, Egypt, and Russia have had many revolutions throughout their history, and they definitely did improve the societies for many of their people, you'd find if you studied their histories before and after. I'll list a few at the end for you to read. The lot of the revolters were always better than it was prior to their successful revolt.


You seem to be mixing a coup, which Nigeria has had many of, with a revolution of the people, which Nigeria has not had any of unless you want to count the revolution that gave us our independence.

None of the revolutions you mentioned made life any better for the people and that has been my point.
Communism was swept in by revolution. Revolutions gave birth to terrorism and terrorist organizations.
We have far more revolutions that resulted in negative outcomes than the opposite.
And yes, a number of the coups in Nigeria fit into the definition of a revolution.

Acekidc4:
You day is nearer than mine🤨just wait and see

It is well no problem.

BlowYourMind:
My Nigeria is blessed, prosperous, and highly favored by God. What you think of Nigeria is what will happen to you. The land you cursed will make you miserable

Tell this to Tinubu. It will never be well with those who chose this disaster for Nigeria.

budaatum:
I think you mean protests do not necessarily make society better.

A revolution is a successful protest that changes the status quo, and by nature, it does make society better.

You mean the Chinese revolution, the Iranian revolution, the Egyptians revolution, Russian revolution, the Venezuelan revolution, the Libyan revolution all made their societies better?
A more accurate definition of revolution would be, a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system.
And we have seen many I. Nigeria. It does not work.

Acekidc4:
🙄 Eye Service
Gallivanting Failure.

If you quote me wrongly you will die💯

Someone goes to visit an injured and bereaved man but you choose to be negative, your day is very near at hand.

budaatum:
Perhaps not, but your claim that the English did not revolt is false.

The English in fact adopted democracy so their citizens can peacefully revolt at election if they so wish to.

Even Nigerians have revolted many times. It's human nature to revolt but I was comparing them to France who changed their monarchy.
Message was, Revolution do not necessarily make society better.

budaatum:
Really?

You did not get the sense of what I was talking about.

DeepSight:
Now you want to blame an entire people for their oppression.

Tell me what black South Africans did wrong to suffer apartheid. Tell me what black Americans did wrong to suffer Jim Crow and Segregation.

Tell me what Mandela did wrong to be called a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher and kept on the US terrorism watchlist till 2008.

Which people will not fight back when cornered and violently repressed by another group?

And when they fight back, the only thing the oppressor does is to criminalize their fight back by tagging it terrorism.

And being the bankrupt, slavish creature you are, you join them to chorus that.

You hear every day "Israel has a right to defend itself."

Why do you never hear "Palestine has a right to defend itself?"

Are they less than human?

Black South Africans did nothing wrong. Mandela did nothing wrong.
Now can you say the same of the Palestinians? That's my question?

DeepSight:
I have no doubt that you would defend Israel if they sold your family into slavery.
You are the lowest of the low of human beings, a vile, demented enslaved amoral pervert who is a shame to the name and body of Christ.

It just came to my mind to ask you this. In this conflict, do you think that the Palestinians (not only Hamas) have done any wrong or is it all Israel's fault? I am taking of since 1948.

IMAliyu:
I am dismissing the idea that this hit could have been by accident, done by blind bombs.

You are free to dismiss any idea. But let me ask. Are you a weapons expert? If you are not, then calm down and wait for investigations. No need to rush things and act according to our passions.

DeepSight:
I have no doubt that you would defend Israel if they sold your family into slavery.
You are the lowest of the low of human beings, a vile, demented enslaved amoral pervert who is a shame to the name and body of Christ.

I don't see any benefit in insulting you back or saying hurtful things to you because like a child, you don't know what you are doing. It is well my child

Krismas:
Why not google search the tribulations of the female ICC investigator b4 this Khan?

Laziness, if you heard something, you would have shared. You don't expect me to handle your argument for you.
When you are ready with your link, you know where to find me.

IMAliyu:
BS, Israel uses precision missiles provided to them by the US.
They're not blindly firing, this is deliberate.

Even US precision missiles have been known to hit civilians ask Obama.

DeepSight:
People have eyes.

I previously thought you were just another ill schooled enslaved Nigerian Christian who would support Israel even if they murdered his child and raped his wife. Now I realize you are not just that. You are worse. You are an active supporter of murder, and you are willing to lie to yourself in the worst possible fashion to endorse abominations.

You are sick.

Loool.
If you knew you can't accept the truth then why ask.
You asked a question, I answered and you get more offended.
I was expecting your counter but since you have none, I don't see the need to exchange insults with you.
You remind me of my 3 year old. Such a child.

Krismas:
no one accused American of genocide in Afghanistan? Dream on. ICC was set to bring an arrest warrant for American leaders and military commanders. It was CIA who threatened them openly with assassination of all their family members and business concerns. Just like they doing now to ICC in the Israel case. America is a genocide nation.

Can you link to your sources please. No need of beer parlour gossip.

DeepSight:
This is a UN Shelter, for heavens sake. Completely aside from the fact that they are busy attacking a city they asked people to move to as a refuge, this is a f....cking UN Shelter, and you are still ranting? Where is your soul, has the devil eaten it?

Do you not realize this is not the first time and this is a standard pattern with these bloodthirsty demons?

You should be ashamed of yourself and the putrid nonsense you are vomitting.

Do you want me to keep repeating to you that this is a war? Bombs don't have eyes.
It would have been great it bombs could see and such mistakes would never happen but let's wait until AI improves. For now, more civilian deaths would unfortunately occur and it cannot be prevented.

DeepSight:
What happened with World Kitchen, stop avoiding the question. It was an aid group. They notified the IDF of their location and counter checked their movements with the IDF. The IDF snookered them with bombs from a drone. Not once, not twice, three times. To kill them.

Answer that.

And that was not an isolated incident. It is a pattern.

My boy, all you needed to do was to read Israel's explanation. Stop asking questions that have already been clearly answered
Below are a few links to Israel's explanation.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-795514
https://youtu.be/A6YNKnVQeJE?si=kynTHiiBKjvtf9uy

DeepSight:
You are a despicable excuse for a Christian, a shameful hypocrite who endorses the mass murder of children.

Of course you will forever ignore the world kitchen incident which speaks volumes.

I leave you to your bankrupt ethics.

You disgust me.

You should have noticed that I don't care when you insult me. But let me educate you further.
In wars, mistakes happen. Friendly fire happens.
War is just too complicated that you hardly get things right.
A solider needs less than a second to make a decision and it could very well be a wrong one. That's the tragedy of war.
No one accused the US of genocide when they blew up kids in Afghanistan in 2021. In fact the officers behind that all got promoted.
Maybe with the development of AI, there will be less mistakes in war but for now, it is not avoidable.
Again you are welcome.