₦airaland Forum

@davidylan
I answered your question which you so conveniently ignored. Am not going to start going over same issue again.
You forgot my clearly defined instructions: "your *sharpest* thoughts" only.

@davidylan

In what way did America need Nigeria as an ally against the war on terror? Did we contribute any single soldier in Iraq?

Nigeria has more Muslims than any other African country, except maybe Egypt or Algeria. There were Pakistani mujahadeens caught in Kano etc.

@I-man
If you are making sense, why not tell us why a republican president would care more for the welfare of Africans than a democrat.

@I-man
The falsehood was you implied Bush gave more aid than clinton, in effect you meant we were indebted to Bush.
I corrected you by reminding you it was quid pro quo. He needs allies for his war on terror and we needed American aid.

@davidylan

What other evidence have you brought up besides rehashing the views of Gideon Levy? Are we to build a temple unto the palestinians on less than 2000 words?

Stop playing dumb now , will you.
Did you forget the UN resolutions I quoted, or the ruling of the international court I referenced?
Please "your *sharpest* thoughts" only.

Given that 2 million people(1million Iraqis and 1 million Iranians) died throughout Saddam's reign,why should we presume that if the US did not invade,lives will not be lost? The death toll during his regime works out at about 85,000 per annum.

Er who funded the Iraqi war machine of the eighties? Who sold the weapons to Iraq? Who encouraged Sadam to attack the fundamentalist regime in Iran?
You guessed it : America.

Couldn't resist the aching urge to correct the myriad of falsehood being told here.

I-Man wrote

Bush tripled direct aid to Africa

Yes he did but with strings attached,as long as African countries help him fight his war on terror.

Clinton actually cut aid during his first term but yet he is well loved by the people whose aid money he cut

Does this make sense to anybody?Why is this so? Maybe we ain't as stupid as he thought we were.
Are Africans so stupid that we will hate the man who tripled aid to us while loving his stingy predecessor who actually cut aid to us? We can see past the token aid he gave us.

As for the economy,the fastest growing economy in the G7 over the past 4 years.5 consecutive years of growth at a pace faster than France and Germany who didn't participate in the Iraq war.Growth projections for the next 2 years still outpaces those two-

USA Today recently said China's breakneck development affects American wages, jobs, prices and industries, determining who wins and loses in the U.S. economy.
It is now China, along with Japan, that is buying the U.S. treasury securities that enable the United States to run the largest fiscal deficit in history.

What kind of mother leaves her kid where teenagers are hip-hopping?
This kid was lucky, the mother should be arrested.
Here is the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceNf-11-ddI

As a Christian maybe you should fight to have women pastors and archbishops, rather than ask Moslems why men and women don't pray together. Nigeria has more Christian denomination than any country I know, and still one of the poorest. Does God not listen to our prayers? Have you people ever sat down to think if you're praying to the right God? F*ck Religion.

@Afam
Lol! I still dey here o!
I come here just to read the latest comic from Nairaland comedians.
Hahaha!

@omoge
How can you hate the war and support the troops. I hope you're not being spoon fed "news" by O'Reilly?

we are not surposed to be in this long debate if this thread has a complete statement. Isreal does not want peace! what does isreal want and who wants peace? the answers could make us understand more instead of going into arguement.

Try this link
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-52416.0.html#msg1098544

@I-man
Does the picture make you want to puke? I thought I should remind you of the cretin you so loyally defend.

A picture of the Great man.

According to most polls conducted in Iraq, majority wants the USA out, I wonder why.

I guess it was Bush's invasion that led to the thousands that died on 911.

How many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks?

@ I-man

Your responses on this thread are a classic demonstration of Benford's Law of Controversy- Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available

Being hopelessly uninformed on the conflict,you have resorted to making insulting remarks.The title of this thread proclaims that "Isreal doesn't want peace" but you have been unable to explain why the "peace loving" Palestinians elected Hamas and resorted to violence the very day Isreal completed its pullout from Gaza

Insulting remarks? Thats rich coming from an arrogant and condescending person who expects civility. When mrmayor was having a debate with daviddylan you jumped in with "anti-semitism coupled with mutilation of grammar" statement.
You consistently accuse me of knowing nothing about the issue whilst failing to provide your "expertise" on the subject. Where in your posts have you visited the "Isreal doesn't want peace" article you just quoted. When you joined this debate your voice was 2 octave higher than any one else. Insulting remarks indeed.

@TayoD
You live in cloud cuckoo land if you think the hitting on the keyboard by 3 monkeys will be able to recreate the works of Shakespeare.

@zexyworm
You can't have a reasoned debate with people who have a pathological hatred for non Jews.

@davidylan
This is what I meant with the kettle calling the pot black. Flip to the previous page and you will find I-man's rhetorics are littered with anti semitic or anti-Jewish garbage. Since he joined this debate, this has remained one of his distinguishing characteristics. Check this out, in his second or third post he wrote:

This is one "elephant in the room" that the anti-Isrealbrigade prefer to gloss over.

. Next he wrote

Lacking the instruments of logic,our [b]anti-Isreal [/b]brigade have resorted to ad hominen attacks

Is he incapable of having an intelligent discourse?
Am going to spare you the embarrassment of how many times you have used this tired and old diversionary tactics yourself.

@I-man
Can you actually make your point without accusing us of being anti-semitic?
We are anti-semitic because we have views contrary to yours, what an outrage.
Are you reading from an auto-cue prepared by Pat Robbinson?
And lastly when did grammatical errors become the core of this debate?

@I-man
You are beginning to bore me.
Do you really have something to say?
You have referred to us as "anti-Isreal brigade"I replied that a search engine was as well accused of being anti-semitic.
Next you came up with "non-sequitur".
Is this a convenient way of saying "I have no answer"

Lacking the instruments of logic,our anti-Isreal brigade have resorted to ad hominen attacks

Am not surprised you refer to us as anti-Israel. In 2004 or so Google was accused of being anti-semitic, for returning searches typed into its search engine.

@NymphoQin
Welcome to the deluded world of Christian "Taleban" davidylan.

@NymphoQin
Please do, Lol

@davidylan

It is not difficult to note those who are merely arguing from religious and NOT factual leanings.

I knew you were a comedian, but reading the above showed what a genius comedian you really are. Talk of the kettle calling the pot black. We are Christians, the difference between me and you is, you allow your extreme Christian right wing belief to cloud your judgment. If Palestinians were the ones destroying houses, killing stone throwing children, murdering people of different political views---I would be here fighting from the Jewish corner.

This is a snap view of your activities on this forum. You spend most of your time in religious debates, with nothing complimentary to Islam or its followers.

@TayoD
You are no longer making sense. Is this because you have run out of excuses?

@I-man

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Arafat was of the Fatah party while the present Palestinian Govt is Hamas led.Article 7 is to be found in Hamas' constitution not Fatah.I thought u know the issues wel

Surely you know the present president of Palestine is from the Fatah party. If the article is to be found in Hamas constitution how come they did not negotiate with Fatah. Is it not because Abbas did not deliver that made the Palestinian people to choose Hamas?

Now this is a joke.I can overlook not knowing the difference between Fatah and Hamas but not knowing that the Arabs rejected a 2 state solution in the 40s and decided to wage war is on another level.I presume you know the basic history of the conflict before arguing about it?

Was it not Ben Gurrion who independently declared Isreal independent from the British. When was this 2 state solution that you are referring to. Are you living in the 40s?

@davidylan
You have repeated the phrase " politically correct "so many times that I need to respond to it.
When White supremacist make racist statement, people like you will be up in arms accusing them of racism. Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander. You can't scream political correctness when it is to do with Palestinians and shout fowl when it is to do with color?. Those who live in glass houses (black people) should not be so quick to lob stones.

Why are you and your ilk so hang up on the thoughts of a man as politically irrelevant as Gideon Levy

Hmmm Gideon Levy, a politically irrelevant man? Are you calling a former government spokesman and a member of the editorial board of Ha'aretz Newspaper irrelevant.?

There are thousands of Jews like Levy who see and speak the truth,

That's the point I have been making. We are getting there slowly.

Have you and your palestinian brothers been able to prove by archeological and historical evidence that the land belongs to you beyond any reasonable doubt? while you are busy whinning, the Jews are busy discovering more artifacts that further cement their claims to the land.

If these archaelogical and historical evidence are not being presented to the UN and the International court of Justice. Sorry those institutions are biased, the only non biased reason why we should believe the land belongs to the Israelis is the findings of Jewish archaeologists.

That Sharon shook hands with Arafat makes no difference.

Sharon never shook the hands of Arafat.

The same arab nations crying peace today did not bother to negotiate when they surrounded Isreal in 1967! Would Arafat have been shaking hands with Sharon had palestine had superior weapons?

We would never know, would we.

If you had bothered to read the Hamas article of faith you wont be dribbling around in circles. IT is the usual islamic excuse to blame Isreal for not wanting peace when even those who are not remotely connected to the palestinian crisis are the first to call for Jews to be wiped off the map from the comfort of their palaces in Tehran! Of course hypocrites like you pretend not to hear! Keep clinging to Gideon Levy's article.

Am still waiting for you to disprove what's wrong in the article.

@I-man

There is one fundamental difference.The ANC's official position never was the extinction of the whites in South Africa.Its one thing to have inciteful slogans,its quite another to make genocide your official position.

Another key difference is that Hamas' position is not simply a matter of rhetorics,as in the South African case,but it is a product of religious faith. This inflexibility is borne out of a religious doctrine that views the prescence of infidels on "Holy Land" as an abomination.

The fundamental differences here is, who wields power in the Jewish state. How come this article7 was not a precondition for Ehud Barak when he met Arafat to negotiate peace?

The basic thing is,we won't have arrived at this point if the Palestinians had agreed to share land with the Isrealis ab initio.They insisted on having the whole lot and having failed,they are dealing with the consequences of their failure

Can you link me to where the Palestinians "insisted on having the whole lot"?
To blame the Palestinians whose land is occupied for not sharing the land with the occupier is the height of hypocrisy.
The above quote proves you either know very little about the conflict or you are prepared to gloss over facts.

@TayoD

You keep dancing around in circles. The emphasis on Davidylan's response which is the same as what I also noted is Hamas' Article 7 which calls for the total and absolute elimination of the Jews - not just the Jewish State.

When you are fighting for freedom, you will say anything to raise the hopes of your people.
During the era of apartheid in South Africa, the ANC's supporters use to chant "One Settler One Bullet". PW Botha used to repeat the exact words you and davidylan seem to rely on. When FW De klerk came to power, he negotiated with the ANC. He could easily have spun the same line as his predecessor. If and when you have a peaceful man as the leader of Israel this old excuse will become meaningless.
Ehud Barak the Israeli leader met with Yasser Arafat at camp David in 2000. He did not make mention of article7 , which seems to be the excuse you are relying on. Now there is no way a person like Sharon would have met and shaken the hands of Arafat, no way. Sharon blamed Arafat for stalling the peace process, now the preferred choice of Israel (Mahmoud Abbas) is now the Palestinian leader yet Israel won't negotiate a meaning full settlement. Is Israel waiting for a mossad general to be Palestinian leader before they negotiate?

How do you negotiate with people whose common resolve is to wipe you and your generation out?

I have made the point over and over, it is Israel that does not want to negotiate. If you had bothered to read the first article on this thread you won't be asking such silly question.I refer you to Gideon Levy's article on why Israel don't want to negotiate, the reasons are there in black and white.

"It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred.
Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative?
The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The
revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the
speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus,
alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with
Syria?

Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official
says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her
president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is
Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the
significance of these voices for peace? Seven million
apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.

Entire generations grew up here weaned on self-deception
and doubt about the likelihood of achieving peace with
our neighbors. In our younger days, David Ben-Gurion told
us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders,
he would have brought us peace in his time. Israel has
demanded direct negotiations as a matter of principle and
Israelis have derived great pride from the fact that their
daily focus on "peace" has concealed their state's lofty
ambitions. We were told that there was no partner for
peace and that the ultimate ambition of the Arabs is to
bring about our destruction. We burned the portraits of
"the Egyptian tyrant" at our bonfires on Lag Ba'omer, and
were convinced that all blame for the lack of peace lied
with our enemies.

After that came the occupation, followed by terror, Yassir
Arafat, the failed second Camp David Summit and the rise
of Hamas to power, and we were sure, always sure, that it
was all their fault. In our wildest dreams, we wouldn't
have believed that the day would come when the entire
Arab world would extend its hand in peace and Israel would
brush away the gesture. It would have been even crazier to
imagine that this Israeli refusal would have been blamed
on not wanting to enrage domestic public opinion.

The world has been turned upside down and it is Israel that
stands at the forefront of refusal. The policy of refusal
of a select few, a vanguard of the extreme, has now become
the official policy of Jerusalem. In his Passover
interviews, Olmert will tell us that, "The Palestinians
stand at the crossroads of a historic decision," but people
stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. The historic
decision is ours, and we are fleeing from this crossroads
and from these initiatives as if from death itself."