₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
Here what is meant is not just any recitation as you say! It is a clear book!

Hello, your claim above, about the Koran being a "clear book". How clear? Absolutely, totally, 100%, 90%. Are you able to say definitively?


TV

Hussein27:
✍🏻No religion on earth has honored women the way Islam does. Halal Muslim Couple

I suppose if one takes a very extreme definition of the word "honored" (sic). But don't take my word for it, listen to these 2 muslimahs .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCWgPm3z8sU


TV

It warms my heart to see the bold and learned Christian defence of the faith. And like one mentioned, there are enemies abroad here attempting to confuse with clumsy efforts to re-narrate the Holy Scriptures.

Yes, it's true that many (not all) Jews reject Christ. That is clearly written and part of Gods unfolding plan. That happened so that we (the Gentiles) would also be afforded the Lords salvation. Someone has already kindly posted Romans 11.

And, yes, there are many amongst them that still practice abominations and reject God. That will not alter Gods unfolding plan or nullify His covenant. Ultimately Israel' eyes will clear and they will see and accept "Him whom they Pierced. And, those deserving of God's judgement will still fall under it - be that for worshipping false gods, perversity or war crimes.

In the interim, no one can declare Gods covenant abrogated - and at once claim the land is possessed by others - sorry, no cry. And as much as there are those who stridently proclaim this is about land, you are right, it is, the land The Lord allotted to Jacob by statute. You are also wrong, because it isn't, it's a spiritual war, being played out in part on the ground .

And, if you back any other than the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ you will lose - ultimately and eternally. There will however, come a time - prophesied - when the whole world will amass against Israel. This may include the US, it depends
if certain elements who hate the very notion of a Jewish state get into power.

Afterall, there are only 7 million odd Jews in Israel, if your gods are big enough, let them take it - you will meet the God who answers by fire. All these political proclamations, protest marches and campus activism are getting a bit boring. No be by mouth.

I was reading psalm 105 just yesterday evening

Psalm 105 -The Eternal Faithfulness of the Lord
Oh, give thanks to the Lord!
Call upon His name;
Make known His deeds among the peoples!
2 Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
Talk of all His wondrous works!
3 Glory in His holy name;
Let the hearts of those rejoice who seek the Lord!
4 Seek the Lord and His strength;
Seek His face evermore!
5 Remember His marvelous works which He has done,
His wonders, and the judgments of His mouth,
6 O seed of Abraham His servant,
You children of Jacob, His chosen ones!

7 He is the Lord our God;
His judgments are in all the earth.

8 He remembers His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
10 And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 Saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,”
12 When they were few in number,
Indeed very few, and strangers in it.

I have just one question for those who say the supposed occupants of Israel today are not the Israelites of the bible. Where are the remnant of the Israelite of the bible today?


TV

What is this "rightward" shift of which you speak? And why should such sentiment be considered ill-motivated for the indigenes of the UK or any other country?

Having relocated due to the dire situation in your home nation, and having no real desire (or is it hope?) of fixing things back home, there appears to be the expectation(or is it hope?) that this country and it's natives bend to suit the personal aspirations of immigrants. Really?

The basic truth is for the most part, at heart, most of you, have no sense of commonwealth – amongst other things. Nation building takes, will, vision and sacrifice at a minimum. Simply lacking the foresight to see beyond your own immediate well-being and self-gratification. With most being happy to deploy any ruse, any grift any hustle or (at the slightest opportunity) outright corruption to achieve that. And, until that changes, Nigeria will never rise above shit-holery. Sorry, not sorry.

What it takes to build a nation, create the institutions and establish the jurisprudence, governance and legal framework that gives you the “Japa hots”, isn't rocket science. And indigenes here that have a sense of this, and even if only in part, legitimate concerns about the direction the country is taking – especially the mass demographic change – are casually smeared. Just because they don't want their country to end up like yours?

Some here like to continually tear down the strawman of the “intellectual inferiority” of black people - an argument no one seriously makes. And one that isn’t even relevant. Shut everyone up! Develop your home nations – make them home! Arable land and natural resources, tick, great weather, tick, natural disasters pretty much absent. Youthful populations. What is it?

Jamesclooney:
That said, I’ve been very worried about the rightward shift in the West—UK, USA etc. (thank God Canada was spared). In our case, specifically the UK. The right is getting more emboldened and clearly influencing the government of the day, even before being voted into power.

TV

Thankfully - and quite easily, your premise has been rebutted from the very scriptures you sought to pervert, which in any event is pretty much all that your religion does. Thanks for the responses everyone.

Now, to the below.

hmohammed:
I wonder why people condemn early marriages by Muslims in the North.

I could list a number of reasons to condemn early marriage - be that in Northern Nigeria or anywhere else. But just the one should suffice.

Obstetric fistula - is a hole between the birth canal and the bladder or rectum, or both, caused by prolonged labour without prompt medical intervention, such as a Caesarean section. Affected women suffer chronic incontinence, which can result in stigma and social isolation.

Each year some 50,000-100,000 women sustain an obstetric fistula in the act of trying to bring forth new life. It is the most devastating of all pregnancy-related disabilities and Nigeria accounts for 40% of fistula cases worldwide. Affected women suffer chronic incontinence, which can result in stigma and social isolation.

One of the major causes of this is intercourse before a female is physically mature - often the case in "early marriage", more aptly categorised somewhere between statutory r4p3 and sexual assault.

Feel free to look it up and read about it yourself.
https://endfistula.org/news/nigeria-fight-against-fistula-points-problem-early-marriage

I could tie that back to Islam and show why it is one of the most regressive idealogies and blights on humanity ever. Is there a sorrier spectacle than muslim men justifying child marriage or muslim women defending Islams treatment of women?


TV

Perhaps touching on mediatorship as outlined in the scriptures would help settle this and other questions around the divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ. Scripturally, a mediator has to be able to literally “lay hold” on both parties to the arbitration.

Job 9 32 For He is not a man, as I am, That I may answer Him, And that we should go to court together. 33 Nor is there any mediator between us, Who may lay his hand on us both.

Hallelujah, but there is and He cometh, indeed, He has come and will come again.

Philippians 2: 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

One reason that Jesus has to be divine, that he has to be God, is due to the role and requirements of the mediator between God and man. Having the form of both, The Lord Jesus can fulfil that role.

As for the angels that sinned, there was no mediator – Hebrews 2 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

Hebrews chapters 1 &2 clearly show that Jesus is God, He is enthroned, He is a son and has a sons “inheritance”, He created all things, He is better than the angels, the angels worship Him, He was made a little lower than the angels (human being) for the tasting of death (for everyone – all humans, most especially for those who believe), He is the Captain of our salvation and our Merciful & Faithful High Priest.

The Lord Jesus Christ was not and could not be an angel. He is a son, God incarnate.
Happy to hear alternative views and this is not to make the whole of the argument. I may be late and this case ay already have been made.


TV

Perhaps touching on mediatorship as outlined in the scriptures would help settle this and other questions around the divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ. Scripturally, a mediator has to be able to literally “lay hold” on both parties to the arbitration.

Job 9 32 For He is not a man, as I am, That I may answer Him, And that we should go to court together. 33 Nor is there any mediator between us, Who may lay his hand on us both.

Hallelujah, but there is and He cometh, indeed, He has come and will come again.

Philippians 2: 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

One reason that Jesus has to be divine, that he has to be God, is due to the role and requirements of the mediator between God and man. Having the form of both, The Lord Jesus can fulfil that role.

As for the angels that sinned, there was no mediator – Hebrews 2 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

Hebrews chapters 1 &2 clearly show that Jesus is God, He is enthroned, He is a son and has a sons “inheritance”, He created all things, He is better than the angels, the angels worship Him, He was made a little lower than the angels (humans being) for the tasting of death (for everyone – all humans, most especially for those who believe), He is the Captain of our salvation and our Merciful & Faithful High Priest.

The Lord Jesus Christ was not and could not be an angel. He is a son, God incarnate.
Happy to hear alternative views and this is not to make the whole of the argument. I may be late and this case ay already have been made.


TV

Ohyoudidnt:
The understanding can vary as we perceive things differently

True!

Ohyoudidnt:
An initial look in the Qur'an for proof on the identity of Jibril reveals:

1. In Quran 26:192 Indeed this is a revelation from the Lord of the Universe;
:193 which [b]the truthful spirit[/b]has carried down
:194 to your heart that you might become one of those who warn (others on behalf of Allah

Now you may argue that Jibril isn't mentioned here specifically? If you read further into Quran 2:97 further understanding should be attained.

How is the descriptor "the truthful spirit" to be understood? I know that some Islamic scholars equate Jibril with the Holy Spirit, who is also known as "The Spirit of Truth" in Christianity. Just an aside though, as this is not the main thrust here.

Ohyoudidnt:
2. Quran 2:97 Say (O Muhammad): Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel (Gabriel)(let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Quran) down to your heart by Allah’s Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Tauraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers

In some ways this poses more questions around the claimed prophethood. Firstly, as confirming the torah and gospel, serves only to falsify the koran, and secondly, why if this prophet was the last and the seal, did God not speak to him directly a lá Moses, Joshua, David etc. all the way to The Lord Jesus Christ (who the bible notes as the summary and end of patriarchal prophethood)? Again, not central to this question on the "identity of the entity", but building up the wider case.

Ohyoudidnt:
I leave you to study the hadiths where Jibril came in the form of a man while the Prophet pbuh was in company of his companions to teach them about the fundamentals of Islam.

Sure, once this identity of this entity is confirmed.

Ohyoudidnt:
جبريل; Jibril, is directly translated to Gabriel in English which derives from Hebrew.

It derives from the Arabic root “jabar” meaning to heal or to restore,and it refers to might from Allah.

He is described as Shadeed al-Quwa; Possessor of Great Strength in Surah Al-Najm (53:5-6). - Taught to him by one intense in strength (Shadeed al-Quwa), one of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form while he was on the higher horizon-

The name Gabriel, as with all angelic names (and those of the patriarchal prophets), specifically reference (in an anthropomorphic sense so to speak) The God of the said torah and gospel. The name Jibril does not follow this pattern.

Ohyoudidnt:
Well even if Jibril was physically present before Waraqah, I wonder how well he would have been seen being that the latter's sight was already waining.

Pertinent, but only in part. The recognition was supposedly based on Waraqah' "learning and great understanding" - there is no reading of the bible that would suggest an unidentified being, who manhandled the one it appeared too and whom himself considered it dark and demonic, could be angel Gabriel of the Christian scriptures. A more reasonable, if speculative position may be that Wraqah was primarily concerned about Mohammed' wellbeing, given the traumatic nature of the encounter.

Ohyoudidnt:
Waraqah was known amongst the Arabian Christians as he translated and transcribed their books. He was recognized by the then Arabs as a man of learning and great understanding.

Recognition by "the then Arabs", does not provide us with a relative or absolute measure of learning and understanding, nor divine writ to speak on the matter.


TV

StillDtruth:
Christians already know the place of Islam and we really do not care what happens with them.
These people can not be reasoned with. They are Mad people.

Au contraire. All humans are made in the image of God and The Lord Jesus Christ shed His blood and gave His life for all - muslims Included. The salvation of muslims equally counts as "the joy set before Him" and "His reward". The Lord came to set the captives free, how much more so than those in the bondage of Islam? Further, we war not against flesh and blood - please bear that in mind.

I am however, agnostic on any changes to the format or layout of the religious section .


TV

Ohyoudidnt:
Perhaps my narrative could have been structured differently though I doubt you tried to understand.

I of all people admire wordsmithery. But when deployed solely to lend credence to assertions that cannot otherwise be validated, it has to be decried. Shouldn't all reading be primarily to understand?

Ohyoudidnt:
1. Jibril who you know as angel Gabriel appeared to prophet many times not just once.

But there is no record of this entity ever confirming who it was directly to the person who claimed to have received divine revelation from it. And, i do not agree that Jibril of the koran is angle Gabriel of the bible. The name Gabriel has a clear meaning ascribing to God - what does Jibril mean?

Ohyoudidnt:
2. Waraqah ibn Nawfal did not validate the angel appearing with 600 wings rather it was solely in the case of the prophet's encounter in the cave.

Which Waraqah neither saw, nor had the authority to confirm.

Ohyoudidnt:
Waraqah was a learned man with deep knowledge of the scriptures and Gnostic traditions. His understanding of religious texts and prophetic signs allowed him to uniquely validate Muhammad's experiences in the cave of Hira. He saw parallels between the prophet's experience in the grave and those of previous prophets.

Again, I don't want to come off as simply jibing, but all these claims and assertions about Waraqah are essentially baseless, and make your submission mere storytelling and not a fact based narrative. With "deep knowledge? Relative to whom or what? Where is the record of his instruction or learning? Who were Waraquah' academic antecedents. We know Paul learnt at the feet of Gamaliel for example.

God, who had revealed Himself firstly to the Jews having expressly chosen them as the conduit for His message, would switch to unlearned and unsighted Arabs to continue His unfolding revelation. With no clear transition or prophecy to validate the change?

Ohyoudidnt:
When Jibril appeared to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh in the Cave of Hira during the first revelation, he did not show all of his wings. Instead, he took on a human form to convey the message of revelation to the Prophet.

No issues with this necessarily - although it appears to be yet another assertion, I stand to be corrected.

Ohyoudidnt:
The way angels present themselves to prophets can differ depending on the situation and the wisdom of Allah.

Hmm...debatable, but again, no real quibbles here. But biblically, Angels typically appear to humans in human form and as men.

Ohyoudidnt:
Come to Christ to do what and in what manner? Christ will judge not God? I don't get it, are the former and latter the same with the former definitely stating the latter is greater than him?

Let's not divert from the point of this discussion. Happy to have that convo elsewhere. Please come to The Alpha & The Omega.


TV

Ohyoudidnt:
The initial revelation in the Cave of Hira marks a monumental event, demonstrating the profound nature of divine selection. When the Prophet Muhammad pbuh encountered the angel Jibril, the command to "recite" was both a challenge and an invitation to engage with the divine message. The Prophet's initial hesitation, stemming from his unlettered state, highlights the humility inherent in spiritual receptiveness.

Nicely worded, but easily spotted as a "just so" story. Way below a parable, which affords real spiritual insight. Not even at the level of a fable, which at least has moral import. More akin to tales by moonlight .

Ohyoudidnt:
The physical manifestation of Jibril a. s encompassing the horizon with his six hundred wings, reinforces the magnitude of this revelation. Such an overwhelming sight instills a sense of awe and certainty in the Prophet about the authenticity of his experience. This was further validated by Waraqah ibn Nawfal, whose recognition of Jibril's role confirms the continuity of divine communication through angels across prophets.

Sorry tpo burst your bubble, but Waraqah would not have been able to validate a 600 winged being as being Angel Gabriel of the bible - and definitely not from the bible itself. Perhaps there is some gnostic gospel or extra-biblical text to be referenced? And with what writ or from whom did Waraqah have the authority to validate the divine which he did not or could not see?

Ohyoudidnt:
Continued revelations through Jibril cemented this relationship, indicating that the Prophet pbuh was not merely a passive recipient but an active participant in the dissemination of divine wisdom. The Quran explicitly acknowledges Jibril’s pivotal role, affirming him as the "Trustworthy Spirit." Thus, the narrative of Jibril embodies the assurance of divine guidance in a world rife with uncertainty, compelling both believers and skeptics alike to acknowledge his significance as the messenger of Allah.

Whoever or whatever it was, it was not Angel Gabriel, who is not Jibril. I was not validated by the Bible and is certainly not of divine imprimatur.
Sorry, not sorry !


Please come to Christ - who will judge the living and the dead at His coming.


TV

This issue - particularly in it's wider sense - is why Islam fails for me at the point of its supposed inception.

The Bible is clear "in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, let every word be established". There are no witnesses as to whom or what Islam claims occurred in the cave of Hira.

The being did not self-identify. The entity supposedly went on to man-handle Muhammed after instructing him to do something that it must have known he was incapable of? Identification was finally by a 3rd party - Khadija's cousin Waraqa, who was old and blind - not actually present, and according to the narrative based on "his knowledge of the Christian scriptures".

Narrated 'Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers): The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists), created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones." Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.
(Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

Fortunately we still have the bible with us and the very first chapter of Luke recounts appearances of the Angel Gabriel, culminating in self-identification in verse 19, when sent to the Father of John the Baptist, and reassurance in verse 26 when sent to Mary the mother of Jesus (who is the Christ). Totally apposite to the Islamic narration.

Here Luke 1:19 from the NKJV - And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings.
Here Luke 1:30 from the NKJV - Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.

All attempts to witness this narrative are self-referencing or circular (the revelation validates the person who received the revelation, who validates the revelation he received). Not meeting the basic evidential criteria. Then, unfounded assertions and claims are made in support, which I find is pretty much the whole of the narrative construct around Islam. Very little is historical, factual or even accurate.

Claiming it was the Angel Gabriel as he appears in the bible is presupposing that Jibreel is Gabriel, the God of the Bible is the same as the god of the Koran and that Christianity affirms Islam, which is "no actually" in all cases.

Muslims please, come to Christ - He is The Way, The Truth and The Life.


TV

Jamesclooney:
Great post!
I don’t think the question of if she will be deposed as leader before the next GE but probably when? My bets are after the local elections in May. Tory backbenchers should have enough to nail her by then. Last round of the leadership contest was almost a 3-way split, so she had about 2/3rds of them vote against her from the get go. Add that to her “false-starts”, Tories tanking in the polls and her inability to land a punch at PMQs….Game Over!

Thanks.
Fair call. And not one I'd gainsay. I don't follow closely enough to picture what's happening at the grassroots. Unless she performs really poorly, drops an absolute howler or, something dark comes out, they may stick with her for a while yet. Other aspirants will face a number of the same hurdles and pitfalls.

Giving a strong performance with an opposition brief, making the right noises on policy and then looking to strike about 2 years in from the next election (after which a further leadership change would be somewhat dicey), would make sense. We'll see. It may all be obviated by Reform continuing to make ground. I think Labour will be in a worse state then than the Tories were after their last stint.

Goodenoch:
Fair enough. I don’t agree with your definition fully, but it’s six vs half a dozen anyway.

It wasn't my definition, it's as defined. Qualifying with the term "isn't technically", was to give leave to nuance and the perception of her particular situation. Hope that's clear.


TV

Goodenoch:
How isn’t she an immigrant?

KB has birthright ciiizenship in the UK.


TV

Mixed feelings about our Kem.

Starting from the desirability of her actually leading the conservatives and potentially the country. She wasn’t an anchor-baby and isn’t technically an immigrant, but that sense of her being here as a result of gaming the system won’t go away.

I think anyone with a homeland of their own would question this. But, she is married to a native, and if Sonia Ghandi could do it why not? Many also seem to think her point of origin makes her taking a hard stance on immigration somewhat hypocritical – although I don’t agree. Her positions should be for the best interests of GB, regardless

Strategically, I think she ran for leader too early in her career and at a bad time given her party’s recent history. She has 14 years of non-delivery to explain – for a government she served in. I suspect she’ll serve to bolster the Tories DEI credentials, take a few hit’s for the team, provide cover on some big issues (repatriations etc.), and then be forced out for someone Jenrick or Jenrick–like to take over. Where's Bojo these days .

Four year is a long time in opposition from her starting position as leader. Her task is to rise above a few false-starts, deal with internal questions about her leadership style, put forward some cogent, hard-hitting policies and grow into a more statesman-like figure (the whole Nigerian brouhaha, for example should have been avoided). All this whilst trying to sound more Reform-like than Reform, who are making a charge from lane 8 like Sha ‘Carri. A huge ask.

In another sense, I don’t see her as any different from the vast crop of politicians we have now. Very little political nous or real character. Mostly shallow with a jobsworth style of governance.


TV

bukatyne:
Happy new Decade, TV TV!

How are you and family?

We are well at our end.

Has it really been that long? Ah!
We are all well thanks - I trust likewise.

Scripture is whole and biblical marriage sure. Men are enjoined to “love their wives like their own flesh” – where then is forced s3x? It says each spouse has unfettered access to the body of the other (possession) – where then is refusal?

In practice, due consideration will have to be given to how we satisfy (please) each other. Asymmetrical drives, differing desires, physical health or capability amongst a possible host of other issues will all come into play. Anyone that always has sex exactly when they please and how they want, is likely not in an opposite sex, spousal relationship or, should hurry up and release that bestseller already!

Each couple will agree and grow in understanding as they mature and their situation changes. But the basis however remains the same – a mutual desire to please and satisfy. In a lifelong committed relationship, is forcible intimacy really a long-term strategy? Likewise, is claiming bodily autonomy as a right to deny your spouse intimacy sans any other legitimate reason or cause??

A worldview that presents men and women as antagonists, falls short conceptually, let alone practically, proffering solutions where there are no problems.


TV

Krismas:
1. None of your points were remotely reasonable. They were just lopsided views of a Zionist lickspittle

As opposed to the mewling of a Jihadi orc with the usual baseless assertions

Krismas:
2. Numbers dictate the truth in international law.

No sir, might is right - as we can all clearly see

Krismas:
In the ICJ, only three nations hold votes for Israel. Israel itself, America and one East African country.
To u, these are the only countries NOT CAPTURED?
In the UNSC, many times, it takes American Veto, to overcome overwhelming votes against Israel.
Question is, who captured every other nation apart from America, Britain and France?
International relations is built on international law.
And bodies like UN and ICJ make decisions guided by international law.
To even remotely suggest you can abide by ur own rules, as Israel is doing, is nonsensical.
And an invitation to chaos. The world is closer to a world war today now, cos of this western exceptionalism

Story - enforce these pronouncement

Krismas:
3. Trump's solution is by no means NEW. For 15months Israel chased Palestinians from one corner of Gaza to another. They even drove all of them at some point to Rafah, while Biden was pleading with Sisi everyday, to open the Rafah gate. Every single thing Israel did in 15months, including general's plan, to push Palestinians away from Gaza, FAILED.
And as a rule, what you cannot achieve on the battlefield, cannot be achieved on the negotiation table.
So, Trump's plan is hopeless, as it is vague. Just a trick to keep up the dampened spirit of Israeli settlers, who had planned on occupying Gaza after d war but to no avail.

Sequel to your story above. Let's see how things unfold.

Krismas:
4. Israel never presented a problem at ANY time. Its America Britain and France. That have provided the backing enabling Israel to flout international laws, without consequences. But during the last war, these western powers saw how they couldn't stop Houthi blockade on Israel, prevent Iran's rockets from Israel, Hezbollah's drones and rockets on Israel. And worst of all, how they could not destroy Hamas, nor find hostages in Gaza, inspite of everything they did.
So the handwriting is on the wall, they CAN'T protect Israel much longer.

And why can't your august international bodies make and enforce pronouncements against the US, UK and France? Real players are doing war-war, your resort to the jaw-jaw of online activism and virtual protest.

Krismas:
5. There are rules to war. Which is why Netanyahu is today wanted for war Crimes at the ICC.
Justification for a war, has nothing to do with who started the war first.
And land cannot be won by war under international law.

No, the right of conquest still holds - ask any good muslim

Krismas:
6. I challenge you to provide a single CREDIBLE link, that say Palestinians are genetically Arabs
PALESTINIANS ARE NOT ARABS. They were merely colonized by Arabs.
Thats mere cultural and linguistic Arabization.

DYOR - do your own research.
And Arabization must be resisted and repelled. Forced back to the 7 states of the Arabian peninsula where it rightfully belongs

Krismas:
Then 4get about all those fake Zionist propaganda of Jews existing in Palestine during biblical times.
They are all lies. Jews are Europeans, who first came to Palestine in 1800s.

Nope, na Koran talk am. There are historical records showing Jews on the land going back 3 millennia. There is no record of a Palestinian state or kingdom ever existing. Even now the mjority of the Jews in Israel are mizrahi Jews - forcibly moved from other surrounding nations. But happy for you to weave whatever narrative affords you comfort. Cos it certainly affords you no power !

Krismas:
7. My activism is hardly futile. Israel is on the brink of ruin. Thats d truth hidden from fake devotees of Zionism like u.

Ruin by mouth . The same Israel your nation is going cap-in-hand to ask "stay" for it's people. Poste-haste, please deploy the same mouth to restore your homeland.

What did you say about brevity?


TV

Kobojunkie:
There is no need to go around and around with this. The Law is clear on the fact that the individual retains his/her fundamental human right even in a marriage situation — that right is retained until even death. Your personal religious delusions cannot strike this out or nullify it in any way.

Also, the law makes clear provisions in the case that a person feels that his right is being denied him. In the marital case, you can file for restitution of conjugal rights through the courts or better yet divorce. There is no reason why anyone should think it makes sense to force their will on another human being, no matter the familial/marriage bond that may exist between them.

Perhaps read and digest the snips and extracts you have posted thus far - "conjugal rights conferred by marriage" pretty much sums it up.


Cheers
TV

Lawag3:
Let me deal with your fourth piont.


Palestinians are not Arabs?


What!!!!!! 🤯 🤯 🤯 🤯

Even Palestinians will behead you for saying that they are not Arabs.

Okay what of maps before the 6th century? What of historical records before the 6th century?

Danke!


TV

Krismas:
Atleast u tried dis time, to contain ur vanity, by writing briefly. Rather than the long boring essay-like monologue.

I understand your inability to articulate or digest reasoned points. The artfully contrived narrative you have memorised is probably best for you

Krismas:
1. Its more than just my opinion. Overwhelming majority of countries and people share my opinion.
Israel has lost in votes to Palestinians with a wide margin in UNGA, and ICJ in recent times.

Numbers do not dictate truth. The UN and it's arm the ICJA are clearly captured. But like I said, let us see the muscle behind their pronouncements.

Krismas:
2. Am open to a N2million bet, with anyone who is stupid enough to think Trump can force Palestinians out of Gaza

Force was not my suggestion. What President Trump does and how successful it will be is down to him. Again we shall see. But I am pretty sure outcomes won't be forced by the UN, ICJ or the "overwhelming majority of countries and people" who share your opinion .

Krismas:
3. Palestinian lands are all lands in the West Bank and Gaza, along the 1967 demarcation.
This is agreed to by d 5permanent members of the UNSC
The EU, AU and Arab league. Israel is just wasting her time resisting the inevitable.
With an added risk of forfeiting many Palestinian lands she has obtained via previous wars.

We await enforcement of these resolutions by the EU, AU, Arab League, UN, ICJ and even the NL faithful. Afterall, it's a measly 7 million odd Jews in tiny Israel, shouldn't present a problem.

Pronouncements are sweet. Go-ahead. Tell me who wins land in a justified war - that they didn't start - and gives it back. Like the ideology underpinning the railing against Israel even cares about international laws or global institutions. Laughable

Krismas:
4. Palestinians are NOT ARABS. Their DNAs are miles apart. Levant has always been Palestine.
Every world map have the place as Palestine from 6th century. The anomaly occurred in 1948; wen cartographers replaced
Palestine with israel on the map for the first time

Feel free to build your own narrative. I speak to on-ground reality. A simple google search of "Palestinian ethnicity" will return reams of results showing Palestinians are majorly of Arab ethnicity - much like the 2 million that are living the life in Israel itself . We have historical records and artefacts showing the kingdoms of Judah and Israel occupying that land going back millennia.

Enjoy your futile activism and protest.


TV

Kobojunkie:
Look up your Legal code to see that it does no such thing the reason being a fundamental human right is what that is. Even in marriage, both remain individuals in the eyes of the Law.

Again, not true. Legally and religiously (biblically in my worldview), married couples are not simply treated as "2 individuals" - as though not married. In some instances, maybe, criminal offense, voting etc, but in many, and the most meaningful, inheritance, kinship rights, child custody, they are not. And by now you should have grasped that the very act of marriage means you agree that your spouse has conjugal rights, which includes the right to physical intimacy. That is not something that is discussed after the fact of marriage, it is inherent in entering into the estate of marriage. If you don't get that, you don't get marriage, or, are speaking of a different form of marriage.

Kobojunkie:
2. That isn't true since divorce from marriage is also legally recognized.

Legal divorce is the end of a marriage and with divorce the mutual rights and privileges are voided.

Kobojunkie:
3. If you state that one partner CAN NOT unilaterally refuse, then you are insinuating that both partners are forced into this conjugal rights agreement due to being married, are you not?

No, they are not forced. There is an á priori agreement by entering into a marriage union, which confers mutual privileges, rights and responsibilities on the spouses. Agreeing to marry means you accept the conjugal rights of your spouse. Not the possibility of intimacy after the marriage.

Kobojunkie:
4. Well, non-incarcerated people know to seek divorce if not happy with the state of the marriage, not force themselves on the other partner. Incarcerated individuals on the other hand are typically limited in what they are capable of hence the reason why the term is typically used in connection with the incarcerated.

You appear unable to distinguish between mutually agreed sexual intimacy and rape. Conjugal rights permitted during incarceration are not forcing couples to have intimacy, or forcing one against their wishes. It is allowing the mutual agreement to persist despite the situation.

Kobojunkie:
5. Marriage exists as an agreement between the two parties involved. This means your mutual sexual rights are dependent on the agreement between both individuals in the marriage. You can only claim that right if and only if both parties agree.

Marriage is the agreement - and confers mutual rights, privileges and responsibilities, including sexual intimacy. To infer one can "marry" and then decide never to have physical intimacy, lacks an understanding of marriage, legal or biblical - as in both instances it is not completed\can be voided if not consummated.

Kobojunkie:
6. Yes! A man or woman's body, regardless of marital status, is his/hers to give to whomever or not.

Yours sounds more like an ideological position. You are free to it, but it doesn't change the particulars of marriage. Certainly not biblically and not legally as it currently stands.

Kobojunkie:
7. That is why you have your legal code, the compendium of laws that everyone including those in government is to abide by.

There are limits to government intervention and quite frequently we have bad governments and bad laws. They are not infallible and their reach should not become overreach. That's all.


TV

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where you are supposed to remember you said "to a degree" and the statement "consent not being unreasonably withheld"

My posts made that clear I believe.

TV01:
The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

Sounds like consent to me? Do let me know if I'm missing something.


TV

Krismas:
Shallow submission.

That is your opinion, which you are free to have share. But you know what they say about opinions and arzeholes don't you.

Krismas:
Dream on sha. Palestinians will never leave Gaza or West bank

That remains to be seen

Krismas:
Rather, Israel has been told by ICJ to vacate all Palestinian lands within 12months.

Again, we shall see if they have the bite to go with their bark. I will look into this as I'm interested to see what they refer to as "Palestinian lands" and where they expect the Israelis to go.

Krismas:
How it is okay, for an illegal occupier to remain, while the real owners, are relocated
to neighboring countries, must be the modern definition of witchcraft.

The last time I checked the Arabian Peninsula - which is where the Palestinian Arabs belong - was some way from the Levant. Any historical records, documents or artefacts demonstrating an aboriginal claim by Arabs to the levant or an Arab kingdom being established?


TV

Kobojunkie:
1. Yes! Marriage is not the selling or abdicating of one's right to bodily autonomy.

Then you fail to understand what marriage is - it has to mean "abdication of bodily autonomy" to a degree, as a marriage has to be consummated to be in effect. Taking vows is but the first step. If not consummated, a marriage can be deemed void

Kobojunkie:
2. Yes, it does!

No it does not, as entering into a marriage confers "conjugal rights" on both parties - more in the next response.

Kobojunkie:
3. The term conjugal rights in typically used in reference to incarceration.

You clearly did not read or understand what you posted - it's by definition!

Conjugal rights refer to the mutual rights and privileges between two individuals arising from the state of being married . These rights include mutual rights of companionship, support, comfort, sexual relations, affection, joint property rights and the like.

Marriage confers the mutual right to sexual intimacy. One partner can't simply unilaterally refuse access to the other without being in breach. Not to say force should come into play either. Hence my point about discussion, understanding and mutual agreement.

Conjugal rights are considered such that even when one partner is incarcerated, the right should be accommodated. Why should one party suffer due to the offence of the other? And the state acknowledges that allowing this will help maintain the union, which is beneficial to society - conjugal rights being used in conjunction with incarceration doesn't mean they are derived from it - back-to-front thinking.

Kobojunkie:
4. Every human being—whether in marriage or outside of marriage—has a right to withhold/protect his/her body from acts that are perceived by the individual as violation/abuse. Rape is violence, and violence exists in and outside of marriage.

The very act of getting married means the spouses understand that sexual intimacy becomes a mutual right and it is a violation to wilfully withhold it without cause and\or agreement. Sexual intimacy is not violence and violence should not be used to access it - I make no reference to peoples kinks.

Kobojunkie:
5. It does not matter your religious disposition in this. The right to bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right which even religion cannot override.

Yes, it is. But you agree to mutually vary\share that right with another when you get married.

You didn't respond to this -

Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

Kobojunkie:
Your government is responsible for ensuring that all crimes, including those committed inside of your marriages are punished. It's concern is not your sex lives or your pooping schedules but the violence and violations that may take place between the humans involved.

The government is to serve the people and are themselves fallible. There should be checks to ensure that they don't conjure up rights and crimes that violate relationships and institutions - especially those that existed before any government.


TV

Kobojunkie:
Marital rape is real. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Your bodily autonomy rights remain even in marriage.

Can a woman refuse a man physical intimacy from the very inception (vow taking) of marriage? Does "bodily autonomy", mean that a husbands access to his wife's body is only if and when she says so? Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

I don't agree with the term marital rape as it serves to essentially hollow out marriage. And withholding sex is equally contrary, will "marital rape" be twinned with "withholding sex"? If for some reason it descends into real harm or violence, then perhaps assault could be considered. But that should never be in view in a Christian marriage.

....very well said. Pretty much articulates the Christian position. Hope all's well.

bukatyne:
In a Christian marriage, there is nothing like marital rape; rape here defined as sex without consent because the marriage vows give both parties everlasting consent. 1 cor 7 captures it well; the husband's body belongs to the wife and the wife's body belongs to the husband.

This is different from the cultural position that a husband owns his wife's body because he paid bride price or he is the head.

The ownership is mutual and equal.

That said, there is sexual abuse which includes:
> Withholding sex without reason
> Deliberately not satisfying your spouse
> Carrying out sexual acts intended to demean or dishonour your spouse
> Using sex as a bargaining chip
> Mocking your spouse for their legitimate desire of your body
> Deliberately not taking care of yourself or ignoring their legitimate request to tend to your body etc.

Which can be perpetuated by the husband or wife.

Like I said above, Christian marriages.

TV

I often wondered about the Gaza situation. And as objective as I could be, I have always concluded that it would be best all round if the Palestinians were relocated. I’m a little miffed that President Trump appears to have purloined my idea and sold it as his own .

Why?
With a population of around 2 million, the surrounding Arab\Muslim states should easily be able to absorb them. With a combined population of 460+ million this could be easily done. With the top 8 (of 22 states) having populations ranging from 10 to a 100 million.

The top 3 alone, Egypt, Iran & Iraq at approx. 100m, 80m and 40m, could almost do it single-handedly, if working at the rates of Western nations like Germany, UK etc. Not that I'm suggesting that, but by way of comparison.

They should be readily absorbed into nations that are ethnically, linguistically and in a sectarian sense pretty much identical – making allowances for the Sunni\Shia split.

It hard to understand the mindset that is comfortable with the “generational refugee” status of the Palestinians, with attendant NGO’s and funding to perpetuate it. Is there really a cogent argument for this situation to be maintained? Hardly any of the effort and funding goes into nation-building - just a futile, never-ending conflict with Israel!

Why not?
At its heart, this is a religious war, no amount of dissembling can prove otherwise. There is an unrelenting hatred of the Jews by Islam and a desire to see the utter elimination of Jewry and any Jewish state. Not to mention, that as it has been conquered previously (a lá Spain, aka Andalusia), it is forever considered Islamic land.

Israel knows this fully well and is ready to meet this relentlessness with its own implacability. If they go down, it will be fighting. How many times have the surrounding muslim states attempted to take out Israel? The current recourse by these same states is over time, to strategically use the Palestinian issue to turn the world against Israel – and perhaps gee themselves up for another go!

A two state solution is dead in the water. It has always been rejected previously by the Palestinians - from “the river to the sea” is the stated aim. And it would leave Israel too vulnerable. I’m actually surprised they allow 2 million Arabs within Israel itself. Anyone singing "2-state", is naïve or lying in my view.

The surrounding "brotherly\ummah" states don't want them. Check the record. They have caused strife and troubles wherever they have been received. Kuwait, Syria and Jordan (the actual Palestinian state) amongst others.

In size it’s a miniscule strip of land – and over-populated. If we go by Israel as it is now, the Jewish state would see it flourishing in next to no time. That would cut the muslim nations to the core even more. A democratic, liberal, innovative and prosperous Israel, with human rights stands as testimony against them and their beliefs. They simply cannot allow it.

I said objectively, as although I try to be as objective as possible, being a devout Christian, I am sure many would question my leanings.
In faith terms, I never see Israel succumbing to any attempts by the surrounding nations to eliminate it. But, they are a small nation, who on the whole love life more than death, unlike the claim of their enemies.

Long drawn out conflicts and wars of attrition could make Israel weary. And, if a broader based global alliance against them does arise, what then? Well then, Armaggedon. “The Lord He is God”, will prove sure, unless some other god is able to show otherwise. Any takers !


TV

aswani:
So the Met wanting to be representative is your definition of the cultural sensitivity hampering the police from solving the knife crime?

Why did you selectively quote it? You can't prevail against facts with this kind of disingenuity.

Why does policing have to be led by race or culturally specific action plans. How does that even work? Are all black people or communities the same. If laws are not raised based on race or culture why would they be enforced on that basis. What of other races, cultures? Do they all get their own plans?

How have these race and culture action plans (culturally sensitive approach...duh!) improved the knife crime stats in the "black community"?
The mayor doesn't care - it's not his social demographic and the vote is mostly captured. And he\they can hide behind race and cultural action plans whilst they do bugger all. And you know what, those who despise you are happy, at the pathologies within the community doing what they can't in their wildest dreams. And you are happy, as long as no one say's anything that might hurt your feelings - after all, white people also commit knife-crime right.

The murder of the Eliane Andam was all over the news yesterday. Horrifically murdered by a black teen. Tragic. No sign of the BLM, far-right spotters, or white supremacist hunters. Market aware, hustle savvy dem.

Through this London Race Action Plan and a
critical part of our accompanying Culture Plan, we
are underlining that commitment to tackle racism in
all its forms. This plan is specifcally and deliberately
focused on our Black communities, acknowledging the
history and the trust defcit, but there will be a beneft
for all in the service they receive from the Met.

aswani:
So they don't solve black crimes because there are now more black officers and they don't want to upset the "nig-nogs" in their ranks incase they are arresting their friends or relatives, àbi?

Keep straw-manning. No one made that argument.

aswani:
I genuinely feel bad for you, you make all these statements and can't defend them. When you try to, with the utmost respect, you look even worse.

Tell us why the issue with black-on-black crime and more specifically the levels of death from knife crime persist amongst the black community.

aswani:
I won't even bite on your D, E and I bait, aside to say thank God Boris Johnson isn't black.

Toothless arguments can't bite!

RodgersAkpafu:

Now this is funny

Not as hilarious as your "look what I pulled out of my fundament" posts .


TV

aswani:
Very funny indeed.

Hey buddy, have you gotten the information on cultural factors hampering Police from arresting black people yet?

At least take it back if you can't defend it.

Pray tell what efforts the Met under the leadership of Mayor Khan are taking to solve the knife-crime issue in London which predominantly affects minority ethnic males (who are also the main perpetrators). Please show us where this is being called out by the authorities as a specific issue within the "black community". I won't make you overly exercise yourself given your limited abilities. I am not only optimistic, I am kind and will do your homework for you. Don't mention it

Have you heard of the Metropolitan Police London Race Action Plan? Here is the opening excerpt. Please remind yourself of the term I used to describe what I see for the failure to properly address this issue. I could go on to school you about how equality legislation and the DEI framework deployed by many statutory bodies and other organisations does no good to social cohesion, but the response will be slurs and trope ad nauseum. I'm optimistic and kind, but not a possessor of endless patience.

In New Met for London (NMfL) we set out our
commitment to renew a culture of policing by
consent, become anti-racist and build a Met that is
inclusive, diverse and representative of the city we
serve. Through this London Race Action Plan and a
critical part of our accompanying Culture Plan, we
are underlining that commitment to tackle racism in
all its forms. This plan is specifcally and deliberately
focused on our Black communities, acknowledging the
history and the trust defcit, but there will be a beneft
for all in the service they receive from the Met.

aswani:
The nexus between the black boy causing riot in Croydon and Old Kent, and the White louts running riots in Newcaatle, Blackpool and Middlesbrough IS ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION

Show us how economic deprivation leads to knife crime - Please show the relative rates of knife crime between London and any other area.

RodgersAkpafu:
I have mentioned to TV01 that there was mass condemnation of the MP that proposed the blasphemy law

Please show me the mass condemnation by his constituents, or muslims more widely, who are in a sense also his constituency. Show me 5 muslim organisations or NGO's that publicly condemned it. It was certainly widely condemned yes, but by those you would term right-wing or white supremacist.


I almost missed this

RodgersAkpafu:
The Muslim MPs you have snuck into the argument is a separate discussion on its own, and if you want an opinion on it, yes radical Islam is just as problematic as the far right threat to this country and BOTH must be dealt with squarely, having in mind that not every white person is racist, and not every (Pakistani) Muslim are extremists/ radicalists

You are simply wrong here. This is either plain ignorance or blatant deceit. Here is an excerpt from an update from the Head of MI5 - https://www.mi5.gov.uk/director-general-ken-mccallum-gives-latest-threat-update

The headline split of our counter terrorist work remains roughly 75% Islamist extremist, 25% extreme right-wing terrorism. But under that headline, much has shifted. Straightforward labels like “Islamist terrorism” or “extreme right wing” don’t fully reflect the dizzying range of beliefs and ideologies we see.

So, 75% of the terror threat according to an official update is from around 6-10% of the population. I asked you earlier to list the casualties of right-wing terror. Crickets.

All you have presented is anecdotes. Lacking real merit and easily debunked. Show me facts, evidence, clear outworking of far-right or white supremacist action.


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
"Multiculturalism has not been a success in totality"
That's the truth
There has been issues that have come with it, but all I ask is that we tell the damn truth and not paint people black like the right wing eco system does

Multiculturalism can only be a success if carefully considered and well managed. No issue with multiethnicity. Prejudiced views of minorities don't get legislative traction - if anything it's the opposite, as in the very subject of this thread. Authorities were hesitant or complicit due to the background of the perpetrators.

RodgersAkpafu:
Calling them "les sauvages " and other discriminatory slurs from childhood
This is the aspect they won't tell you...

I hear its worse in Belgium 🇧🇪 😕
These kids grow up hugging their originating culture, then u turn around and say they don't "integrate"
Even back home in the 🇬🇧
it's the same thing albeit to a lesser degree
I interact with Pakistani Brits here....
Do same and hear from them

Again..... danger of a single story

The situation in the UK is unique, and uniquely for the better. No need to project foreign examples. We don ja from EU . There is no institutional impediment to minorities integrating. Issues stem from regressive social practices that lead to criminality or impair social cohesion

RodgersAkpafu:
My point is simple
If Reform UK MPs ( I have identified two out of the five) are feeding racist soundbites to excite their base, then yes, they are guilty by association

And to answer the other question
Yes, many many many Reform UK VOTERS ARE RACIST.
no mincing words here
Not all are, but that is the new home for the racist segments of the society in this country

Racist or racist soundbites - because the effect of some policies are not to the liking of those of a different ethnicity or may disproportionately affect minorities or immigrants, they are racist? Please answer my question regards rights

RodgersAkpafu:
The Muslim MPs you have snuck into the argument is a separate discussion on its own, and if you want an opinion on it, yes radical Islam is just as problematic as the far right threat to this country and BOTH must be dealt with squarely, having in mind that not every white person is racist, and not every (Pakistani) Muslim are extremists/ radicalists

It is quite clearly relevant. And the thrust of your argument has been the threat of the far-right and white supremacy. Which is agitated by what is alien sectarianism to a degree. Outline 1 racist or sectarian policy spouted or implemented by the far-right

RodgersAkpafu:
When that MP (idiot) pushed the blasphemy motion in Westminister, there was wide condemnation from the Pakistani ppl as well as other sensible ppl
So that's not a gotcha u thought it was

And to add, many sectarian candidates lost their bid

This can't be true. A sectarian MP was elected to serve his constituents. He would never raise a motion against something they were not in favour of. Come on! Kindly discuss honestly and with due consideration. I forget the the figure but a significant percentage of muslims are in favour of blasphemy laws. There are blasphemy laws in his native Pakistan and across much of the muslim world. That is not a gotcha, it's a fact.

Or perhaps the muslim mp sectarian support for cousin marriage passed you by. Regressive behaviours and practices from foreign cultures are not welcome here. And if that's far right, colour me bad. I'll take the seat next to you at white supremacist camp on the Lagos-Ibadan expressway

I don't see that you are answering questions directly or with evidence. Smearing does not an argument make. Anecdotes and off-discussion points don't advance your cause.

And you have admitted my points about calling out and drilling down in to specific community issues

RodgersAkpafu:
It's one thing to say we need to tackle the socio economic and environmental issues that are making these black boys act as they are

It's another to stupidly say :

Oh look at these inferior species of humans. we told you they are genetically inferior people staining our country, look at them stabbing each other
Get the distinction

The distinction holds, but is irrelevant when it comes to policy making., which can be made on the basis of the former part but not the later. A supremacist or extremist can think the latter, but this country will not allow legislation on that basis. Supposition and smearing has descending into hyperbole and whining about slurs, which you are tossing around like confetti yourself.

There is nothing substantive here. If there is anything specific that meaningfully gives pause for though, I am all ears. And an answer to my question about rights, freedoms and liberties compromised or impaired would be most appreciated.


Gracias
TV

RodgersAkpafu:
3. The knife crime is disproportionate to black people, but the reasons behind it is NOT because they are black people
Economic deprivation, single mother households, lack of role models, and limited economic mobility are all tangible reasons

The right wing narrative of saying blcks are a nuisance to this country and are inherently useless based on this is just lies, and narrative shifting

Good, now we are getting somewhere. There are issues within what one may call the black community, but not because they are black?
No one has pinned anything to race, skin-colour or ethnicity. It's culture.

Are single-mother households and the lack of role models within the black community a result of discrimination, far-right prejudice or white supremacists?. And you rightly know both of those factors tie into the burgeoning gang-life and KNIFE CRIME. Is calling that out racist?

RodgersAkpafu:
4. The Soutb Asian majority dumps are very very bad. Trust me
I'm not one to be racist
But those areas are a mess
I see mattress placed outside in the road, litter , clutter, my oh my, very terrible

You have just called out an ethnic demographic. I shall be posting you your far-right, white supremacist honorary membership - 1st class


From my end I am boiling this down now. Just the 2 bolded questions from my last 2 posts.


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
Q2 : The power they wield is not absolute yet, but we are seeing a surge in the Reform UK camp, and don't you deny, you and I know that that is the new home of the far right in this country.
They got millions of votes in this last election cycle...
Causing major casualties to tory MPs
And the general sentiment in that camp is on the ascendancy.
They have also put 5 MPs in Westminister.
Go look at the kind of tweets they tweet to pander to, and energise that base (referring to those two idiots, Lee Anderson and fellow idiot Luwe ori so, forgotten how to spell his yeye surname)w I have been wasting my time all this while and just leave the convo

Yes, Reform appear to be on the upswing - are you claiming they are white supremacists? Or, because the "far-right" may congregate there, Reform and it's policies are therefore far-right\supremacist?

And on to smearing by association all who voted for reform. Are you claiming the millions of Reform voters are racists\white supremacists? There are 5 sectarian muslims in parliament. What's your point?

Please point to one human right, civil liberty or personal freedom you are denied in this country as a result of the far right\white supremacism. Just one.


TV

I' feel like some posts are changing and you guys are busy back-slapping so it's hard to keep up. I'll respond to clearly made point where I can

RodgersAkpafu:
Q1: The hallmark of the far right are;
Anti minority racism,
Belief that minorities can never be citizens of this country;
Belief in mass deportations and forced remigrations;
The belief in white people being the superior race and every problem of this country being the fault of minorities

Anti minority racism - is there no racism against the majority? Is there no racism from minorities towards other minority groups? Is it only far-right when it comes from the majority?
Belief that minorities can never be citizens of this country; Is there anything legally or constitutionally that can revoke citizenship from non-indigenous citizens? Which political party has it in their manifesto to do such a thing? Does the reality on the ground suggest citizenship is eing granted less or we are taking in more people by way of migration - visa issuance, refugees and asylum seekers?
Belief in mass deportations and forced remigrations; Immigration is a legitimate political discussion point. You yourself noted the case of Sweden and Denmark. Immigration nto this country has probably been too high and certainly not regulated well enough for a while now.
The belief in white people being the superior race and every problem of this country being the fault of minorities. Far-right is now white-supremicism Could you please demonstrate where these beliefs are being espoused by anyone with any power in public, or any legislation that has been muted or put into effect. And social outworking of clearly identifiable cultural practices should not be called out? Are honour killings and acid attacks native to this country?


TV