I could not agree more with D. Kahn Carlor, Dr. Fahnbullah, Cheapo and others who are speaking the truth about what has happened and continuing to happen in our country.

I am deeply surprised to learn that ones like the Chief of Staff Gen. Dugbah and the former minister of Logal Government, Mr. Oscar J. Quiah would appeal for forvivingness the Liberians before a bunch of Congau fools who calling themselves commissioners for the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The last time I checked, the two of you were Krahn, and the war that came to Liberia, came specifically to eliminate you. So why would you apologize for defending yourselves?

I am very disappointed about the revelation of Gen. Dugbah that he left the country on June 30, 1990 - just about the same time the rebels were entering Monrovia. What a smart move, General Dugbah...your Krahn people must have been really proud of you! No wonder why President Doe was butchered like a goat by a criminal like Prince Johnson who is now in Monrovia possing as a senior senator of Nimba County.

Then again, the good General Dugbah's action should not be much of a surprise. In 1985 during Thomas Quiwonkpa's invasion, the Good General Dugbah was the first to surrender to Quiwonkpa at the barrack. "General, it was you guys that gave us these positions. So if you ask, we shall surrender the positions at any time." Dugbah was sitting and twisting in an office chair with wheels while he practically under arrest and speaking to Quiwonkpa with the hope to win Quiwonkpa's mercy.

But at this time, what are those cowards trying to prove or achieve? Whether or not you try to appease them (Americo-Liberians), they will still clasify you as a country boys or girls; it does not matter how old you are. And for those Americo-Liberians who are not the true owners of the Liberian soil, they still believe that they are true owners of that land, because according to Rev. Jesse Jackson, the land of Liberia was set aside for rejected slaves to return to... and we the natives are just squaters. So by appealing for their forgivingness for standing up or defending yourselves for killing thousands of your people, you're just confirming to their imperial ideology.

For some of us, is not yet over until those fools accept their wrongful doings and repent their sins against us. Or else, the baboos will still try to divide colas in that country.

YOUR VIEW POINTS ARE WELL STATED, BUT IT IS NOT HELPFUL TO THE ON GOING PEACE THAT THE LIBERIAN PEOPLE ARE NOW EXPRIENCING. I REALLY BELIEV THAT THOSE THAT ARE REPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY WILL SEE THIR FATE ONE DAY, SO DON'T THINK ABOUT NEGATIVITY.

DNO'T BE FOOL MY FRIEND, THERE WILL BE NO MORE ARM STRUGGLE IN LIBERIA, I AM SAYING THIS BASED ON WHAT I SAW THERE, I WAS IN LIBERIA FOR SIX MONTHS. I SAY THIS, BECAUSE MOST OF THE YOUTHS ARE EAGER TO GO TO SCHOOL AND LEARN. THE COMPITETION IN LIBERIAN NOW IS ALL ABOUT EDUCATION

I am always disturbed when I see Libeirans behaving like this. Can we just put our tribes behind us and vouch to Liberia only. We all have experienced the bitterness of tribalism - total death and destruction. Liberians should protect and not destroy one another. I am a living witness to a Mano man who save and protected a Krahn man during the war. And I strongly believe that a lot of Krahns helped saved the lives of other tribal groups that were targeted during the war. I think this is how we should live, been our brother's keeper. One good thing I know, there is no baboon in Liberia that still wants to divide kola. WE ARE JUST TIRED of VIOLENCE!

To the Author identify as Krahnman:

It is so sad to read your evil mind as stated in your comments. With all the attrocities every Liberian has gone through,I wonder if you are sleep walking? You are still living with unforgiveness in your heart for other Liberians including your own tribe's men(Mr. Dugbah and Mr.Quiah). I am very gled that they(Dugbah and Quiah), could humble themselves and admit their wrong to the Liberian people. They have been forgiven by God's grace. As for you, If you don't let go of whatsoever hate you have against your fellowmen, you will continue to have a bad life in this world and the life to come(Heaven or Hell most likely Hell with such a mind set)

We are the same people regardless, you are Krahn, Mano, Gio,Americo -Liberian,Mandingo,Lorma,Bassa or any other tribe.When you step outside of Liberia, you are called a Liberian or an African.

Krahnman, You are one sick piece of work! I pity people who still think like you. Every Liberian regardless of tribe were a victim in this brutal and senceless war. Get a life and move on and learn to forgive like the good lord ask of us!

I could not agree more with D. Kahn Carlor, Dr. Fahnbullah, Cheapo and others who are speaking the truth about what has happened and continuing to happen in our country.

I am deeply surprised to learn that ones like the Chief of Staff Gen. Dugbah and the former minister of Local Government, Mr. Oscar J. Quiah would appeal for forvivingness the Liberians before a bunch of Congau fools who calling themselves commissioners for the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The last time I checked, the two of you were Krahn, and the war that came to Liberia, came specifically to eliminate you. So why would you apologize for defending yourselves?

I am very disappointed about the revelation of Gen. Dugbah that he left the country on June 30, 1990 - just about the same time the rebels were entering Monrovia. What a smart move, General Dugbah...your Krahn people must have been really proud of you! No wonder why President Doe was butchered like a goat by a criminal like Prince Johnson who is now in Monrovia possing as a senior senator of Nimba County.

Then again, the good General Dugbah's action should not be much of a surprise. In 1985 during Thomas Quiwonkpa's invasion, the Good General Dugbah was the first to surrender to Quiwonkpa at the barrack. "General, it was you guys that gave us these positions. So if you ask, we shall surrender the positions at any time." Dugbah was sitting and twisting in an office chair with wheels while he practically under arrest and speaking to Quiwonkpa with the hope to win Quiwonkpa's mercy.

But at this time, what are those cowards trying to prove or achieve? Whether or not you try to appease them (Americo-Liberians), they will still clasify you as a country boys or girls; it does not matter how old you are. And for those Americo-Liberians who are not the true owners of the Liberian soil, they still believe that they are true owners of that land, because according to Rev. Jesse Jackson, the land of Liberia was set aside for rejected slaves to return to... and we the natives are just squaters. So by appealing for their forgivingness for standing up or defending yourselves for killing thousands of your people, you're just confirming to their imperial ideology.

For some of us, is not yet over until those fools accept their wrongful doings and repent their sins against us. Or else, the baboos will still try to divide colas in that country.

My friend, you have the time to listen to the moral degenerate the 'Rev.' Jesse Jackson? He has goaded you to adopt an extremely xenophobic position vis a vis the so-called "Americo-Liberians," a nonsensical characterization, if ever there was one, for "Liberia," the last time I checked is not a nation; your talk about "Krans" and "Americo-Liberians" exactly proves my point.

Historically and systematically, the ancestors of "Americo-Liberians" missed a supreme historic opportunity, namely to form a Liberian nation, given their military superiority. Of course, the resultant nation would have eviscerated "Americo-Liberians" and the Krans and the Kroos, etc in the key 'tribes.'

In their stead, the nation of Liberia would have emerged, devoid of 'tribes' and, hence, the very xenophobia promoted by all 'tribes' in the territory, not nation, of Liberia.

What a disaster!

What is this argument you keep trying to put forward: Liberia is not a nation but a country? Please, I beg you, do elaborate and give the difference between the two and the significance of your argument at this time?

My friend, thanks for responding to my posting.

First, I am not making an argument; rather I have developed a theory of the "territorial state." The details, what may be regarded as arguments for the theory, are available in the discussion section on Sierra Leone of this online entity under "jallohlaw" and under the topic of discussion of the firing of Sierra Leone's minister of transportation and aviation.

Stated bluntly, the difference between a country and a nation is that a country is an entity on a map, with the attendant international appendages (UN, IMF, World Bank membership, etc.), while a nation is constituted by a cultural tradition, written or no, and the core values of the tradition, which should be not confused with the legalism of constitutions, are shared by populations that inhabit the territory they occupy.

Generally, the members of a nation are politically constituted by different perspectives on the intepretration and application or implementation of the "core values" of their cultural tradition, which has transcended the tradition of the dominant tribe or coalition of tribes that militarily whipped less powerful tribes or groups, or whatever, into the robe of a nation, to the task that faces every individual every single day of his or her existence: dealing with the perceived demands of today with today's and yesterday's resources with the intention of making tomorrow a better day, irrespective of the definition of "better."

An example, in this context, is my statement above of the missed "supreme historical opportunity" of the so-called "Americo-Liberians" to mold the populations of the territory of Liberia into a nation. Now, this process is not a party. See the postings in the Sierra Leone Discussion Section. On the contrary, it is violent and xenophobic.

The cunning of history shows its hand when, subsequent to the subjugation of the weaker groups by a stronger group, the IDENTITY of the stronger group DISAPPEARS into the "core values" of the newly minted cultural tradition. The stronger group thereby implodes PRECISELY because of its victory.

As applied to the territory of Liberia, the Americo-Liberians, supported by the military might of the United States of America---and this support was the raison d'etre of their swagger in Liberia, and not any bogus "civilization narrative"---got stuck in the mud of xenophobia: the negative epithets thrown at "the natives" unequivocally signal their archaic attitude, an attitude acidly antithetical to the minimal ethos of "we are all the same" that characterizes a nation.

The significance of this ossification of an archaic, xenophobic attitude is materially manifested in the essentialism of tribal discourse, as crisply evidenced in this discussion, and thus the theory, or better the dogmatic demand that the tribe shall not CHANGE, an irrascible demand devoid of historical consciousness.

I hope this helps.

Jallohlaw, Thanks for your prompt response. To be honest, Sir, I was lost right after you definitions of a nation and a country. This was probably due to my limited vocabulary. However, we need not continue this exchange because as you stated in your first sentence, this is YOUR theory. Basically YOUR opinion of why things are the way they are. Secondly, what a nation and a country is had long been settled millenia ago; I believe you are attempting to re-invent the wheel. Having said that, please allow me to be more specific with my questions: are you saying, that a country is better than a nation? Are you exerting that the Americo-Liberians should have built a country or a nation and why? And how does your exertion fit into our current national crisis? Secondly, Sir, a map is not real, so please come up with a better definition of a country. May I please also suggest that when you write or talk, do so so that the least literate of your listeners and readers understand. And please keep your sentences short and to the point.

Hope to hear from you soon.

My friend, thanks for your comments, for spending part of your life reading and responding to my THEORY. Some philologists (scholars of written languages) in what they call etymology (a "theory" of the origin of words) trace the origin of the word "theory" to the Greek semantical rendition of "seeing." Hence, extrapolating, one could say, reasonably, that "theory" is, in a limited sense, an "opinion," since an opinion is an EXPRESSION of HOW one "sees," or, expressed at a higher level of abstraction, "con-ceives" a situation, whether past, present, or future.

However, when opinions are rigorized---subjected to methodical (where a "method" is a set of rules of how to accomplish something) explications, they transcend the sphere of opinions: they become hypotheses, from which predictions about the past (e.g. that a a text is a forgery, as the Italian humanist Valla showed in the "donation of Constantine), present or future can be inferred, then one can reasonably talk of a "theory." And, that is the sense that I attribute to my use of the word "theory."

Hence, it would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to refer to my theory of "the territorial nature of African states" as an "opinion." The way to shut me up is not to call the posited theory "an opinion." The traditional way to send me packing is to FALSIFY my theory, by showing that at least one of its predictions or consequences is FALSE.

Moreover, I am satisfied that one of the ways of identifying a country is through a map. If you know of one more way, my ears are wide open. Furthermore, it is not true that the notions of "a country" and "a nation" have been clarified aeons ago: if that were true, then please explain the origins of the conflicts in Serbia and now, Georgia. Those conflicts, in my opinion, are based on the continuing constructions or extensions of the concepts of 'nation' and 'country.' Of course, there are real, material factors that motivate such "theoretical" definitional conflicts: money, to begin with.

I urge you to reflect on my postings in the Sierra Leone Discission section of this online paper on the statement and explication of my theory of the terrritorial African State.

Finally, the country of Liberia was created by Americo-Liberians with the military backing of the then United States Government. I AM NOT SAYING that the Kran and other 'tribes' in the territory that was baptized "Liberia" did not have a conception of 'country' in their cultural tradition; what I AM SAYING is that the Americo-Liberian violent inscription of the name "Liberia" on the relevant ground territory obliberated by brute force any and all other competing conceptions, whether they be Kran or whatever.

That, my friend, is not an opinion, but an a rock solid historical fact. Hence, I am clearly not saying that the Americo-Liberians did not CONSTRUCT a country. They did with BLOOD and MONEY, and a nauseating dose of a civilization narrative pulsating with the viral xenophobic clap trap of Euro-American PREJUDICES.

Finally, that the conquering and victorious Americo-Liberians failed to mold the conquered populations into a nation---THE LIBERIAN NATION---is transparently obvious to require proof: the 'tribal' xenophobic diatribes in this forum are, to be perspicuously blunt, are EXHIBIT A of my contention.

Have a productive day, my friend.

Sir, First, here are some definitions, from the Webster dictionary, of some of the words you and I have been using: THEORY-a set of propositions (offered for consideration, acceptance, admission, or adoption) describing the operations (how things work) and causes of natural phenomena (events that cannot be explained); a proposed but UNVERIFIED explanation; the principles of an art, as distinguished from its practices. HYPOTHESIS-a TENTATIVE assertion (by the way, I meant assertion and not exertion, in my last response to you,) about natural phenomena, ASSUMED but not POSITIVELY known; a POSTULATE (assert or assume as a basis for reasoning). THESIS-a PROPOSITION advanced for discussion, proof, etc.; a subject of a composition; an essay or dissertation, especially by a candidate for a degree. OPINION- a conclusion; VIEW. A view held by many at once: public opinion. Estimation, judgement. COUNTRY- a land in general; a region; a particular kind of region. A NATION, its territory or its people. NATION- a race of people having a common descent, language and culture; a body of people constituting a political unit under one government.

According to the above definitions of theory, hypothesis and thesis, they all, at their core, say, “someone’s opinion of why things are they way they are,” to me. Additionally, if one takes the second definitions of both country and nation, they are both one and the same. But most importantly, Sir, I feel you have not yet answered my questions. Once again, here they are: what, according to your theory or hypothesis is a country? What, according to your theory or hypothesis, is a nation? How do those definitions relate to what is going on in Liberia today? Please try to keep your answers brief and to the point By the way, I don’t have to formulate a theory of my own just to be able to refute yours. I can simply refute it without proposing a new one; there is no law that says I have to. But as far as this topic is concern, I don’t have to even if I wanted to because I know for certain that the argument has been settled millennia ago, as the definitions above proof. Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot one more definition:

MAP- a DRAWING of all or a part of the earth’s surface, or the heavens; a CHART.

Once again, a MAP is not real. So if you want to give your THEORY, HYPOTHESIS or THESIS and validity, you might want to remove MAP (a DRAWING) out of your definition.

P.S. etymology is not a THEORY, it’s a SCIENCE.

Sir, you seriously assert that to refute my theory, you simply have to "fermez la bouche"? That is the worst, wrongheaded and boneheaded proposition I have ever heard uttered by a correspondent on methodological problematics; so silly, it need not be refuted.

Incidentally, in the discipline (and please in a discussion that CLEARLY transcends the competence of "Webster," it wise not tO RELY on Webster; wiser, it is, to rely on literature on METHODOLOGY. Next time, I urge you to do so.

I have no comment on your "Websterian" definitions: I am thinking from a LEVEL OF GENERALITY OR ABSTRACTION that transcends the competence of "Webster." If you choose not to rock at that level, then this dialogue ended YESTERDAY.

Moreover, I have answered your questions, period. Now, should you find the answers unsatisfactory the intellectually burden rests on you like a monkey on your back to concretely specify why you SUBJECTIVELY OR INTERSUBJECTIVELY find my answers inadequate.

Finally, only naive philologists would even stammer the word STRING "etymology is a science" not a theory. You ARE dead wrong. Prove that "etymology" is a science? Do not beat around the bush or circle imaginary wagons or, worse posit straw men: just answer the unequivocal question.

And before you do that, please offer the readers your definition of science. And, no Webster, please; that would be an insult to seasoned methodologists.

Take care of yourself.

Sir, Throughout our discussion, I have asked you three simple questions based on your assertion that Liberia is not a Nation but a Country: what is your definition of a country? What is your definition of a Nation? And how do those definitions relate to the current situation in Liberia? I will admit that you have made feeble attempts to answer those questions, but the one you have never acknowledged is the last one. In those attempts, you went from speaking English to Greek, to Latin and now French. You also used words that can tie a knot with the tongue of Mr. Alex Trabek if he attempted to pronounce them. Regardless of your choice of language or words, however, I was left more confused than before. Because of that, we have digressed from discussion those three simple questions to discussing meaningless and irrelevant subjects like what a theory, thesis, philologist, etymology, and now methodology are. And now, like before, you are claiming that your level of understanding is higher than those experts (philologists and etymologists), who you held in high esteem in your previous correspondent and whose rigorous and tedious research accumulates in the Webster Dictionary. Sir, had I found your work in a technical journal, i.e. the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and claimed not to have understood the language or words used, you would have had all the right to call me names or simply informed me that the reason I don’t understand is because I’m not a medical doctor. But you have decided to post your opinions on the World Wide Web where anyone like me (you don’t know my educational background) can stumble across it. For that reason, it is incumbent upon you to write it in such a language that everyone, including me, can understand. For that reason, Sir, I strong believe that you have failed a task that every teacher or anyone lay person who wishes to speak or communicate must pass, and also the very reason that language itself was invented; to communicate and be understood. Imagine yourself, for a moment, a physicist like Einstein who cannot explain the Theory of Relativity to a school-age child? What use would your theory be? You choice of language and words would have been absolutely appropriate if, for the rest of your life, you only encounter individuals of your intellectual back ground, whatever that may be. Need I remind you, Sir, that you hail from a country where the literacy rate is a mere 36% and the average included in that percentage only went to school for an average of seven years. How many people in your country can understand a word you speak or write? Finally, Sir, whatever language or words you chose to respond to this article, please start by addressing those three questions the beginning of it as briefly and to the point as possible again, I don’t want to leave this discussion with the feeling of having wasted my time. I will give you the last word, Sir, and this is last time you will hear from me based this particular discussion.

Let’s keep it on paper.

Sir, I shall be crisp and blunt. First, I refuse to respond to your attempts to smuggle into this discussion "a battle of clarity." You have a right to judge THAT matter on your own, as others do and, indeed, as I do.

First, you assert that my answers to your two questions---the "definition" of a nation and a country---are "feeble."

I DISAGREE, and that unqualifiedly and unequivocally.

But, that disagreement is for the birds, since, you FAILED to either directly determine your construal or understanding of "feeble" or, indirectly, BY SHOWING CONCRETELY, without flying into the misty clouds of linguistic grand theorizing or into the depths of YOUR THEORY of understanding, why you find my answers "feeble."

Since, you have not done so, I am justified in positing the presumption that you have either failed to closely read the textual loci or places where I have answered ALL THREE OF YOUR QUESTIONS or that you are simply incapable of UNDERSTANDING ME.

If one assumes the latter, then I assert: nothing that I have stated in my theory of the territoriality of African States, which is the thematic or subject matter of this discussion, is beyond the comprehension of anyone with a bachelors degree in either the "hard or soft" sciences or in the humanities.

Now, you dug a grave, and in consternation, you ask: who dug the grave?

You threw Webster at my theory; I riposted that my theory is beyond---transcends, is posited at a "level of generality or abstraction" that eclipses--the linguistic competence expressed in Webster's dictionary.

And, you wrongheadedly accuse me of the absurdity of hubris? You make no sense, which means that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOU.

Two quick points, and I shall close this discussion which you have ATTEMPTED to hijack into useless reflections on language use: first, my friend, refrain from attributing the characteristics of "my" country to my persona, for I ain't "my" country; second, unless you answer my questions---and you voluntarily and understandably dribbled the ball into this field, this grave yard of bone dry idealizations and abstractions---about your definition of "science" (and should you come back with the lame answer that the definition has been tendered centuries ago, I know I should not be corresponding with you) and tender A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF YOUR THEORY THAT YOU NEED ONLY BE SILENT TO REFUTE MY THEORY OF THE TERRITORIALITY OF AFRICAN STATES (and, if you have not noticed, your theory of "refutation by silence," is A METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE) this 'dialogue' ended day before yesterday.

Have a great scholarly or Websterian day, whichever is applicable to you, my friend.

It has become quite apparent, that you are cognitively, emotionally, intellectually and psychologically exhausted and defeated, as evidence by latest ploy to critique my grammar. It is also evidence that the little BB guns you had in your so-called intellectual “armory” have run out of bullets. But be not ashamed, my little friend, you have lasted longer than even I had thought. It’s pity though; I was just getting warmed up. Anyhow, it is probably my fault; I was a little too tough on you. But remember this, Jallohlaw, as you drag your mutilated body back to the sewer of Freetown from whence you came, I’m proud of you. However, I cannot continue verbally amputating you, even though I would be justified; I risk being seen as bully, or worst, a heartless monster. That is why I must end this and give you time to recuperate (I personally suggest a lot of Vitamin C and two laps up and down Lester Peak twice a week). My job here is done. I know, I know, you want to continue to fight and I expect forage of verbal attacks and even kamikaze assaults from you to proof your resolve, but I will not falter, I too remain resolute in my decision. And the reason is quite simple; you are no use to me dead, rhetorically. With that, Sir, I must bid you adieu. It was real, it was fun, but it wasn’t real fun.

Look you fool, the right place for you to live is the Sapo National Park where you can live in peace with baboons. Dubah, Quiah and others who fled were smarter than Doe and many of you guys. Apologising is the right thing to do. They have lived to see another day and can take another shot at making things right in our beloved country. Dubah and Quiah, please help tame this char-coal eating animal or alternatively, send him back to his cave under River Gee where he will remain to divide kola among the BABOONS.

You see, Tony! This is exactly what I meant when I said Quiah and Dugbah were cowards. I have learned enough to know that it does not matter what a Krahn man does; a jerk like you will still consider consider the krahn people as monkeys that belong in the Sapo National Park. Living just to see another day does not amount to a lot for the rest of us. Until you can usnderstand that a krahn person is just as important as another human being on earth, we will continue to make you feel out importance.

Just in case if you have forgotten, I want to remind you that it was the leadership of a krahn man that freed you from the monarchy of the Americo-Liberians, or from more than 155 years(1822-1980) of congaus domination. And just incase if you don't know or forgot already, it was the same krahn people who drove Taylor out of Liberia for you to be there and talk freely.

But my point is what are they the krahn people getting for standing up for the rest of the native Liberians like you - if you're one? Absolutely, NOTHING! Probably it is going to take another krahn man or woman to free you from another congau's domination. Let's wait and see. You better thank God that you have in your midst a tribe is not under the influence of the Congau peopple, your slave master.

And did you see what happened in Liberia in 1997 when Taylor, after killing thousands of your people, came to Monrovia and ran to be president? I don't have to remind you about that one! You the country foos around Monrovia shamelessly chanted in the dirty streets of Monrovia in favor of Taylor: Y

You see, Tony! This is exactly what I meant when I said Quiah and Dugbah were cowards. I have learned enough to know that it does not matter what a Krahn man does; a jerk like you will still consider the krahn people as monkeys that belong in the Sapo National Park. Living just to see another day does not amount to a lot for the rest of us. Until you can usnderstand that a krahn person is just as important as another human being on earth, we will continue to try to make you feel our importance.

Just in case if you have forgotten, I want to remind you that it was the leadership of a krahn man that freed you from the monarchy of the Americo-Liberians, or from more than 155 years(1822-1980) of congaus domination. And just in case if you don't know or forgot already, it was the same krahn people who drove Taylor out of Liberia for you to be there and talk freely. And don't forget, you are only speeking freely because the current old lady, who is now based at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as president and eating your eye-balls with corruption and diengagment with the Liberian people, does not care because she knows what she is getting out of Liberia while go to bed almost night without food to eat.

But my point is what are the krahn people getting for standing up for the rest of the native Liberians like you - if you're a native Liberian? Absolutely, NOTHING! Probably it is going to take another krahn man or woman to free you from another congau's domination. And this time, make no mistake, it will be done civilly. Let's wait and see. You better thank God that you have in your midst a tribe is not under the influence of the Congau people - your slave masters.

And did you see what happened in Liberia in 1997 when Taylor, after killing thousands of your people, came to Monrovia and ran to be president? I don't have to remind you about that one! You the country fools around Monrovia shamelessly chanted in the dirty streets of Monrovia in favor of Taylor: YOU KILLED MY MOM, YOU KILLED MY PA, I'LL VOTE FOR YOU! Waht happened next? Your dum asses waited for the krahn people to redeem you. Now you have what you call TRC (Tribal Rejection Commission) in Monrovia only interested in what happened to the thirteen congau people in 1980, and gives heck what happened to more than 350 thousand natives that were killed by Taylor (Congau.

Do you know that Taylor is not being persecuted for what he did in liberia, but what he did in Sierra Leone?

Krahman will pause for now!

The exchange between Kranman and Tony proves that Liberia is not yet a nation; sad, given the opportunity of the misnamed "Americo-Liberians" to create one, given their US backed hegemony.

Liberia is a country, not a nation: the societal power monopolized by the Liberian State is a power wielded by a territorial state over the ossified tribes captured in the territory. For the corroboration of these ideas and their extensions, please my postings under the Sierra Leone Discussion Topics of Discussion.

Sir, in my honest opinion, you have just uttered the most insensitive and ignorant words I have ever heard one Liberian speak against another Liberian (if indeed, you are a Liberian). First, Sapo National Park is in Sinoe, not River Gee, and Krahns are mostly concentrated in Grand Gedeh while the Grebos are in River Gee. As a Liberian I was very offended by your comments. To the both of you, however, I would suggest that you put aside name callings and let's debate the issues based on facts. We owe it to those who have died the most brutal deaths and to our children. What happened in Liberia (starting at whatever point one chooses) must never be allowed to happen again.

Chappie,

I must admit that for a very long time, Krahnman never wanted to participate in such forum. However, these kinds of mindset against the Krahns would always induce us to react.

It was because of peace and love for our dear country that the Krahns, after Doe was murdered, took a back seat and for the most part left the country and migrated to the Ivory Coast. What did Taylor and his supporters do in 2002 (12 years after Doe was murdered), they crossed to the Ivory Coast to carry out their plan of Krahn-elimination. That was when MODEL was organized to defend the women and children of their people. Even the fighters of MODEL were very obedient (as noticed by the international community) in their operation, yet Gyude Bryant took most of those fighters from Bassa and jailed in Monrovia after they set the entire Grand Bassa free. The Krahn leaders in MODEL never argued about it; instead, they quietly negotiated for the release of the fighters. The MODEL leadership never complained why LURD was not treated the same...I think you might have known the records of the three factions that fought last in 2003.

In as much as I realize that Tony does not even know that the Sapo National Park is in Sinoe County, he is an empty being. However, Krahnman will never sit again for such argument to continue without a rebuttal. Meanwhile, people like Tony must be made to understand that the Krahns never lived with the congau people in Monrovia, Greenville, Buchana or Harper to subscribe to their imperial ideology. Majority of the Krahn people migrated to Monrovia independently in the late 1960s and helped to change the political dynomics in Liberia for a native man to have a voice. It is not their (Krahns') fault that the Liberians reelected the congaus back in power. And from hereafter, the Krahns will never give in to anything that will attempt to surpress their values, rights or that will appear to belittle them. We will respect nobody that will not respect us, and continue to speak out nowadays from there on.

Krahnman is standing by!

LET US FORGET ABOUT THE DIFFRENCES AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE, AS I SAID THER WILL BE NO MORE WAR IN LIBERIA, BUT GOD JUDGEMENT WILL FALL ON THOSE THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM, SEE THE EXAMPLE OF BACCUS MATTHEW, THEY WILL GO ONE BY ON. WHEN THE MAJORITY ANY COUNTRY IS FOCUSING ON EDUCATION, AS WE LIBERIAN ARE DOING, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO GO BACK INTO CHAOS, SO YOU CAN FORGET YOUR BABOON WILL DIVIDE COLA, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, THE REAL BATTLE NOW IN LIBERIA IS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE AND BUSINESS SO I SUGGEST YOU PREPARE YOU SELF EDUCATIONALLY THANK YOU

It is true, is it not, that you have no empirical evidence that "[t]here (sic) will be no more war in Liberia? You hope, but know, you know not. The same riff is posited ad nauseaum in the Sierra Leonean Forum by diasporans or, as I call them, maroons.

Big, big, big talk: you are free to talk "big." Talk is cheap, except when the wrong kind of talk gets you hauled into a court of law.

Accordingly, you ought to pay careful attention to the modus of your written expression, especially your verbs (herein "hope" versus "know": hoping ain't the same thing as knowing.

You simply don't know what the future holds, and there is nothing you can do about that as a human being, for THAT is a part, a substantial and consequential part of the human condition.

Jallohlaw, of all people you should know that thought precedes action. As the Good Book says, "...as a man thinketh so as doeth..." How dare you try to shatter the hopes of other? Without hope what else man is left with? It is because of hope that our parents and us procreate, hoping that their and our progenies have a better future than they did. Do you have or plan to have kids, Mr. Jallowlaw? Why? Are you a man of faith, Mr. Jallowlaw? Tell me, sir, what's the DIFFERENCE between HOPE and FAITH? Without hope, sir, there will be no human endeavors; without hope, sir, you wouldn't be where you are today. As the saying goes, "For those with faith(hope), no {"empirical"} evidence is necessary, and for those without faith (hope) no {"empirical"} evidence is ever enough." I HOPE that this has restored a bit of HOPE in you.

Your text is grammatically incoherent. Accordingly, no response is required to chicken babble.

I urge you to take a course in remedial English. It MIGHT help.

Mr. Intellectual, your text is grammatically incoherent; accordingly, it cannot induce a response from anyone. I seriously urge you to take a course in REMEDIAL ENGLISH at a Community College: there is a remote chance that it MIGHT improve your soul; I mean, following Aristotle, the cognitive 'part' of your soul.

Why do you always contradict yourself? This is why is so difficult to debate with you. You call me an intellectual when I am the one who has been pleading with you to keep your sentences and words short; you were the one who threatened the last time to respond to me in French, Arabic and German and, I think, Greek; you are the one continuously make references to Western Socialists and Philosophers, and now I’m the intellectual. Now you are also claiming that my posting deserves no response from anyone because my grammar is incoherent when you and I have been exchanging verbal artillery for almost a week now. I’ll ask you again, is your verbal arsenal depleting or you just love to hear yourself talk?

This post was deleted because it contravenes AllAfrica's commenting guidelines.

To the Editors of allafrica.com

It is time you permanently ban this serial rule breaker, who continues to repost one of his posts that you have serially deleted.

Mr. "Chappie" is openly challenging the editorial authority of the editors of allafrica.com.

Accordingly, in the interest of the efficient operation of your sites, I respectfully request that you ban him permanently from participating in all sites sponsored by allafrica.com