INTROVERT:
We have been seeing this... What we want to see is shekau and albarnawi head on spikes.....

I command you to shut up!!!!! If they bring their head and the bombing continues you will still complain!!! So its better they get rid of anything that posses a threat!! Who was the leader of bokoharam before shekau? Has he not been killed? Did it end there? Next time put small brain into your speech. If not for anything commend these guys!!! They are doing a great job!!!!

This guys keeps arresting boko haram flags. Shey na flag dey terrorize people ba. Sha it's none of my business

hardbody:


But you people said BH has become extinct. Is this part 2?

Hypocrisy is bad bro. Have you forgotten "you people" claimed GEJ "virtually annihilated" boko haram?

Royalfurnitures:
Yet Boko Haram is still waxing stronger

Please check out my signature for quality and durable furniture

waxing stronger? ?

SmartyPants:


Hypocrisy is bad bro. Have you forgotten "you people" claimed GEJ "virtually annihilated" boko haram?

I do not recall saying GEJ had virtually or in anyway annihilated BH. In the event you are mixing things up, I am neither a fan of GEJ or PMB, both are incompetent to lead me and i therefore do not fawn for either of them.

I am certain i read somewhere where it was said that BH has been technically defeated (I think by Buratai) Now that you have assumed the position of 'you people', please do tell us what happened and why BH is either being attacked or spearheading an attack.

For the records, I don't double speak, even if i make a comment and you come with a stronger and more plausible argument, i respect your reasoning. I am not in this for anything other than saying it how I know it best.

hardbody:


I do not recall saying GEJ had virtually or in anyway annihilated BH. In the event you are mixing things up, I am neither a fan of GEJ or PMB, both are incompetent to lead me and i therefore do not fawn for either of them.

I am certain i read somewhere where it was said that BH has been technically defeated (I think by Buratai) Now that you have assumed the position of 'you people', please do tell us what happened and why BH is either being attacked or spearheading an attack.

For the records, I don't double speak, even if i make a comment and you come with a stronger and more plausible argument, i respect your reasoning. I am not in this for anything other than saying it how I know it best.

But when you referred to me as "you people" (only you knows what group of people you were referring to) in your previous post, did you remember to verify whether or not i am actually a fan of any politician in this country??

Now i only pointed out to you that it would be hypocrisy for a PDP supporter to attack officials of the current regime for claiming that Boko Haram has been technically defeated when their own party released a statement in which they claimed Boko Haram had been virtually annihilated under Goodluck Jonathan. And i quote:

'Nigerians and the international community will recall that the war effort received a major boost in the weeks leading up to the 2015 general elections. The insurgents were virtually annihilated - a feat that made it possible for elections to hold peacefully in almost all the Local Government Areas of all the states in the North East last year'

Source: https://www.naij.com/1079592-pdp-applauds-buhari-army-clearing-sambisa-forest.html

Secondly, i expect you to understand what was meant by "technical defeat". Those who capitalize upon this phrase to do so to score political points but a true neutral knows that the phrase technical defeat does not at all imply complete victory over the defeated. Technical in this respect is used as an adjective, with the intention of qualifying the noun whihc it describes. Clearly, it was used to clarify that boko haram is not outrightly defeated! That is to say the Nigerian Army, by virtue of the statement, were said to have overcome the capability of boko haram to execute its goals. I.e, if boko haram were prevented from carrying out attacks using their regular modus operandus, they could be said to be practically, or technically defeated. Furthermore, the person who made that statement actually clarified in the same statement what he meant:

“Boko Haram has reverted to using improvised explosive devices (IEDs),” he said. “Indoctrinating young guys… they have now been reduced to that.

“But articulated conventional attacks on centres of communication and populations.. they are no longer capable of doing that effectively.

“So I think technically we have won the war because people are going back into their neighbourhoods. Boko Haram as an organised fighting force, I assure you, that we have dealt with them.”

soure: http://thenationonlineng.net/boko-haram-technically-defeated-says-president/

The qualifiers of the victory were clearly spelt out here in that BH has resorted to:

a) using IED's
b) indoctrinating young boys:
and are incapable of
c) mounting conventional attacks;
and
d) people are now able to return to their homes and neighborhoods (in areas that had been completely out of the control of the federal government just a few months earlier (even though PDP would have us believe that boko haram had been virtually annihilated by this time).

Since the person who said boko haram had been technically defeated (which literally translates to: boko haram has been defeated in the important ways), then went on to detail the particular ways they were defeated, and you fault his statement, the onus is now on you to highlight and prove which of them was a lie at the time.

SmartyPants:


But when you referred to me as "you people" (only you knows what group of people you were referring to) in your previous post, did you remember to verify whether or not i am actually a fan of any politician in this country??

Now i only pointed out to you that it would be hypocrisy for a PDP supporter to attack officials of the current regime for claiming that Boko Haram has been technically defeated when their own party released a statement in which they claimed Boko Haram had been virtually annihilated under Goodluck Jonathan. And i quote:

'Nigerians and the international community will recall that the war effort received a major boost in the weeks leading up to the 2015 general elections. The insurgents were virtually annihilated - a feat that made it possible for elections to hold peacefully in almost all the Local Government Areas of all the states in the North East last year'

Source: https://www.naij.com/1079592-pdp-applauds-buhari-army-clearing-sambisa-forest.html

Secondly, i expect you to understand what was meant by "technical defeat". Those who capitalize upon this phrase to do so to score political points but a true neutral knows that the phrase technical defeat does not at all imply complete victory over the defeated. Technical in this respect is used as an adjective, with the intention of qualifying the noun whihc it describes. Clearly, it was used to clarify that boko haram is not outrightly defeated! That is to say the Nigerian Army, by virtue of the statement, were said to have overcome the capability of boko haram to execute its goals. I.e, if boko haram were prevented from carrying out attacks using their regular modus operandus, they could be said to be practically, or technically defeated. Furthermore, the person who made that statement actually clarified in the same statement what he meant:

“Boko Haram has reverted to using improvised explosive devices (IEDs),” he said. “Indoctrinating young guys… they have now been reduced to that.

“But articulated conventional attacks on centres of communication and populations.. they are no longer capable of doing that effectively.

“So I think technically we have won the war because people are going back into their neighbourhoods. Boko Haram as an organised fighting force, I assure you, that we have dealt with them.”

soure: http://thenationonlineng.net/boko-haram-technically-defeated-says-president/

The qualifiers of the victory were clearly spelt out here in that BH has resorted to:

a) using IED's
b) indoctrinating young boys:
and are incapable of
c) mounting conventional attacks;
and
d) people are now able to return to their homes and neighborhoods (in areas that had been completely out of the control of the federal government just a few months earlier (even though PDP would have us believe that boko haram had been virtually annihilated by this time).

Since the person who said boko haram had been technically defeated (which literally translates to: boko haram has been defeated in the important ways), then went on to detail the particular ways they were defeated, and you fault his statement, the onus is now on you to highlight and prove which of them was a lie at the time.

There is no onus placed on me, the facts speaks for themselves. If you are still fighting a group that has been defeated and there were subsequent speeches to the effect that BH no longer exists (I am not an archivist and don't retain information that bears no direct impact on my everyday life), I will stand on the maxim dictum that 'res ipsa loquitor'.

If they have been defeated, why are we still fighting them? Review the term defeat. A defeated group no longer remains in a fight. In a war situation such as this, they are bound in chains and taken away as war captives. Where they have scattered, they are so subdued that they do not remain a formidable force. That is not the case here, and that is my point. You can argue all you like and bring pages and make references that fill the internet, i stand on the promises and assurances of the General (Both the one leading the war and the one in hospital).

I rest my case.

ItsTheBachelor:


I don't knw the road. I need someone to show me.

U might need a google map and some few thousand of naira....safe trip ooo and bring something

hardbody:


There is no onus placed on me, the facts speaks for themselves. If you are still fighting a group that has been defeated and there were subsequent speeches to the effect that BH no longer exists (I am not an archivist and don't retain information that bears no direct impact on my everyday life), I will stand on the maxim dictum that 'res ipsa loquitor'.

If they have been defeated, why are we still fighting them? Review the term defeat. A defeated group no longer remains in a fight. In a war situation such as this, they are bound in chains and taken away as war captives. Where they have scattered, they are so subdued that they do not remain a formidable force. That is not the case here, and that is my point. You can argue all you like and bring pages and make references that fill the internet, i stand on the promises and assurances of the General (Both the one leading the war and the one in hospital).

I rest my case.

You read all that i posted up there for you, carefully explaining the implication of the adjective, technical, further quoting the precise words of Mr. Lai Mohammed, and you could still come out with the bolded? I only bothered to type all that because you claimed to be neutral... what a complete waste of my time!

SmartyPants:


You read all that i posted up there for you, carefully explaining the implication of the adjective, technical, further quoting the precise words of Mr. Lai Mohammed, and you could still come out with the bolded? I only bothered to type all that because you claimed to be neutral... what a complete waste of my time!

I lay no unverifiable claim. I simply wasn't sold on your ideas and explanations. That doesn't also mean I stand with GEJ. I am only saying that the claim of BH defeat is not in tandem with recent realities of the war against insurgency. My views about the mediocrity of both leaders still stands. Sadly you strongly believe that I must be either for one or the other, which is not and cannot be the case here. Sorry.