We must be reasonable in our comments and learn to balance issues.
You can't send police officers to quench a quasi-military camp, which is maintained by Nnamdi Kanu, who has aggressively vowed to tear apart a sovereign nation, Nigeria.

Kanu made a serious mistake by parading a ragtag army; especially when you have a former General as the president, that was disrespectful.

Nigerian soldiers don't like to be disrespected; in fact, from working with soldiers in the United States (Michigan National Guard, Joint Forces Headquarters), I can tell you that, generally, soldiers don't like to be disrespected.

If someone, a civilian for that matter, maintains and parades militants (wearing a military uniform), he should not expect the government to roll in with police officers and patrol vans; he should reasonably expect army tanks.

Pursuant to the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3, your status changes once you start wearing an army uniform, for you become an enemy combatant:

A recognized army (the Nigerian Army, in this case) can use force to neutralise you and your fellow militants.
Let’s gaze into history here:

When the 1791 "Whiskey Rebellion" happened in the United States, spearheaded by some civilians, President George Washington did not send in police officers, he brought in military tanks to quench the rebellion.

In the United States, we so much want to copy & emulate their lifestyle, when violence escalates, a governor, pursuant to Title 32 of the United States Code, can summon the army and their tanks to the street (didn’t you watch CNN at the height of the “Black Lives Matter movement;” didn’t you see numerous armoured personnel carrier (APC) on the street)?

Let's stop pretentiously invoking the violation of the rule of law, especially if you don't understand the rule of law and the rule of engagement.

A military incursion, or rolling of tanks, into a street, in order to clear the illusion of outlaws, like Nnamdi and his cohorts, is not a violation of the rule of law, but an enforcement of the rule of law

If Kanu is scared of a small deployment of soldiers, will he chicken out when battalions are deployed?

To his supporters, we told you this: secession is not won on Facebook. Continue arguing about the violation of the rule. Listen, when hostility begins, the rule of law is suspended or amended. I hope we won't get there.

Nice.

Military camp without guns and bombs? You guys have one thing in common, You enjoy peddling lies.

The Kanu guy said, " I am ready to die for Biafra".
Since soldiers closed in on him around his father's house, nobody has seen or heard the guy.
While travelling to Awka and Abakilike he stepped down frm d car to "show himself". But right in front of his gate are soldiers and d guy cannot "show himself".

Idiots have died bkos f Kalu's false courage and conviction in the Biafran struggle.... many more will still die so long as dey leave the igbos of Nigeria God made dem to remain Biafran fools that d Kanu guy can toy with.

where z d BSS and all sorts f nonsense they have bn launching and showing online?

Hmmmmmmm

The Egwu eke/Python dance have shown their strenght: nothing so far from Kalu's David Dance....

hatchy:
We must be reasonable in our comments and learn to balance issues.
You can't send police officers to quench a quasi-military camp, which is maintained by Nnamdi Kanu, who has aggressively vowed to tear apart a sovereign nation, Nigeria.

Kanu made a serious mistake by parading a ragtag army; especially when you have a former General as the president, that was disrespectful.

Nigerian soldiers don't like to be disrespected; in fact, from working with soldiers in the United States (Michigan National Guard, Joint Forces Headquarters), I can tell you that, generally, soldiers don't like to be disrespected.

If someone, a civilian for that matter, maintains and parades militants (wearing a military uniform), he should not expect the government to roll in with police officers and patrol vans; he should reasonably expect army tanks.

Pursuant to the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3, your status changes once you start wearing an army uniform, for you become an enemy combatant:

A recognized army (the Nigerian Army, in this case) can use force to neutralise you and your fellow militants.
Let’s gaze into history here:

When the 1791 "Whiskey Rebellion" happened in the United States, spearheaded by some civilians, President George Washington did not send in police officers, he brought in military tanks to quench the rebellion.

In the United States, we so much want to copy & emulate their lifestyle, when violence escalates, a governor, pursuant to Title 32 of the United States Code, can summon the army and their tanks to the street (didn’t you watch CNN at the height of the “Black Lives Matter movement;” didn’t you see numerous armoured personnel carrier (APC) on the street)?

Let's stop pretentiously invoking the violation of the rule of law, especially if you don't understand the rule of law and the rule of engagement.

A military incursion, or rolling of tanks, into a street, in order to clear the illusion of outlaws, like Nnamdi and his cohorts, is not a violation of the rule of law, but an enforcement of the rule of law

If Kanu is scared of a small deployment of soldiers, will he chicken out when battalions are deployed?

To his supporters, we told you this: secession is not won on Facebook. Continue arguing about the violation of the rule. Listen, when hostility begins, the rule of law is suspended or amended. I hope we won't get there.

Where did you copy this story from? Please include the source and url. Article 3 of 1949 Geneva Convention, does NOT say anything about "how your status changes once you start wearing an army uniform, for you become an enemy combatant." Please go and read it. It talks about how civilians and ex-combatants should be given humane treatment during a civil war, or during a period of armed conflict.

Atleast the clown will stop acting...