₦airaland Forum

Lucasbalo:
Good for Russia then. I know right wing politicians in US like George W, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain and their enablers shouting the same mantra here. When the terrorists gets to do damages in US cities, people turn against them. I am all for Russia in Syria as long as America gets out of that junk hole.

NairaMinted:
AMEN!!

What are your thoughts on this video by the way:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lnAeM73hIpU

Lucasbalo:
One thing people don't understand about Middle East is that Russia will eventually regret getting in the middle of civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Russia don't have the economic power to see this to a conclusion. When bombs start going off in Moscow, St. petersburg and other Russian cities, putin will find out that you break it, you own it. As for me, i want America to withdraw all her troops and bases from the Middle East. I do not want another 911 on American soil. I could care less if they wipe each other out in that part of the world. Putin will soon collapse the struggling economy of Russia with his adventure. I love America out of that hell hole and Russia in that God forgotten hell on earth.

Truthpallbearer:
Appleyard Saudi Arabia doesn't fund terrorism or Support terrorists (an-Nusra, DAESH/ISIL/ISIS). I was on this page before I researched into the truth and differentiated between facts and propaganda. Ideologically, logically and politically the accusation is false because the terrorist groups considered the al-Saud family as apostates which must be toppled as they don't protect the interest of Muslims, they called them friends of kuffar (West and Israel) that assisted in the killing of Muslims in Muslims countries. They accused them of not judging by shariah in some issues and adopt man made laws to judge between people.
The Saudi govt fought terrorists within Saudi Arabia way before the takefeeris went global and offered support to its allies in the region and the West. The terrorists called the scholars of Islam that refuted their falsehoods as scholars of petrodollars and mummified scholars and called those that worked with govt as apostates that must be killed first before others. The Saudi govt have the best counter-terrorism system in the world. Most of the anti-Saudi rhetoric and propaganda emanates from Iran, some liberals and other groups within the Muslim sects that have hatred for Saudi Arabia and what they stand for. The Western media will take such negative propaganda without verifying them and spread it to cause distrust and hatred for the kingdom.

CFCfan:
And to prove my point, Republican "insiders" picked Rubio as the winner of yesterday's debate..

NairaMinted:
Yup! You noticed how CNN and a host of other mainstream media blew Hilary's trumpet as the winner of the last debate despite online polls showing that Bernie had won by an average of at least 70-80%?

The elections is the most elaborate and sophisticated sham ever. The US "democracy" is the best democracy that money can buy. Simple! A complete farce but a lot of people don't see it.

CFCfan:
And so-called presidential elections are a sham. The Globalists select the nominees of both major parties.
The Economist, a globalist mouth-piece, seems to have revealed that Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio are the anointed ones this time....

NairaMinted:
Oga, this is Foreign Affairs with as little words as possible. Memes are doing all the talking. How on earth is something this serious a joke?

okosodo:
These guys are no match to NATO

Missy89:
Yeah some of her theories makes sense. I just dont like the way she responds do reasonable criticism of her work. The truther community is divided of many events and it is hard to reach one conclusive theory about how the whole thing went down so there are different theories.

I will just pm it to you and lemme know what you think.

Zoharariel:
Ofcourse, US has been firing long range missiles, just like the ones they fired on Kunduz Hospital in Afghanistan on 3rd of October, killing over 22 civilians including multiple children.

My friend, abeg, stop watching CNN.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2015/10/05/kunduz/

Vladimirovich Mohammadu Putin; Thou fire of my loins, Arise and killuminate all my enemies.

NairaMinted:
Anyone heard these rumours that Russia is planning to use nuclear weapons in Syria?

Is it Western propaganda or there is an element of truth to it?

@Appleyard, @SirShymm3x, @truckpusher @underground @cap28 @ CFCfan


Update: Probably it's nothing as folks like Michael Yon is notoriously anti-Kremlin

jnhmaxxwell:
You need to see this to understand.. TO have an idea of what Russia got. See the Old KRET capabilities here.. https://www.nairaland.com/2706250/video-how-kret-richag-av-russian#39584648

What is the essence of anti-aifract when it can't shoot down a military airplane..Let me even tell you one known fact today. I witness this myself.. If Russian military comes close to your home like say 20-30km.. All the battery or anything that has to do with transmitters will not work for some time. Your car battery will run down. Phone.. just name it.. Communication will be jammed.. Just forget about communication for some time.. This is how to fight war in the 21st century. This is one of the main reasons mcCain delivered Stingers battery are not working. So you can't shoot down any military copter..

The copters are used for the jamming and then SU bombers follows to deliver heavy bombs at ISIL's door step.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=103&v=unrtNOTJd34

Underground:
The bottom line is 911 is obviously a false flag operation.
Truthers in their quest to piece together the events of that day and the actors behind those events, will undoubtedly be off the mark in some of their analysis. It's easy to point out holes in some analyses such as thermites (or some other material entirely used separately or alongside the termite to bring down the towers in a controlled manner) since it's hard to prove that it was indeed used in light of the debris being carted away.

Will be expecting the links.

Missy89:
The thermite story has been debunked long time ago.

She said when the plane was taken over by remote control, the pilot won't have a way to contact air control that they have been hijacked and when the transponder is turned off, the plane won't show on the radar screen. That wasnt true either. And the claim that the original passengers were gas to death had no substantial evidence to back it up

She even said flight attendants have a code word during hijacking which is also false.

I argued about her book on reddit few months ago. My point is, there are better 911 truthers narrative than Roth. She is no expert because she was a flight attendant.

She only added little information to what we already know.The rest looks like fiction to me. Everybody is claiming to be an expert these days.

Her work was reviewed by Paul Zarembka another Truther and Andrew Johnson. Will send you the links. I dont want to be banned by spambots here again.

mazeltov:
Lwkmd, Appleyard, you keep recycling the same defective/substandard point and it has long lost its taste and sensitivity and has also plunged my psyche to sustain this back and forth due to your unceasing projection of Vietnam war aberrance and misconception.
Also, your premeditated banality encrusted in form of humoral reposite to engage my antecedent comments holds no modicum of analytical cum appealing positivism to even apostrophize some preponderant fact I have bewrayed which was, Who defeated America? on the same theme was failure to address what led to gradual withdrwal of American's troops.
Also your protracted frivolities to absorb the above ''apothegm'' in question has diaphanously publicized the depth of your knowledge as regards to all-inclusive scenarios in Viet war but I would like to depurate the little profundity of yours for the last time.
Firstly Viet war was bifacial which means, the winner did't achieve its intrisic objective and the loser didn't give up the rope so it's illogical, unreasoned and unprofessional to converge the lines of your prejudiced interests on the American's elementary objective(s) without complementing it with some unimpeachable axioms like
1. What led to gradual exodus of troops in Viet?
2. You failed to assess the 'then' state of war and who was at home, who was invading.
3. Was America on the verge of victory before their ballon was punctured by citizens' protest at home.
Above all, who defeated America?
I thought all these questions would spring to your mind and the potency of your insight/knowledge would be channeled to these cynosures as aforementioned above, but you keep battologizing the same subterguge to beguile the minds fleeceable ones by saying the outcome of a war is not determined by who inflicts most casualties; for God's sake, this is paralytic, unprofessional and out of point.
I never argued about the objective of United state to invade and uphold Viet but this mission wasn't blown away because they lost in the frontline or by the dexterity of the enemies' art of war - but because there was another war at home which had already divided americans. Yes I agree, America couldn't achieve their objective but the question I keep asking is who defeated America?
I pray this closest example will give you a clue of my point
In a fight between Appleyard and Mazeltov, Appleyard's primary objective is to cut off Mazeltov's head and after Appleyard had beaten Mazeltov mercilessly and helplessly, Appleyard was unable to cut off Mazeltov's head due to some prevailing circumstances.
Note: Appleyard's decision or inability to cut off Mazeltov's head doesn't mean that Appleyard lost the fight to Mazeltov and it doesn't mean that Mazeltov defeated Appleyard in the fight. - with this, the burning question is, who won the fight between the two? chill, your answer is as good as mine.

mazeltov:
Lolzz, Appleyard, despite the fact that you are wrong from head to toe, you reply sounds more like an excuse than reason to me and I could see how hard you have been trying to jump and recoat facts and records so as to unify them with the ignorance of the gullible ones here - who have little or no knowledge about what pellucidly transpired before, during and after Viet war. It's quite unfortunate that many minds have been scorched with this mutual fallacy that America lost the war but I hope this come-back would unyoke their ignorance and give them bright insight. Yes I perfectly understood your standing point which is - the fundamental objectives of America to occupy Viet was not achieved ; not ''defeated'' yes it wasn't. However I will try as much as possible to down beat the message that I'm trying to relay across so as to enlighten and give you pellucid insight.
Firstly I never argued about the intention of America and their course, aims and Objectives of United state in Viet, this is one thing which I can't debate, another thing which you can't debate is the withdrawal of American's troops despite the fact that they have inflicted severe casualties against the opponent. Let's be more objective here and forget about sentiment.I'm defining victory in terms of the number of casualties suffered in the war not in terms of objective and I will gladly tell you why the objective wasn't achieved. The Opponent lost about 195,000-430,000 civilians while the number of soldiers lost was more than 313,000 which is far greater than what United state suffered. Without presupposing, this is a flawless victory for United state and its ally and a heavy loss for the opponent, ''1'' with this figures, one could easily predict the trend of the war and how it could have ended, and one could boldly say that - had it been United state had not withdrawn their troops, it would have been a convincing victory for them.
''2'' America was wining the war until they left Veit, America was on the verge of victory until the protest started. These alone should tell you that America withdrew not becuase they were losing but because they realized that the war lacked merit of support.
Yes I quite agree with you that their objective wasn't achieved but you find it hard to do some fact-findings as regards to why and what led to the withdrawal. Had it been that there wasn't any protest at home in United states, with the 'then' number of casualties, the opponent would have surrendered sooner or later.
Now when the protest against the war began at home, In United States, the effects of the Vietnam War would linger long after the last troops returned home in 1973. The nation spent more than $120 billion on the war in Vietnam from 1965-73; this massive spending led to widespread inflation, exacerbated by a worldwide oil crisis
Now saying that United state was defeated because they couldn't occupy Viet and their aim wasn't achieved is completetly unresourceful, lame and lack merit. That's why up till today, the Us war Veterans in Pentagon always say ''the war was lost at home I rest my case

Missy89:
The valid argument is that it is not illegal but what you choose to do with your free speech is moral and there way no measure or control that since we all have different views

Tkester:
Mehn I tell ya appleyard, I can never grow tired of reading your posts, It gives me mental ejaculation. Darn, you write with a kind of literary prose that sets my feet dancing Makossa.

Respect

Tkester:
Appleyard, that girl you responded to is a dimwit, she maliciously wants to misrepresent fact. She's a trained LAIR, next time leave her to her lies.

Your analysis on that topic carried the day. You're a champ!