₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
LoLz. You have no clue because you are a lemming.

Look up 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

I have, the US did not pledge to defend Ukraine, they said they won't attack ukraine or use nukes against them. Russia and the UK also pledge they won't attack Ukraine. So the assignment for you is to quote where the US claims they will defend Ukraine in a war.

This goes to show how you have comprehension problem.

bayelsaowei:
The difference is Ukraine isn’t the aggressor in the war against Russia. It doesn’t matter if Ukraine is part of NATO or not.

In the case of the US-Isreal invasion on Iran, they are both the aggressors. Anybody beg them to go start war?

If Trump wants to abandon Ukraine then let him go ahead and do it. The EU will support Ukraine. One maniac cannot be holding the whole world to ransom. He should buzz off..

Ukraine is not the aggressor still does not matter, they needed America, so when America needs them they turn their backs.

The UK can't even manage their ships because they know in times of need the US will send theirs.

You hear countries like Spain saying they are blocking airspace. Why do such a thing?

They have shown their hands and the US should pull out of NATO. It is useless

LordReed the bot deleted your post. And post was nonsense and have no clue of what you are asking me to read.

Why does the EU and NATO countries want the US to help contain Russia while they simultaneously reject helping US contain Iran?

It is not their War they said. Ukraine is not Americas' war too

bayelsaowei:
Ukraine is not also the aggressor.

Well, the EU nations now provide support to Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor and must be resisted.

In the Iran case, Trump and his boy friend Netanyahu are the aggressors.

My Point is, Ukraine is not the United States war, it is not happening in the backyard of the United States, yet they want the US to carry the burden more than them. Help me. Explain this point to LordReed, the guy does not grasp anything.

The war is in the backyard of the EU., Ukraine is not in NATO so why is NATO defending Ukraine?

You said Russia was the aggressor, yes, Ukraine is also not a NATO member. As for the United States, they are doing so while the entire NATO community is discussing. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. They must cut down their ballistic program.

Iran has been aggressive long before Trump became the president.

budaatum:
I totally agree! And with much civility.

When education isn't the foundation of our society, problems increase, especially with so many ethnic groups involved.

Conflicts can easily arise too. There are many layers to this issue.

budaatum:
It's not like you are likely to turn blue or I go red all of a sudden, but we can be ideologically different and still agree to disagree with civility.

It takes brain power, I admit. The question is, do you and I have such powers, or wish to cultivate it?

Mere ideological difference is not conflict.

Conflict is disagreement + antagonism, especially where there is intent to harm, suppress, or act against the other party.

So, disagreement is normal, like you said, we can agree to disagree and still remain civil.

DeepSight:
+
Have a look here and go ahead and defend again.

Charlie Kirk reposted this tweet: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1958744916818796844

Guys watch this and tell me if deepsight is not crazy.
So Charlie Kirk is racist for posting this?

pic.twitter.com/2NZr4O47cH

— Nightmare Vision (@GodCloseMyEyes) August 21, 2025

I posted something similar how in our language in the various tribes of Africa, we don't have the word or concept for maintenance.

This one was explained by a black man who has lived in Nigeria, other African countries, and is currently in the US.

DeepSight:
+
Remember what I said about many statements being corroborative. If those were the only things he said, people wouldnt shout racism. But he made MANY different statements, including reposting and supporting a raycist tweet that claimed Africans cannot plan ahead, and lack words for the future.

As you learn the context of what he said you see none of it are racist. So you want to say he said this small thing here, there and so and so. Let's just conclude he is a racist because they are uncomfortable but legitimate topic or discussion to be heard.

This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

DeepSight:
+
I have shown that his argument was wrong and if you read the post I made to basilico you will also see that there were underlying sentiments with the way he spoke of MLK.

The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with what he complains of: look at my post to basilico you will see that I cited the sections of the Act which specifically prohibit the things he complained about. So he didnt have a clue what he was arguing and its obvious he never read the Act.

And to add one more thing. Just as with Trump, when a person has made many raycist statements, its corroborative. You can excuse a few and rationalize them, but when there are many, it speaks to a bent.

Yeah, you can say it is wrong but don't say he is racist for that or what he was saying is racist

DeepSight:
+
Thank you for clarifying but pls see my detailed response to basilico on Kirk's statement on the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, but Charlie Kirk issue about the civil rights act was against government overreach not black people.

You have called him a racist for that without understanding the argument he is making.

budaatum:
We can learn ben. You and I can learn to see each other as human beings and treat each other with regard and respect despite our differences.

Care to try from now on?

We can, some of us like me are aware but unfortunately, humans will always see themselves as different. I am being called a House neeg for saying I see white people as people not white. That is proving my point. I always complain about the US vs them mentality on this thread.

So you know what I mean. I am not saying brothers don't fight and all those things. But when two people who have never seen each other before, interacted before are fighting because of their identity, you know what I mean. This is why I said your siblings argument does not make sense.

DeepSight:
+
You only answered for apartheid. Talk. E get why.

Is it your view that black people were better off in the states before the Civil Rights Movement?

You will hear me say black people were doing better in that era in terms of looking after their own, family values, two parent households etc. Aside from that they were in a struggle too.

2. Is it your view that the Civil Rights Act (and Voting Rights Act) were mistakes?

The reason Charlie said it was a mistake has nothing to do with the rights of black people. What he was saying is the civil rights act's goal of ending Jim Crow was legitimate and noble,

His argument is that; it overreach by giving government permanent authority over private businesses and employment. and that this spawned bureaucratic tools like the EEOC and disparate impact doctrine that drifted into reverse discrimination and speech suppression.

His position is that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was always the proper constitutional vehicle making the statute unnecessary and ultimately harmful to limited government and individual liberty. So his argument has nothing against black people.

3. Is it your view that black people are better off on account of slavery?

How can black people be better off on slavery?

DeepSight:
+
I am asking you, talk.

I have talked and notice how you ignored it 😂

DeepSight:
+
Are you afraid or shamed of your own opinions? Two people said you certain things. Answer, I want to confirm.
I added the apartheid one myself as I think it is corelated.

If you believe it's my opinion then why are you asking?

You have already made up crap in your head.

But to give you an idea.
Apartheid bad, south Africans, blacks are in control, they have the foundation, a good one to build upon, to strive on, to improve and continuously develop. But we know how things are going.

DeepSight:
+
Pls be so kind as to answer these for me -

1. Is it your view that black people were better off in the states before the Civil Rights Movement?

2. Is it your view that the Civil Rights Act (and Voting Rights Act) were mistakes?

3. Is it your view that black people are better off on account of slavery?

3. Is it your view that apartheid in South Africa was good?

What does your fantasies have to do with my post?
How are your questions related to the video I posted.

budaatum:
Your wishing is advocacy.

You do not need to eliminate "all these ethnicities" before human beings see themselves as one. You just need to educate people to see each other as one.

It is what Jesus is trying to teach you when he commands you to love your neighbours. He did not only mean those living next door to you, but those in the neighbouring villages and countries too. Today, technology makes every human on earth your neighbour, whom you should learn to love instead of letting the likes of Tommy teach you to hate.

Well, the fact that human beings don't see themselves as one is a thing. Today there is religious conflict, Gender conflict, political conflict etc.

I'd love if we could see ourselves as one but that's not how things are.

nateevs:
Sir, your intellect cannot be this shallow.

Surely you can what he's trying to tell you. You are insisting on ethnicity being the root cause of conflict..... he's showing you examples of numerous intra-ethnic conflict, but you continue to pauldron garbage.

What exactly are you advocating for?

even when people belong to the same broader ethnic group, conflict can still happen because smaller sub identities remain. So the issue is not just different ethnic groups in the broad sense, but layers of identity. eg. ethnic group, sub-group or clan, village or town,
religion, political faction, family lineage.

The more society is divided into many identity units, the more openings there are for rivalry over land, leadership, oil money, political appointments, recognition, and historical grievance.

So I am not insisting anything. I am saying with more ethnic groups, the likelihood for conflict is high. Budaatum knows this.

Budaatum, deepsight, look at the common sense I was trying to share with you guys. At least Budaatum got some of it. As for deepsight, it's a opeless effort 😂😂

Now, I don't agree with every thing she says.

Did Independence come too early? 🇳🇬 vs 🇳🇦

Namibia stayed colonized until 1990. Nigeria left in 1960. Today, Namibia's roads are world-class while our hospitals are in darkness. What can we say about Colonialism in the Africa? 🍋 pic.twitter.com/JE1zC3ciE9

— Oloma Juice 🍋 (@islemonjuice) March 30, 2026

budaatum:
There was never 4 people on earth ben. But yes, stewpidity is the reason humans do not learn to coexist.


Actually, it is learned behaviour. And you can easily go to school to learn not to be stewpid too.

We teach it in schools here in UK, though some, like Tommy, still refuse to learn.


No Ben, I am not agreeing with what you are saying, and what you are advocating for in your saying is stewpid and impossible to implement since you can not limit the movement of people with different ethnicities.

The below is to stimulate you to research the early mixing of humans and their multiculture, and to dispute your 4 people in the world!

I am not advocating for anything. I said I wish we did not have all these ethnicities, that's all. That there are so much conflicts because we don't see each other as one.

You already agree with this. So you can argue with yourself

I swear I love liberals and democrats 🤣🤣🤣

They are too DMB. Just look at IjeBos

The GAYS of Hormuz 🤣🤣😂😂🤣😂

Finally someone is addressing this…

pic.twitter.com/dsrXQPmc19

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) March 30, 2026

tctrills:
You don't know me, I guess we have never spoken but somehow, I am racist. I am sure you don't even know the meaning of racism.
Anyway take care of yourself. Deepsight can you see your WhatsApp group?

But why did you respond to me 😂😂😂
I am sure this is not for me

So they are causing problems and crimes

https://twitter.com/real_eire/status/2038682218780868911

You cannot say the same thing about Ukrainian refugees

budaatum:
There is no way I can convince you that it is your own misunderstanding that is the "kind of", and that is to be expected since you do not wish to be dominated by me.

It is not that "zulus and Igbos are not one in SA" that makes them stewpid. The fact they can not peacefully coexist (if they can not, that it), is what makes them stewpid.

If they were not stewpid they'd learn to coexist even if they disagree. It's what democracy was created to enable, note.


This need to dominate another is what makes them stewpid. And thankfully, they will learn to coexist or annihilate each other.

Think Europe. They used to fight wars of dominance, but have now wisely evolved into a peaceful union.


Ben, why are you trying to dominate me to keep quiet? I obviously have a lot to say and I am saying it.

Better is you dominating yourself and not engage me instead of trying to dominate me, which you can never ever do.

There were 4 people on earth when the first murder happened. That they cannot peacefully coexist is why they are stewpeed.

It's like you telling me the sky is blue 😂 of course it's blue. I am not arguing about whether they are stewpeed or not; I am saying once we have something to distinguish our identity, conflict is likely to occur, which is why I wish we didn't have so many ethnicities in this country. It is human nature, it's not whether we are stewpeed or not.


You are agreeing with what I am saying but still pretending I am saying something wrong.

So Germany wants Syrians to go back to their country, 80% of them. When they gather like this flying the flags of another country, you know you have issues. They will never assimilate.

Germany wants 80% of the Syrians in the country to return to Syria within the next three years, but Syrians say they won’t leave and that no one can force them. This will not end well. pic.twitter.com/qYBBD5U73q

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) March 30, 2026

DeepSight:
+
You must be living under a rock. You obviously have not been following the news since Trump resumed. No point.

As usual, empty barrel. Soon you will say House N, 😂😂😂

budaatum:
They are so close to one another is the point. And they are not one because they are being stupïd. And the fact that siblings of the same parents may fight and kill each other disproves your point, since two people can not identify closer than siblings.

You and I fighting is not because we are multicultural or multireasoning, but because one wants to dominate the other. Or would you claim you and I can not have our separate multireasonings and not fight? Must you agree with me ben, for there to be peace? And pray tell how I am supposed to make you agree with me please.

The fact that the zulus and Igbos are not one in SA means they are being stewpeed. The kind of arguments you make sometimes. We humans have issues, that's my point.

One culture wants to dominate another in a multicultural environment.

If you dont have anything to say how about you keep quiet?

budaatum:
My village people fighting our neighbours actually disproves what you are saying, but that's to be expected since you do not know how close to each other and integrated each village is.

Siblings who grow up in one home with the same culture killing each other easily disproves what you insist on believing. And you can't make people who live in the same house identify as same, much less neighbours, or those on the same street or even in the same town, so I'd like to see how you would eliminate diversity.

Besides, it's been tried and has failed. Below is but one example.
https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/london-stories/gordon-riots-revolution-in-the-making/

Your village people are neighbours indicates two identities. They are fighting because they are not one 😂

This is not hard.

Your siblings analogy no make sense.

budaatum:
You are not "telling", ben. You are merely staring your opinion why you think you "see so much conflicts in Nigeria today". And I am not agreeing with you since your opinion is not valid.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

If you dont see it is your problem, the people that were gunned down yesterday died because they are not fulanis.

Facts don't care about your opinions. Your village people fighting is a proof of what I am saying.

budaatum:
So, you want everyone to be in the same village and under one king, and then there will be no fighting?

Do you want the entire world to be one country ruled by one king too like China?

I do wonder how you'd explain USA that has one ruler and yet we are here fighting.

Glad you recognise however, that "people always identify themselves with sex, race, language etc". Add different location, and education too, and you might understand that identity is not so much a self thing but is imposed on one. I wouldn't identify as Nigerian if my parents were Ghanaian. And I wouldn't identify as British if I were born in Kumasi.

I like the way the Quran explains what your diversity should compel you to do. Jesus Christ taught the same thing with this parable, though the different identities elude most.

I am telling why you see so much conflicts in Nigeria today. Why is that hard to understand?

budaatum:
Ifon Osun and Orolu are neighbouring villages of the same descent and culture, and they are killing each other. And even siblings born of the same parent have been known to kill each other too.

Is it your argument that people should be the same sex and tribe and race etc, and identity, there will be no conflict?

In fact, do you want everyone to identify as bemeruca, or do you just not know what identity is?

Not the same village abi?
So it's different identities which is why they are fighting against one another.

There is probably a king in both villages.

That's not my argument. I am telling you people always identify themselves with sex, race, language etc. It's human nature and as a result we fight.

.