₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
We rely in evidence. If I tell you how this world came about without a shred of evidence backing my claim,would you believe me

+
In fairness, the evidence of how this universe came about is likely permanently outside the paygrade or capacity of this humanity.
It is also likely outside the realm of physical science alone.

Dtruthspeaker:
If you had eating and had any sense at all then you would have known that restating our assertions at this time and in the way you said it, means you have previously accepted the evidence supplied, hence proof. But since your cuss started you have been losing sense every day.

+


Shift jaare.

SlavaUkraini:
The Justification is numerous but it is not acceptable to those that are Anti American.

Which is understandable..

+
Come on bro, lets be serious and leave this anti-American thing. How does one country say there is crime in another country and then launches military strikes with such an excuse. If that holds, every country can attack every other country on the grounds of crime.

Those crimes rest in the province of law enforcement and not illegal wars.

In the past, other American govts have even approached it by true cooperation with the local government. This was how people like Escobar and El Chapo were dealt with.

Cycleoftheworld:
The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against the colonial expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

+
The Ottoman Empire did not exist when the First Crusade was launched.

Dtruthspeaker:
That means they have proven it already hence no dispute

+
How does that mean they have proven it?
Have you eaten and taken your meds?

Dtruthspeaker:
No one demanded theists to prove the nature of God

+
But theists positively assert the nature of God all the time, as good, loving, kind, forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, three-in-one, one, eternal, just, jealous, etc.

nor do we contend with Him being described as Force and Pure Energy for if any one calls Him that, they are not far from the Truth

+
They do assert that he is a conscious being and even attribute masculinity to him in many cases.

LordReed:
As far as I understand the singularity is no longer held as an actual description of the nature of what preceded the big bang.

+
That may well be but simply because the truth is that they cant say what it was, and so you are right to say unknown. Not even could they ever properly describe what "singularity" meant. At best they say expansion from a point.

But tell me, what is the latest said.

LIBYA -

----------------------
Analyzing the impact of the US and French military interventions in Libya requires looking at three distinct phases: the 2011 "Operation Unified Protector" that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, the subsequent counter-terrorism strikes against ISIS, and the long-term regional destabilization that persists today.

While the 2011 intervention was framed as a "humanitarian success" for preventing a massacre in Benghazi, many scholars and critics now view it as a case study in how regime change without a "day-after" plan can create a failed state.

1. Immediate Impact: Regime Collapse (2011)
France and the US (as part of NATO) provided the air power and logistics that turned the tide for Libyan rebels.

The Overthrow of Gaddafi: French strikes were instrumental in destroying Gaddafi’s armored columns and ultimately striking his convoy in Sirte, leading to his capture and death.

Destruction of State Infrastructure: The bombing campaigns destroyed Libya's air defenses, much of its communication infrastructure, and its central military command. While this achieved the goal of regime change, it left a permanent institutional vacuum.

Casualties: While the intervention was intended to protect civilians, estimates of civilian deaths from NATO air strikes range from 72 (Human Rights Watch) to several hundred (Airwars).

2. Security Impact: The "Failed State" & Terrorism
The most profound impact was the fragmentation of the country into a patchwork of warring militias.

Rise of Extremism: Following the collapse of the central government, groups like ISIS and Ansar al-Sharia established strongholds in cities like Derna and Sirte. This necessitated further US air interventions (2015–2019) to root out ISIS cells that had exploited the power vacuum.

Proliferation of Weapons: Libya's massive state armories were looted. These weapons—including MANPADS (shoulder-fired missiles)—flooded the black market, fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria, and Gaza.

Two Governments: The intervention inadvertently set the stage for a decade of civil war between rival administrations in Tripoli (West) and Tobruk/Benghazi (East), with France and the US often finding themselves supporting different factions or goals.

3. Geopolitical & Humanitarian Impact
The intervention’s "ripple effects" transformed the Mediterranean and North Africa.

The Migration Crisis: Under Gaddafi, Libya acted as a "gatekeeper" for migration to Europe. After the 2011 attacks, the borders collapsed. Libya became the primary transit point for human trafficking, leading to a humanitarian crisis where thousands of migrants have died in the Mediterranean or faced slavery and torture in Libyan detention camps.

Destabilization of the Sahel: The fall of Libya directly triggered a coup in Mali (2012) as Tuareg fighters, previously employed by Gaddafi, returned home heavily armed. This sparked a jihadist insurgency that still plagues West Africa today.

The "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) Debate: The Libya case is frequently cited as a failure of the R2P doctrine. It has made powers like Russia and China deeply skeptical of Western-led humanitarian interventions, a shift that directly impacted international responses to the Syrian Civil War.

SlavaUkraini:
Even the BRICS "coalition" will still not break America's stronghold on global politics and economics.

The Nations in BRICS will still end up doing business with the US and will have to meet American terms and conditions.

The Chinese Economy is so interwoven with the US economy that they cannot do without themselves....

+
It will take time, but the world must break free from that very unfair veto system which was put in place by the winners of WW2.

The vested American interests and ruthless players will always be there because there is nothing like a Free launch...

There are certain things that the US would want to achieve by bringing down the Maduro regime and I see nothing wrong with those objectives..

Illicit Drugs Flow into the US and Latin America will reduce or stop

The flow of migrants out of Venezuela will stop or be reduced because their country will be working again with many sanctions lifted..

And then the Petro-Dollar system will be cemented for the US - Venezuelan partnership which will normally favor the US..

+
There can be no justification for what the US is doing in Venezuela. No one stops them from monitoring their own borders more strictly.

BondRiv:
Provide the quote.

This is how you guys carry your feeble emotions into political discussions. Even that false narrative you are peddling has been debunked by the minister. You guys are so obsessed with Wike, while vultures like those Fubara dined with recently are sharing state resources.

Now, given the removal of subsidy and increase in allocations to the 36 states, what has Fubara been doing with Rivers State's money? He is receiving more than all the previous governors in Rivers State, but has nothing to show for it. The political crisis is also not an excuse for his failure.

Prior to the emergency rule, he told Rivers people that the crisis was not affecting his performance. The emergency rule ended several months ago, and he still doesn't have a direction. He has also reignited the crisis. You can't hide incompetence, no matter the excuses.

Being a clueless neophyte in politics certainly doesn't help his cause. Unfortunately for him, this is a political year. Let him perform his magic.

+
What did you mean by treachery?

BondRiv:
The USA is run by terrorists and war criminals. They are responsible for the chaos and destruction all over the world. This is how the USA has maintained its dominance.

+
This here is why I try not to judge people on only one viewpoint.
Well said.

Berankis:
I
The same bastard that wants to help Nigeria. It is better for Israel to help than the US. This Trump is a rogue!

+
Rogue is an understatement.

SlavaUkraini:
Continue to Cry 😭 😭😭

1.... The US is the UN

+
This is why alternative organizations like BRICS are necessary.

2..... Wake up, America has Oil and don't need Venezuelan Oil.

+
It is not the American State that needs that oil. Its vested American interests and ruthless players behind the scenes. Thats the way it works.

richeeyo:
Bros go to US embassy and protest

Do you have idea whats been going on in that Narco State

+
Illegal narco trade should be addressed by law enforcement and not illegal war.

SadiqBabaSani:
Following, bring more, so Somalia has been receiving U.S hits for 3 decades and not much has changed

+
Thats the reality.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Imikirin:
That the bombs are not quality

+
Ol boy, its not just the bombs I am talking about, everything in the process, from what is deployed, the technology, how precise and to the bombs. These people can hit a needle in a haystack and yet this happened. Also such bombs not going off is a serious quality assurance and safety issue.

Imikirin:
Show me proof

+
Proof of what?

Let us dispassionately assess the efficacy of US strikes purportedly against terrorism in African/ Developing Countries.

It is my view that US involvement is not altruistic and as far as history shows, tends to negative results.

Let us start with Somalia as an example.

-----------------

According to data from U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and independent monitors like New America, the totals for last year are:

Total Strikes: Approximately 114 to 118 strikes.

Comparison: This is a massive increase from 2024, where only 10 strikes were reported.

Historical Context: 2025 set a new record for U.S. kinetic activity in Somalia, surpassing the previous high of 63 strikes in 2019.

Impact and Casualty Assessments
Data regarding casualties became more difficult to track in mid-2025 when AFRICOM shifted its policy on publishing specific death tolls.

Militant Deaths: Estimates range from 115 to 292 total deaths (including militants and unidentified persons).

Civilian Casualties: AFRICOM generally reported zero civilian deaths for most of the year, though independent watchdog groups often investigate these claims further, noting the difficulty of verifying data in remote, al-Shabaab-controlled areas.

"Collective Self-Defense": Many of the strikes were labeled as "collective self-defense," meaning they were conducted to support Somali National Army (SNA) troops under immediate threat during ground operations.

------------------

How has the above improved the security situation in Somalia? These strikes are said to target ISIS Somalia and Al Shabab.
But what has been the result and impact on Somalia?

-------------------

While the U.S. conducted a record-breaking number of strikes in 2025, the strategic outcome was mixed:

Tactical Successes: The strikes killed several high-ranking ISIS-Somalia and al-Shabaab leaders. This disrupted immediate plotting against the U.S. homeland and provided "breathing room" for Somali National Army (SNA) troops during specific battles.

Al-Shabaab’s Resurgence: Despite the strikes, al-Shabaab launched a major offensive in July 2025, recapturing several strategic towns (such as Sabiid and Anole) and moving within 50 kilometers of the capital, Mogadishu. Analysts note that while strikes kill individuals, they haven't stopped the group's ability to tax the population and govern remote areas.

The ISIS Pivot: The U.S. shifted a massive amount of focus toward ISIS-Somalia in the north (Puntland) because the group has become a "financial hub" for global ISIS operations. While this may have helped global security, it left a "security gap" in the south that al-Shabaab exploited.
-----------------------------

Somalia remains deeply troubled and US activity there has been on for some 30 years.

The question remains how or if any stability has been brought to that beleguered country as a result.

Look at the history of US activity there -

-------------------------------

The United States has been active in Somalia for over 30 years, though the nature of the mission has shifted dramatically from humanitarian relief to a permanent counterterrorism campaign.

The involvement can be broken down into three distinct eras:

1. The Humanitarian Era (1992–1994)
The U.S. first intervened on a large scale during the Somali Civil War to combat a massive famine.

Operation Restore Hope: In 1992, President George H.W. Bush sent 25,000 troops to secure food aid deliveries that were being hijacked by local warlords.

"Black Hawk Down" (1993): The mission shifted from feeding people to a "man-hunt" for warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. This culminated in the Battle of Mogadishu, where 18 U.S. soldiers were killed.

Withdrawal: Following the public outcry over the battle, President Clinton withdrew all U.S. combat forces by March 1994.

2. The Shadow War Era (2001–2006)
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. returned to Somalia with a focus on counterterrorism, specifically hunting Al-Qaeda members responsible for the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

This was largely a "covert" period involving CIA-backed Somali warlords and occasional Special Operations raids.

In 2003, the U.S. established a permanent military base in neighboring Djibouti (Camp Lemonnier) to serve as a launchpad for Somali operations.

3. The Counterterrorism Era (2007–Present)
The modern conflict began in earnest in 2007, following the rise of the Islamic Courts Union and its militant wing, al-Shabaab.

First Airstrike: The first recorded post-9/11 airstrike occurred in January 2007, using an AC-130 gunship.

Drone Warfare: In 2011, the Obama administration authorized the first drone strikes in Somalia. Since then, the use of remote airpower has become the primary U.S. tool.

Permanent Presence: In 2017, the U.S. officially designated parts of Somalia as an "area of active hostilities," which loosened the rules for airstrikes and led to a permanent deployment of several hundred Special Operations forces (mostly "Green Berets" and Navy SEALs) to train the Somali Danab (Lightning) Brigade.
------------------------------------

Using the above as a historical example, can we analyze the likely results of US involvement in striking locations in Nigeria in a bid to fight terrorism. Especially in light of the results to be seen in other places like Libya, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and some parts of the Middle East where the US (and partners like France) have been similarly involved.

I should note that Nigeria's situation is very different from Somalia's however.

*Red text is culled from sources online.

PS: Mods/ NLFPMOD/ SEUN - This topic is not for foreign affairs because it is to analyze the situation in Nigeria specifically and the politics around it. Somalia and others are only being used as examples.

zinaunreal:
America dropped old rusty bombs suffering from decades of unuse . Use your brains Nigerians

+
I smile when people think the US will spend quality expensive weapons on Nigeria's issues. Never.

So much for precision strikes.

Pacesetter123:
Your first paragraph talks about the office of the president and not that of Vice President.
That one is a known fact.
But your last paragraph talks about the office of the vice President.
So,I want to ask:
Is the last paragraph your personal explanation/interpretation of the sections 137(1) and 142(2) you cited?

Or is that section explicitly talking about the office of the vice president just as it's talking about the office of the president in a clear and in an unambiquous term ?


If it's your personal interpretation,then I will need to confirm it from another lawyer because I have never heard of the tenure barrier to the office of the vice president and deputy governor.
It's only that of the no- 1 that I always heard of.So lemme consult my lawyer too for confirmation.

+
Please consult, but be rest assured no VP or Deputy Governor can go for more than two terms.

GloriousGbola:
just referencing the current state of events where the US is going full empire

+
You are right on that and there are violations of international and even domestic law at play. You may note that one senior officer resigned in protest when being forced by Hegseth.

anonimi:
How do we know that this chapter relates to section 137(1)

+
Because they are in the same chapter which deals with the Executive.

GloriousGbola:
what if they are confirmed drug smugglers tho [ just referencing the current state of events]

+
Let me add that aside from the requirement for a trial even under Nazi laws, many German officers outrightly refused orders to kill which they considered illegal and were not significantly punished for refusing. There is a documentary I recently watched on this. Some were given light punishments such as being transferred though.

GloriousGbola:
what if they are confirmed drug smugglers tho [ just referencing the current state of events]

+
The laws even then still mandated a trial.

GloriousGbola:
where my nuremberg peeps

+
If you are referring to Nazis who claimed the same excuse at the Nuremberg trials, I think there is a difference. Being directed to go and guard a compound or piece of land is not a manifestly illegal order. Being directed to to go and kill and torture innocent people is a manifestly illegal order.

seunmsg:
You’re capping nonsense. Is VAT a new tax? If she had made the same purchases last year, would she not have paid the exact same amount as VAT? So, why will any manufacturer increase price in January over a VAT law that has been in effect since the 90’s?

+

uzohrome:
The 7.5 % tax has been existing since 5 years. This attention seeking fellows. Very sad. In a sane country she should be arrested for fake news

+
On point. I wondered at the post. Looks silly to me.

anonimi:
Can you please provide the constitutional reference for this your claim.

+
Section 137(1): A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if - (b) he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections.

Section 142(2) states:

"The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualification, declaration of assets and liabilities and oaths of President shall apply in relation to the office of Vice-President as if references to President were references to Vice-President."

Cycleoftheworld:
Except atheists like you do make claims all the time. You have conjured up the concept of a "nothingness" that apparently can produce universes but you can't explain how nothing can do something in the first place.

The concept of God is already answered by the Prime Mover argument which says that God is eternal so Christians have already given you an answer.



OP literally gave you a source showing that most of the devastating wars throughout history have been secular and still you try to blame religion. Atheism itself has killed more than religion. This continues today with the atheist states of China and North Korea killing religious people or persecuting them because they practice religion. The Soviet Union killed millions and it was an atheist state. It also killed people literally in the name of atheism via its "League of Militant Atheists" organisations.



Not true, the majority of atheists are constantly shoving their beliefs upon everyone whether it be atheism itself or the many secular ideologies they believe in such as transgender and non binary nonsense. This is especially common amongst atheists in the West.



There's not really much to argue about with atheists. "Debating" atheists is like educating children. LMAO



It sounds like you atheists don't even go to school letalone university. Nobody here is confusing scientists with atheists. Scientists do not make the claims of atheists, in fact scientists are often the ones refuting atheist claims.

The only "scientists" to have argued in favour of a universe from nothing are all fringe and psuedo-scientists who have all been refuted. The fringe atheist scientist Lawrence Krauss and his book "A Universe from Nothing" was rejected by actual scientists including the physicist George Ellis who described it as nothing more than bad philosophy and fantasy.

This is because there's no evidence of a universe from nothing. The Big Bang Theory doesn't show a universe from nothing, it simply explains what happened after the moments that the universe begun.

Better go back to school yourself.









The Big Bang doesn't explain how the universe begun. It only shows that the universe had a beginning which is what we theists have been saying from the beginning.

The Big Bang Theory was actually proposed by the Catholic priest and scientist Georges Lemaître and was originally rejected by many atheists such as Fred Hoyle who argued that it "brought religious implications into physics by showing a beginning to the universe and therefore implying a creator."

Hoyle was right. The beginning of the universe does point to a creator as all things with a beginning need a cause.

It's funny LordReed says he doesn't believe matter, space and time came from nothing as all atheists do. He argues saying "unknown" in which case that makes him agnostic instead.

Unknown can only be two things: something or nothing. It's that simple. And well nothing does nothing and is by the very definition incapable of doing anything. So that means the universe can only come from something.

This universe coming from another and so on for infinity avoids the question. An infinite chain regression of universes without beginning would mean nothing should exist so ultimately there still had to be a first universe.

The idea of a eternal lifeless energy also doesn't answer anything. It's something but if it's lifeless, how can it produce the universe and the very laws of science which govern our universe? These very things came into existence with our universe so a lifeless energy wouldn't have any motion or the ability to do anything, since following the argument, the laws of science wouldn't have existed. It's like expecting a rock to move by itself without any outside influence, it's not going to happen.

This is why the idea of an eternal conscious energy aka God has always remained the logical position and philosophically sound because not only does it explains everything better, it adheres to logic unlike the naturalistic atheist worldview.

We also have the fine tuning of our universe which is something that is recognised by all scientists. Two examples below:

"N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist. If it were large enough, they would repel them so violently that larger atoms would never be generated."

"Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force. If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the Big Bang."

You can look up on science sites for more examples but things like this show conscious intelligence rather than happenstance from a something that shouldn't be able to do anything.

Atheism is ultimately a dead end philosophically and intellectually. If you are arguing that consciousness can come from random chance or nothingness, then you can't rule out the idea of a conscious entity that exists beyond the universe in any case. According to atheist naturalism, such a thing is a possibility.

You see, if atheists could actually think logically, they'd realise that and how atheist arguments always work against atheism itself.

+
Interesting and some legitimate points here.

However let me say that you can't claim that all atheists believe the universe came from nothing. There are different views. What unifies atheists is non belief in the existence of God or gods, not any specific knowledge on how the universe arose.

Also the logical challenge that remains for theists is proving the very nature of the God they say exists as being a conscious living being, as opposed to say, a simple force or pure energy.

LordReed:
Unknown.

+
It is said to be an expansion from the point of a singularity in theory.

LordReed:
I don't believe such a thing. Which atheist told you big bang came from nothing?

+
Lawrence Krauss famously or infamously argued that. Or something close to that. I think precisely that the universe arose from nothingness. I found it absurd because he proceeded to define that "nothingness" in a way which is alien to the meaning of the word itself.

It reminds me just how scientists have a different definition for time than that which exists in layman's experience.

Having said that, there is the failure by many (like Lawag3) to take note of different ideas such as creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing), creatio ex materia (creation from some matter already existing) and creatio ex deo (creation from the divine substance of the creator itself.

Cycleoftheworld:
Lol says the one who couldn't even read what I said. I said The Big Bang Theory only explains what happened AFTER the universe began and it's evidence of the fact that the universe had a beginning, not that it's the beginning of the universe.

+
I am interested in the distinction between the red and the blue please. Thank you.