Educatedfool's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Educatedfool's Profile › Educatedfool's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 27 pages)
Saystan:The way una dey paint the North as if na only there poverty dey, foreigners go think say una own states get 24/7 electricity, clean water, zero unemployment and world-class hospitals. Reality no dey social media propaganda. |
fredoooooo:It's you who conveniently forgot how Argentina won that World Cup. The officiating controversies from that tournament didn't disappear just because you choose to ignore them ![]() |
HacheNoire:God has exposed Argentina yesterday. They've consistently benefited from favorable draws against weaker opponents, and many controversial officiating decisions have gone their way throughout tournaments |
Mattswaggz:Argentina should've gone home after the Egypt match, but FIFA seems determined to hand them the trophy. |
Internation market as how ![]() |
Nastrademus:You keep daring Iran to attack Israel. I dare Israel to hit Iran again and see if Iran stays silent. Also, let's not rewrite history, Iran wasn't the one that initiated the direct exchange. |
RandDigital:Are you happy about it or something? |
Una sure say this no be field of junk ![]() |
Kaliningrad:Netanyahu dey also seeking to extend the security protection provided to his family beyond his time in office ![]() |
WriteerNg:Na why dem dey upgrade whitehouse doors and windows? |
Indeed he's the FIFA elevated goat. |
MrSly:The discussion is about evidence, not emotions. If you think the evidence is wrong, point out where instead of labeling it propaganda. |
Kobojunkie:Funny how the narrative keeps changing. One day Hamas has been "completely destroyed." The next day they're apparently powerful enough to stop all humanitarian aid. The UN has raised concerns about interference by Hamas, but it has also spent months warning that Israeli restrictions on crossings and aid deliveries are a primary obstacle. Why mention only half the story? |
dododawa1:FIFA FRAUD? ![]() |
Jughead29: No, you're the one not getting it. Iran has already retaliated by striking multiple U.S. bases in the region recently. You can debate the effectiveness, but you can't pretend those attacks never happened. |
Jughead29: You're acting like Iran ignored an attack that never happened. First let Israel or the U.S. from Israeli territory launch another direct strike on Iran, then come back and tell us whether Iran responds or not. |
safarifarms:Is it? Funny how some people are quick to label one country a terrorist state while making excuses for another that's been accused of committing genocide against a largely defenseless civilian population. |
Iamdbull:Hockey will survive. Your music career, though... it needs CPR, life support, and a miracle. Let me sponsor that first. |
IsraeliAIRFORCE:That doesn't really hold up. The recent U.S. strikes on Iran were launched from U.S. military assets and facilities across the Gulf region, so those bases are directly involved in the operations. If another wave of attacks were launched from Israel, there's every reason to expect Iran would respond against Israel as we've already seen in previous exchanges. History suggests Iran's retaliation generally targets the locations or states it considers directly involved in the attacks, rather than following a single fixed pattern. |
Tonnyray:Fifa princess ?? |
A typical South African doesn't have any money. So who did he defraud ![]() |
FreeSpirited:Good to know. I thought education was measured by knowledge and critical thinking, not by whether someone agrees with your theology. |
Helinuse: You really typed all that just to admit the exact point I made.Your argument is literally: "It was obliterated... but they'll rebuild it... then we'll have to obliterate it again." Read that slowly. ![]() If something has to be "obliterated again," then the first "obliteration" clearly didn't eliminate the capability permanently. You don't keep killing a dead horse every few years and call it permanently dead. ![]() This is why negotiations are still happening. If everything was truly "obliterated" in the way you keep pretending, why negotiate at all? Why threaten future strikes? Why monitor enrichment? ![]() Because everyone involved understands something you don't: bombing facilities can delay a nuclear program, but it doesn't erase scientific knowledge, industrial capacity, or political intent. You keep confusing destroying buildings with eliminating a capability. They're not the same thing. And please stop lecturing about "simple English" while using "obliterated" to describe something you admit may need to be destroyed again. ![]() |
Helinuse: Your entire argument collapses because you invented your own definition of war.You asked for one Iranian strategic objective? Easy: To deter future attacks by imposing costs on Israel and the US. That's a textbook strategic objective. States don't have to conquer or obliterate an enemy to achieve strategic goals. You also claim, "All wars are judged by surrender or total obliteration." Really?Did the US totally obliterate Vietnam? Did it totally obliterate Afghanistan? Did it totally obliterate Iraq's insurgency? Did it totally obliterate the Taliban? They came back and took over the country. ![]() Did Israel totally obliterate Hezbollah after 2006? Modern wars are judged by whether political and military objectives are achieved, not by some movie-style "total annihilation" fantasy you just made up. ![]() The funniest part is you mocked "strategic objectives," yet your own examples prove the opposite. Nations don't spend billions on wars just to count bodies; they fight to achieve political outcomes. |
Helinuse:Oh, I almost forgot... Last year we were told Iran's nuclear program was "completely and totally obliterated." This year we're told it had to be "obliterated" again ![]() And somehow, after being "obliterated" twice, the United States is still sitting across the table negotiating with Iran over... its nuclear program. That's fascinating. If it was truly "obliterated," what exactly are they negotiating about? Ghost centrifuges? Imaginary uranium? Invisible enrichment? Or maybe "obliterated" doesn't mean what you think it means. It's funny how the story changes depending on the audience. One day it's "mission accomplished," the next day it's "we need another strike," and then it's "let's negotiate a deal." |
Helinuse:You keep saying "Facts," but your list contains opinions, disputed claims, and exaggerations. Let's deal with actual facts. First, military success and legality are two different things. Killing senior officials through surprise strikes does not automatically prove strategic or moral superiority. It simply means one side successfully carried out an operation. Second, there is no credible evidence for your claim that "90 Iranian generals were cleared in the first 30 minutes." Repeating an unverified number doesn't turn it into a fact. Third, despite all the rhetoric, Iran has generally responded by targeting military installations, intelligence sites, and strategic infrastructure rather than publicly adopting a policy of assassinating the elected leaders of other countries in their homes. Whether one agrees with Iran's actions or not, there is a distinction between attacking military objectives and deliberately targeting political leaders. Fourth, if Israel's position were as comfortable as you portray, it would not require continuous U.S. military, diplomatic, intelligence, and defensive support. Israel has formidable military capabilities, but U.S. backing remains a central pillar of its security. Finally, wars are not judged by social media victory laps or casualty lists. They are judged by whether strategic objectives are achieved. If either side still possesses the capability and willingness to continue fighting, declaring total victory is premature. So don't call it "facts" when much of your post consists of disputed claims and selective omissions. Facts require evidence, not confidence. |
Helinuse:You should stop confusing your imagination with geopolitics. Your entire argument depends on assumptions you can't prove. "Iran knows this." "Israel wants that." "The US thinks this." None of that is evidence. When your previous claim collapsed, you simply invented a new explanation instead of admitting you were wrong. That's not analysis. That's moving the goalposts. |
Rocky247:"So the country that didn't launch the opening strike is somehow the one acting out of fear? That's quite a creative interpretation. History doesn't change because it makes your argument sound better. The first strike matters. Everything after that is a response, whether you like that response or not." |
Helinuse:Why would Iran send rockets to Israel now when there hasn't been a recent Israeli attack on Iranian territory? From Iran's perspective, its missile strikes have generally been presented as retaliation rather than first strikes. Whether people agree with Iran's actions or not, it's inaccurate to suggest they're refusing to attack because they're "tired" or "afraid." Right now, there isn't an ongoing exchange of direct attacks that they're responding to. If Israel launches another major strike, history suggests Iran would retaliate again. |
Fuckyoumod:Nah, not Ghana or South Africa. She went to France for her master's. We had already promised each other we'd marry after she graduated. She even got a job there and wanted me to sort out my papers so we'd get married and move to France together. Unfortunately, I ended up with a lifetime ban from entering France because of my anti-Zionism posts on social media. So the original plan became impossible. She still came back and married me. Not every story ends the way people assume. |
It's currently 45°C where I am in Iraq. No panic, no complaints. Some people are even wearing jackets. |
Pierocash: ![]() |

