Educatedfool's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Educatedfool's Profile › Educatedfool's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 25 pages)
Helinuse:Lol don't worry, it survived longer than the "Iran got defeated on day one" argument. ![]() Respect for admitting it though. |
Helinuse:Lol this is getting funny. ![]() You just spent paragraphs explaining why "terrorist groups survive after losing leaders," then accidentally exposed the irony yourself. The US and Israel did not march into Tehran, overthrow Iran, or even dare face Khamenei openly. Instead, the stories are always about secret operations, assassinations, sabotage, hiding behind air superiority and intelligence networks. According to your own logic, if Iran was truly "finished on day one," why the obsession with sneaking around trying to hit one old man during Ramadan while he's inside his residence with family instead of facing Iran directly? ![]() You mentioned Hitler, Napoleon, Saddam and Gaddafi. Funny enough, most of them were defeated after full invasions, years of war, occupation, coalitions of multiple countries and massive destruction. But for Iran, it's always "let's secretly eliminate scientists, secretly bomb facilities, secretly target commanders." That does not scream confidence. It screams fear of direct confrontation. And calling Iran "-20/10" while Israel and the US allegedly need covert attacks, cyber warfare, sanctions, proxies and surprise strikes to contain them is hilarious. ![]() A "non-serious" enemy usually gets crushed openly and quickly. Not treated like a long-term nightmare that requires decades of sneaky operations just to slow them down. Another funny part. ![]() Imagine praising "strength" while defending attacks carried out during negotiations and diplomatic talks. If someone truly believes they are superior, why wait until talks are happening before attempting assassinations and surprise strikes? Why not confront openly instead of hiding behind negotiations with one hand while planning attacks with the other? ![]() That is exactly why many people see it as cowardly. You sit at the table pretending diplomacy is ongoing, then suddenly launch covert attacks hoping to catch the other side relaxed or vulnerable. That is not the behavior of people overflowing with confidence. Even your example weakens your argument. If Iran was supposedly weak and unserious, there would be no need for secret operations during sensitive negotiations or while leaders are at home fasting with their families. You do that when you know direct confrontation carries consequences. So the constant reliance on sabotage, assassinations and surprise attacks says more about fear of open conflict than "greatness." ![]() |
Helinuse: Wait... are you even following your own argument anymore?You spent several comments calling Iran "0/10", weak, useless, and comparable to ISIS. Now suddenly your benchmark for greatness is whether someone survives assassination attempts forever? 😂 By that logic, every cartel boss hiding in mountains for 20 years is greater than world powers. And your comparison still fails because: Saddam lost his country. Baghdadi lost his caliphate. ISIS collapsed territorially. Assad only remained because of heavy foreign backing. Yet Iran as a state still exists, still projects influence, still affects global oil markets, still shapes regional conflicts, and still forces major powers to constantly respond to it. You keep reducing geopolitics to "who died faster" like this is WWE rankings Also, you accidentally destroyed your own earlier point. If Iran was truly as irrelevant as you claimed, why would the US and Israel dedicate massive intelligence, sanctions, cyber operations, assassinations, military coalitions, and years of containment policies toward it? Nobody spends decades strategically containing a "1/10" actor. Your entire argument is built on emotional mockery, not coherent reasoning. |
Helinuse: Your argument keeps collapsing into contradictions.First you mocked Iran for using proxies and indirect warfare, now you are admitting Hamas and Hezbollah are serious enough that only "morality" is stopping Israel and the US from wiping everything out. So which is it? Weak and irrelevant, or dangerous enough to require restraint, alliances, carrier groups, sanctions, intelligence operations, and nonstop military campaigns? And the Syria point is also confused. ISIS briefly controlled territory during a civil war and chaos. Controlling ruins during state collapse is not the same thing as being a stronger geopolitical actor than Iran. By your logic, every warlord that captures territory automatically becomes stronger than functioning states. Also, saying Israel and the US are restrained purely because they are Jewish and Christian is a very emotional argument, not a strategic one. States act based on consequences, global pressure, economics, alliances, hostages, regional escalation risks, international law, domestic politics, and military costs, not because leaders suddenly become saints. You mentioned Saddam and Assad as examples, but both actually prove the opposite of your point. Saddam could not survive confrontation with the US coalition. Assad only survived largely because of external backing from Russia and Iran. So again, Iran appears in the equation. And the funniest part is you naming China, India, and Turkey like they are magical civilizations beyond conflict . Turkey has fought insurgencies for decades. India still deals with militant attacks and regional tensions. China is extremely cautious about instability despite its strength. Real geopolitics is more complicated than "just bomb everyone."At this point, your argument is just jumping between contradictions depending on what sounds dramatic in the moment. |
Since he has $70 million to throw around, why not distribute it to his Ogun kinsmen? |
Kog45:You sound confused. First you said Tinubu will definitely do 8 years, then you also said Obi would definitely do 8 years too. So what exactly is the point? ![]() |
Story story, story ![]() 4 more characters needed |
Helinuse: You are confusing "not fighting like ISIS" with "not being powerful."ISIS was a roaming terrorist group holding deserts and villages. Iran is an actual state with missiles, drones, cyber capabilities, proxy networks, intelligence operations, and influence across multiple countries. The US literally spent decades invading countries over groups Iran supports indirectly. That alone should tell you the comparison is weak. And the irony is funny. You mocked Hezbollah and Hamas missiles, yet Israel and the US still dedicate massive intelligence, military budgets, air defense systems, carrier groups, sanctions, emergency meetings, and constant operations around Iran. Nobody mobilizes like that over a "0/10" actor. Also, ISIS "having an airforce" is one of the funniest exaggerations I have seen And saying "Iran never directly challenged the US or Israel" ignores reality. From proxy warfare to missile strikes to Red Sea disruptions to regional influence, Iran has been confronting both indirectly for decades. States do not always fight like suicidal militias charging into airstrikes. A country surviving decades of sanctions, assassinations, cyberattacks, covert operations, and still remaining influential in the region is clearly more significant than a terrorist group that collapsed after losing territory. By the way: US lawmaker says Washington lost 39 aircraft in Iran war https://aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-lawmaker-says-washington-lost-39-aircraft-in-iran-war-citing-defense-report/3935793 |
Helinuse:This is exactly where your argument falls apart. ![]() You compared Iran, an actual sovereign state with ballistic missiles, drones, regional alliances, industrial capacity, intelligence networks, and direct military confrontations with Israel and the US, to ragtag insurgent groups hiding in deserts and mountains. That comparison alone already screams desperation. Boko Haram cannot openly launch missiles across regions and survive. ISIS could not sustain direct state-level confrontation. Al-Shabab cannot force global powers into coordinated military calculations. Iran does. And notice something important: The US invaded Iraq in weeks. Destroyed Libya. Occupied Afghanistan for 20 years. But with Iran, suddenly it becomes "careful calculations," "regional consequences," "avoid escalation," and coalition management. ![]() That alone destroys your narrative. You also keep repeating "right to defend themselves" as if that magically answers every criticism. By that logic, every powerful country can bomb whoever they want indefinitely and call it self-defense. That is not a serious moral argument. That is simply "might makes right" with better PR. And "kids gloves"? ![]() If the US and Israel were truly treating Iran with "kids gloves," they would not need nonstop military aid packages, emergency deployments, regional alliances, air-defense coordination, and constant fear of retaliation every time tensions rise. The funniest part is that you accidentally proved MY point. You had to bring up terrorist groups just to avoid admitting Iran operates on an entirely different strategic and military level. A country does not need to conquer the world to embarrass stronger powers. Vietnam proved that. Afghanistan proved that. Even Iraq drained the US trillions. Military superiority on paper does not automatically equal political dominance in reality. |
Helinuse:Hezbollah and Israel are not remotely equal in military power, so nobody serious denies that. But your Iran example completely collapsed the moment the US, Israel, and even multiple allied countries had to coordinate against ONE country. ![]() Imagine calling Iran "weak," yet: - Iran directly struck Israeli territory multiple times. - US bases in UEA, Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Syria kept getting targeted despite America's overwhelming military advantage. - Global shipping routes and oil markets react anytime Iran moves a finger. - Israel, the US, UK, and others all keep treating Iran as a major strategic threat, not some helpless village militia. A "small powerless country" does not force half the West into emergency meetings every few months. ![]() And the funniest part? Every attack meant to "weaken the regime" only upgraded its image internally and regionally. Even Khamenei now is 30 years younger ![]() So no, this is not the same comparison at all. Hezbollah being outmatched by Israel is obvious. But pretending Iran is some tiny harmless state while multiple powerful countries unite against it at once is just comedy. And your last point still avoids the real issue: "Protecting civilians" is not the same thing as justifying unlimited destruction of other civilians. |
Arrowhead71:Then go and remove them yourself if it's that simple. Funny how Israel can bomb another country, violate its airspace for years, kill civilians, destroy homes, and still call itself the victim. You keep calling Hezbollah "terrorists," yet ignore documented war crimes, collective punishment, illegal occupations, and attacks on civilians carried out by Israel for decades. When civilians are killed in Gaza or Lebanon, hospitals and refugee camps are bombed, and entire neighborhoods are flattened, what do you call that? Peace? You cannot label every armed group resisting occupation as "terrorists" while excusing state violence that kills far more civilians. If terrorism means using violence against civilians for political goals, then people should ask honestly: who has done that on a much larger scale and with far more destructive power? |
Helinuse:"Play"? Lol. Israel is obviously far more powerful militarily than Lebanon... If they could completely occupy Lebanon tomorrow without repercussions, they likely would asap. But your point still does not answer the real question. Does having more power justify the destruction and killings? |
Mattswaggz:You can't expect a ceasefire to hold when one side keeps violating it while the media barely reports those violations or frames them as 'responses.' That's part of why people lose faith in ceasefires in the first place. A ceasefire only works when both sides are held accountable equally. If rockets from one side make headlines instantly, but airstrikes, raids, blockades, or killings from the other side get minimized or justified, then there's no real pressure to maintain the agreement. That double standard is what makes lasting peace difficult. People wake up to 'ceasefire declared,' then hours later bombs are falling again, and the same cycle repeats while the side breaking it faces little international or media scrutiny. |
Wait… wasn't this the same guy that reduced children to something else before? Now he's offering ₦5m for one? Bro finally discovered kids are actual human beings |
RillJ:Honestly, in my 30 years of living in the North before leaving the country, I have never personally seen a single uncircumcised northerner. That's how culturally and religiously entrenched it is there. But at the same time, every society has exceptions. No matter how strongly something is enforced by culture, religion, or even survival itself, you'll still find a few people who refuse or avoid it. There are even people who ignore medical treatment for illnesses despite knowing it could threaten their lives. So exceptions existing doesn't change what is generally normal in a society. |
Lithiumite:I'm not saying such people don't exist at all. In every society you'll always find a few people who don't follow what the culture or religion strongly encourages. So your experience may be genuine, especially with people coming from different regions or border communities. But generally speaking, circumcision is heavily normalized in Northern Nigeria. It's tied to religion, culture, and even social acceptance. In many Northern communities, an uncircumcised boy would honestly face serious embarrassment if people found out. It's something people mock heavily to the point the person can become a laughing stock among peers. That's why families usually make sure it's done early and even celebrate it publicly. |
Lithiumite:That's simply not true. Circumcision is deeply rooted in Northern Nigeria to the point it's even celebrated culturally. In Hausa communities it's called "kaciya" or "shayi." When a boy gets circumcised, family, friends, and even neighbours usually visit with gifts and support for the child. So claiming northerners are generally known for not being circumcised sounds more like misinformation than "facts." |
RillJ:who told this lie? |
tanigororo:Disagreement is fine, but dismissing criticism by saying "ignore my comment" avoids the actual point. I'm questioning the consistency of media narratives, not asking for personal commentary. |
Jtown442:600k 16 more characters needed |
tanigororo:You attacked me personally instead of addressing the argument. The issue is whether Western media applies the same moral urgency consistently, regardless of who's involved. |
tanigororo:leave the hypocrates abeg |
So Yoruba no have anything wey be truly their own Even the name 'Yoruba,' una claim say na Hausa people coin am for them. |
my brother you dey whiyn ![]() |
iphy42: ![]() 19 more characters needed |
insidelife22:US is the only country with ghost rescued pilots |
Wow but maintanance na the isuue |
Them no see any other person ![]() |
future regrates loading |
Phred1717: ![]() |
lecowas:Mainstream media took a decade to realize that Iran had indeed destroyed American bases ![]() |

.
Even the name 'Yoruba,' una claim say na Hausa people coin am for them.