₦airaland Forum

callmeDDD:
I thought Iran was never attacked Nd non of their factories were hit according to their propaganda machines?

Your propaganda is so confused it argues with itself. One minute Iran is 'finished,' next minute US intel says Iran is already rebuilding drone production faster than expected. Imagine bombing a country for weeks then still panicking about its comeback.

yamisee:
Indonesia has become one of the biggest mobile gaming markets in Southeast Asia. With affordable smartphones and widespread internet access, mobile games are now part of daily entertainment for millions of Indonesians. From competitive esports titles to casual multiplayer games, Indonesian gamers enjoy a wide variety of genres.

1. Mobile Legends: Bang Bang

Mobile Legends is one of the most popular MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) games in Indonesia. The game is loved because of its fast gameplay, competitive ranking system, and strong esports community.

Mobile Legends has a huge fanbase in Indonesia.
Many Indonesian gamers play this game every day with their friends.
2. PUBG Mobile

PUBG Mobile remains a favorite battle royale game among Indonesian players. The realistic graphics and intense survival gameplay make it exciting for both casual and professional gamers.

PUBG Mobile offers thrilling battle royale action.
Indonesian esports teams are also successful in PUBG tournaments.
3. Free Fire

Free Fire is extremely popular because it can run smoothly on low-end smartphones. This makes the game accessible to more players across Indonesia.

Free Fire is easy to play on almost any smartphone.
The game has a massive community in Indonesia.
4. Genshin Impact

Genshin Impact attracts players with its beautiful open-world graphics and engaging storyline. Many Indonesian gamers enjoy exploring the fantasy world and collecting characters.

Genshin Impact delivers stunning visuals and immersive gameplay.
Players love the adventure and character system.
5. Clash of Clans

Although it is an older game, Clash of Clans still has loyal players in Indonesia. Strategy lovers enjoy building villages and joining clan wars.

Clash of Clans remains popular among strategy gamers.
Teamwork and planning are important in this game.
6. Roblox

Roblox is becoming increasingly popular among younger gamers in Indonesia. The platform allows users to create and play different types of games.

Roblox gives players creative freedom.
Many Indonesian kids enjoy playing and creating games on Roblox.
7. Call of Duty: Mobile

Call of Duty: Mobile offers fast-paced shooting action with high-quality graphics. The game combines classic COD elements with mobile-friendly gameplay.

Call of Duty: Mobile provides competitive FPS experiences.
The multiplayer mode is very exciting and addictive.

Mobile gaming continues to grow rapidly in Indonesia. Games like Mobile Legends, PUBG Mobile, and Free Fire dominate the market because they are fun, competitive, and accessible to many players. Meanwhile, games such as Genshin Impact and Roblox show that Indonesian gamers also enjoy creativity and exploration. With the gaming industry expanding every year, mobile games will remain an important part of entertainment culture in Indonesia. https://yamisee.com

Mobile Legends is the best game ever

20 more characters needed

INJESUSNAME:
Graves of JFK? Was he a supreme leader, killed by another nations during war? Iran is functioning? Can you show us videos and pictures of what is going on in Iran right now?

Funny how every few minutes the story changes.

First it was:
"Iran fell in 30 seconds."

Now it is:
"Show us videos of Iran functioning."

So which is it? A country that vanished, or a country you can still ask for live footage from?

Wars damage countries, nobody denied that. But assassinating leaders during negotiations and then screaming "victory" while the government, military, diplomacy, economy, and millions of civilians are still operating is not the flex you think it is.

If Iran truly "collapsed," there would be no negotiations left, no state structure left, no missiles left, no regional influence left, and definitely no need for endless propaganda trying to convince people it already died.

The obsession with proving Iran is dead every single day is itself proof that it isn't.

INJESUSNAME:
Iran is standing on the grave of it's most sacred, most powerful and the most protected man! What a powerful country!!

And America stood on the graves of JFK. Guess that means the US stopped being powerful too?

A country's strength isn't measured by whether enemies try assassinations. It's measured by whether the country collapses afterward. Iran is still functioning, still influencing the region, while some people were celebrating 'total collapse' on day one.

Chienex24:
Because America always uses kid gloves in all these wars terrorists think they have mouth. Bring serious war now like world war 1 and 2 or threaten America 's existence and see whether you will live to talk rubbish.

These wars America initiated, from Venezuela to Iran is to protect America's interest, not that there are under any threat so they have to be reasonable in the proportion of damage they inflict.

The Afghanistan you mentioned, did osama bin laden and all his co terrorist apart from you that is hiding in Nigeria live to tell the tale? Answer is no!! Even I myself was irritated why America was still in Afghanistan after they decimated Al- Qaeda and killed osama bin laden, your supreme leader.


Use your mouth to have hope terrorist, even after your gods soleimani and now Ayatollah was killed like headless chickens amongst other Iranian generals

You keep calling everyone terrorists while ignoring the actual outcome of these wars.

America spent 20 years in Afghanistan, lost thousands of soldiers, spent trillions of dollars, killed Bin Laden in Pakistan not Afghanistan, then still left with the Taliban back in power exactly where they started. That is not the image of absolute dominance you are trying to paint.

And the "America uses kid gloves" excuse falls apart when you remember these wars already involved massive bombings, drone campaigns, invasions, sanctions, assassinations, and occupations. Entire cities in Iraq and Afghanistan were destroyed. Yet despite overwhelming military superiority, Washington still could not create stable control.

You are basically arguing:
"If America REALLY wanted, they could destroy everybody."

Okay, and then what?
Occupation? Regime collapse? Endless insurgency? Another 20-year war? The U.S. military itself has repeatedly learned that destroying a government is easier than controlling what comes after.

Also, your comparison makes no sense. Al-Qaeda was a non-state militant group hiding in caves. Iran is a sovereign state with millions of citizens, missile systems, industry, allies, and strategic depth. Pretending they are the same thing is not analysis, it is emotional propaganda.

And about Soleimani or Iranian leaders being assassinated:
targeted killings do not automatically equal victory. The U.S. killed Saddam, Bin Laden, and many others, yet instability and conflict continued for decades afterward. Even American officials openly admit the Afghanistan war ended with the Taliban returning to power after the U.S. withdrawal.

Power is not measured by how loudly someone threatens civilians online. If America was truly capable of effortlessly erasing Iran without catastrophic consequences, there would be no constant fear about escalation, oil markets, regional war, or retaliation.

Chienex24:
While USA Iran and the Arab states have been totally crushed and don't exist anymore

You think if USA and Israel wants to fire at Iran same way Iran is doing, anybody in Iran will still exist including all her Citizens, both children and elderly?

Terrorists always deceiving themselves😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

If the U.S. and Israel were truly as unstoppable as you are claiming, they would not still be struggling for years against groups far smaller and weaker than Iran. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Yemen, the so-called 'total crushing' usually ends with endless wars, instability, and withdrawal after trillions spent

And this idea that 'nobody in Iran would exist' is just emotional exaggeration. Iran is a country of over 80 million people with massive military infrastructure, underground facilities, ballistic missiles, drones, regional allies, and strategic geography. Even U.S. military analysts openly admit any full-scale war with Iran would be devastating for the entire region, global economy, and U.S. forces themselves.

The reality is simple: if America could easily destroy Iran without catastrophic consequences, they would have done it long ago instead of relying on sanctions, proxy conflicts, cyber attacks, assassinations, and constant pressure campaigns.

The whole world can already see the limitation of American power. Against Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq insurgencies, Houthis, and even small militant groups, overwhelming military superiority did not produce absolute control. Remove the nuclear option, and suddenly the image of invincibility becomes far less convincing.

Calling everyone 'terrorists' also does not magically erase geopolitical reality. Powerful nations negotiate with Iran for a reason, not because Iran is imaginary, but because war with it carries a real cost.

Funny how Iran was supposedly facing just one country, yet every week another "partner" quietly appears in the background. First the Israel., then U.S, now reports of UAE coordination, Gulf involvement, intelligence sharing, air defense support, sanctions, cyber attacks, assassinations, and nonstop pressure from every direction. Yet Iran is still standing, still functioning, and still influencing the region. That alone says a lot.

Helinuse:
My “argument collapsed.”

It did when you said that Iran still sponsors major conflicts in the world and so should be referred to as a super power, and then I remembered that Qatar and Turkey sponsors more than that, and yet still, are not in anyway a super power.

I just say, this conversation is dulling me out.
😅😅😅

Your argument did not collapse because of Qatar or Turkey. It collapsed because you switched the definition halfway through the debate.

Nobody said "sponsoring conflicts = automatic superpower." The point was influence and geopolitical reach. Iran has armed networks and influence stretching across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and the Gulf, to the point global powers constantly calculate around them. Even critics admit Iran is one of the main regional power centers in the Middle East.

And bringing up Qatar as if it is in the same category is hilarious. Qatar is a wealthy microstate with influence through diplomacy and media. Even studies describing Qatar compare it as a small state beside larger regional powers like Turkey and Iran.

Turkey at least is a serious comparison because it actually has major military and regional weight. Qatar? That's like hearing "Manchester City spends money too" and concluding they are equal to the entire Premier League.

At this point you're not debating anymore, you're just throwing random countries into a blender hoping something sounds smart enough to escape the original point.

But yeah, if the conversation is "dulling you out," resting your brain might be the smartest argument you've made so far.

Omalicious1:
PDP no print Presidential form? I'm asking for a friend

19 more characters needed

Helinuse:
Ok Sir
My argument has collapse

😅😅😅

Lol don't worry, it survived longer than the "Iran got defeated on day one" argument.

Respect for admitting it though.

Helinuse:
Noticed that you grew out of the “argument is collapsing” line. 😅😅😅

Anyways, yes.
When a society is built around a person, and it is cut off, the society is totally defeated. What remains is simply a remains.

It happened during WW II on Germany. Hitler gone.
It happened during the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon arrested.
It happened in Libya. Gaddafi finished.
It happened during Iraq war. Saddam eliminated.


But these have had their leaders taken out, even though their leaders provided their ideology, and yet they never vanished:
Al Qaeda
Boko Haram
ISIS
Taliban
ISIL
Iran.

Do you know why? Because they are not an army but a terrorist group whom their leader never actually had control over his subjects, but had the privilege of leading their lust. 😅😅😅

And yes, the bench mark of greatness is not the “survival of a conflict” as Iran and extremist world describe it, but the survival of their ability to defend themselves (as in Ukraine) or the ability to take on the offensive as in Israel. No serious people loose their leader on the first day. Even Bokoharam don’t. And you are not serious if you do. Iran = -20/10.

😅😅

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:
So if Saddam, Assad, and AlBaghadi didn’t survive, did Khamenei survive?

If he didn’t, what makes him superior to those guys when throws guys survived hundreds of days than he did?

😅😅😅

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:
When you down talked the ISIS Airforce, I was thinking you will talk about Irans Airforce. 😂😂😂

The same ISIS you are talking about at the one in full control of the state structure of Syria.

And yes, Hamas and Hezbollah can still continue giving trouble just because of the morality of Israel and the US.

If any of those two were a Muslim nation, I bet their whole country, both the Hamas, Hezbollah and the innocents would have been history.

Saddam Hussein of Iraq did it.
Assad of Syria did it.

You can only run your mouth like that about those two countries because they are Jewish and Christian and already have a conscience that is bestowed on them by their beliefs.

Let Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran try India, China, or Turkey and see.
😂😂😂

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:
How I wished you said this after Buhari first term in office...Tinubu will used eight years and if it's Obi,forget four years,Obi will used eight years,northerners think they are smart.

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?

Helinuse:
😂😂😂
Indeed.
“Intelligence network” indeed.
“Confrontations with Israel and US” indeed.

I didn’t hear about one, even one Iranian aircraft nor naval vessel that challenged Israel or the US. But in your mind, shooting missiles like Hezbollah and Hamas, places Iran as the apex predator.

😂😂😂

ISIS had much more.
They had an airforce.
ISIS confronted much more countries than Iran attacked.
ISIS had staged attacks even in the US.

But somehow, the low budget terrorist group that lost all their leadership on 30 seconds of a battle. Intelligence network indeed. 😂😂😂. Even with sustained US operations, it took years for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to be killed. Yet your supreme leader evaporated faster than boiling water.

If I give Boko Haram 5/10, and ISIS 9/10, I’ll demote Iran, because Iran doesn’t worth 1/10.

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 . Capturing a few abandoned aircraft they barely used is not the same as having a functioning modern air force.

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:
Ahh!!

😅😅😅

I see. In essence, you are saying that because
1) the world refer to Iran as a threat,
2) Iran struck Israeli territory
3) Iran terrorizes shipping routes
4) Iran causes emergency sessions

Therefore they are more powerful than the whole world. 😂😂😂

1. The world refers to Boko Haram as a threat too. Are they therefore a super power?
2. Hezbollah have struck Israeli territory
3. ISIS have struck US bases before
4. Al-Shabab has attacked shipping routes in the more expensive trading ship lines.
5. All those terrorist have done more than Iran has.

Does that make them the super power too?
😅😅😅

Also, if you like, complain from today till tomorrow, everyone has a right to defend themselves from current or planned threats. Israel and the US are treating Iran with kids gloves.

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:
Ooops.
I thought that your Hezbollah was “Hezbollah is not Hamas.”

Now suddenly, we all agree that they are a small nation that deserves pity from the more powerful nation. 😂😂😂

The same way we Iran as a “superpower,” but now claim that Israel should not do too much because Iran is just a small country led by people “might enough to challenge Israel.” 😂😂😂

And to your question: YES
Having any form of power, no matter how much or how small, should justify why you should protect your civilians and military from those who want to harm them.

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:
No ceasefire untill Hezbollah Terrorists are completely out of Lebanon

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:
Israel dey play with una that is why.

I blame them.

"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:
All this cease fire thing hardly works..... everyone should make their demands clear and be ready to make concessions if possible to bring an indefinite end to the war and if the can't reach a suitable conclusion then they should keep on going till one succumb and surrender unconditionally......how will caese fire be declared today and tomorrow kaboom resumes what's the point then?. .

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.

RillJ:
I stand to be corrected (have seen many myself though!)

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 have seen some northerners uncircumcised, whike growing up,my dad was fond of allowing his security men bring their family to come leave with them,infact they were practically living in our house and we even grew up and played together with some of them and I saw first hand uncircumcised boys but I must confess they were usually mostly from NE even as far as tchad and sudan,we had several of them growing up,also while grown i have equally noticed some grown ones too.

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:
But there are several northerners thats are known not to be circumcised,I have seen several but its very rare in the south.

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:
I doubt the 98.9% compliance rate for Naija, considering that most of our Northern folks no dey run am. Abi dem don change?

who told this lie?

tanigororo:
You ought to have ignored my comment if you don't want to be attacked, more so I didn't attack you, just stating facts

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.