mysticwarrior:
"conventional warefare"? I have been suspecting you to be someone with a very shallow understanding and what you posted just confirmed my suspicion, chai you are talking about conventional warfare yet you are still mentioning the use of Nukes? you don't even know what conventional warfare is, pls go and read and find out the meaning of "conventional warfare".

lmao. nukes are weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). WMDs are NOT considered as conventional weapons of warfare by any standard (which utilize conventional weapons btw)
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearandconventionalweapons/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_warfare

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_weapon

pls try and do some research before replying my posts.

mysticwarrior:
pls go and read about the "Tsar bomb" it is the most powerful destructive weapon ever built by a human, and guess what it is a Russian bomb.

The Tsar Bomba was a three-stage bomb with Trutnev-
Babaev,second and third stage design, with a yield
of 50 megatons.This is equivalent to about 1,570 times
the combined energy of the bombs that destroyed
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ,10 times the combined energy
of all the conventional explosives used in World War II ,
one-quarter of the estimated yield of the 1883 eruption of
Krakatoa , and 10% of the combined yield of all nuclear tests
to date. if there is anything the US wants to avoid, its the owner of this bomb.

what part of "conventional warfare" did you not understand?

oh the tsar bomb right? you do realize the u.s. have enough nukes to end all life on the planet right. so does russia btw. Heck France with its nuke alone could render most of the planet unhabitable.
Russia could have a million tsar bombs and it wouldn't change the fact of mutually assured destruction.

if you are not ready to bring facts supporting russia 's conventional warfare capabilities (including their "multiple air craft carriers" , then I don't see anything to talk about here tbh.

mysticwarrior:
am still trying to demystify how you could believed such baseless writeup, the writer of that article only made his point out of unreasonable suppositions, and everything he wrote there was an attempt to downplay the Russian military and make it look inferior when compared to the US military, imagine someone saying that Russia has "just one carrier ", chai am still in shock of how you could be convinced with such nonsense.

sure.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-russias-only-aircraft-carrier-would-fight-a-us-carrier-2017-11?IR=T

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-doomed-22718


don't know what you're talking about. if anything that user did russia a favour and downplayed u.s. resources to bring them down the Russia's level and even admitted that the u.s. wouldn't be able to "conquer" russia (which given its the size of a small continent and has harsh weather conditions, is pretty much impossible).
bruh, I can understand how you feel. though tbh it's pretty cliche to hate on no.1.

mysticwarrior:
prove it with comparative analysis.

I think this quora thread should suffice. though the fact that you suggest russia can invade the u.s. makes me rethink taking you seriously.

https://www.quora.com/Does-NATO-stand-a-chance-in-a-war-against-Russia

this is old news though. Russia was quick to try and cover it up but social media posts from some of the affected soldiers told the true story.
y'all been sleeping on the u.s. for too long. in conventional warfare, the u.s. is without a doubt the most powerful military force the earth has ever seen.

I feel sorry for the Russian trolls here who keep taking "Ls"

shaqhead:

Where did you get this? I mean where in facebooks data policy statement does it even imply what you wrote?

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/facebook-revamps-privacy-policy/

here's an article on Facebook data policy as at 2014 (which was also the period when Cambridge Analytica acquired the user data from facebook).

users had the option to opt out though not many people take the time to read these things.

kingkakaone:

Saudi Arabia.
America will claim freedom of speech and try to force some countries into accepting democracy (their own system of government) but has been kept quiet in the case of Saudi Arabia mostly on human rights violations.
Saudi Arabia is even worse than most of those nations they accuse when it comes to the violation of human Rights.
Women have been restricted and so many things which they would have condemned if their leaders were not puppets.
Please answer yes or no, do u know that Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemen for years now?
What has America done to forestall the killing of innocents.

brother, how is that a "puppet govt". if anything that proves that America has little influence in Saudi Arabia 's foreign and domestic policy.
Saudi Arabia is one of if not America's oldest middle Eastern ally (save isreal) and it's biggest check to Iran' s influence. hence the U.S. can't afford to jeopardize their partnership and is content with letting the Saudis do as they please so long as iran is kept in check.
quite the opposite of a puppet government actually.

any more examples?

kingkakaone:

Aiit bro.
But I think it is because they already have puppet already ruling those countries that's why.

an example with actual proof would be nice.

kingkakaone:

I'm sorry I need u to help me on this.
What are u trying to say bruh?

" But I always have my reservations about the presence of the american military base in any nation because what follows is chaos, war and then imposition of puppets against the majority of the population so as to have control of that country without stress."

none of that applies to any of the aforementioned countries. Heck apart from Iraq and maybe Afganistan, a u.s. military base in a country typically has tremendous benefits.

Guidette:


I have evidence to back up my claims.

Russian propaganda Hilary and her minions came up with right after her election loss: https://nypost.com/2017/10/26/how-team-hillary-played-the-press-for-fools-on-russia/

Obama Facebook data harvest: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election
You state your case that it is a false equivalence, which you are right, because this was even worse. Facebook knew about what Obama's cyber campaign team did and let them go ahead with it. Meanwhile, Facebook users were never informed about their data being used against them.
With Cambridge Analytica, the professor gave the information he harvested from Facebook to Cambridge Analytica without their knowledge which may absolve Facebook from some of the blame. So you are definitely on point with that argument.

Facebook is being exposed to the public as a site that promises utmost privacy to the point that you can upload very sensitive information like nude pictures and sex videos for 'safe keeping', meanwhile sells information to third parties and uses data for selfish purposes. That's what I meant by that.

bruh. as much as I would like to respond to this, I can't cause you are simply just repeating the same points I addressed.
joining Facebook means consenting to Thrid parties having access to your data.
the rest of your post is basically partisan gibberish (don't understand what hillary alleging same as u.s. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered and trump might be compromised, has to do with Facebook but sure, whatever floats your boat)

feel free to quote me again but until I see actually intelligent arguments I can't respond. (no offense).
later.

Guidette:


Please read my earlier post on this thread below:



This happened years before Cambridge Analytica did the same thing, and with Facebook's knowledge. America is now in a media propaganda war and anyone can get burnt. Cambridge Analytica is the "Russian troll" that 'stole the election' from HRC. But iit doesnt fit the narative of Russia so they won't call it 'collusion with a foreign country' even though the company is British.
But I'm glad Facebook is being exposed because that site is a cesspool and needs to go away.

first of all, that's a bad case of false equivalence. Obama's staff had access to Facebook data but
1) they deleted it after use as per the terms.
2) they didn't use it to spread fake news and Russian propaganda

also its like you literally did not read anything I said else you wouldn't say such a silly thing as "Facebook is being exposed" . it's literally in the terms and conditions which every user agreed to before joining Facebook. it's not their fault people didn't read.
and lol. Facebook is going anywhere. they have over two billion users. but it's cute you think that way though.

also Cambridge analytica has strong ties with russian oligarchs.

martineverest:
fake tears

Facebook is known for data invasion....more invasive than Google

Facebook doesn't "invade data" Facebook sells data to Thrid parties (its literally in their terms and conditions). the selling of data isn't just meant for their profit but also for user convenience. e.g. say you are an engineer on Facebook, or have indicated serious interest for Engineering on facebook, due to that data, Facebook will be able to connect you to information, online communities or ads for third parties which fit with your interest.

what happened here is that Cambridge analytica misused the data it got lying to Facebook that it was for academic purpose and failing to delete the data after use as per it's agreements with Facebook.
obviously Facebook has some blame here for failing to ensure the data was actually deleted but it's not like they hid it from anyone that third parties would be given access to users data albeit under certain terms and conditions.
if anything this is why it's important to read terms and conditions instead of just going ahead to blindly click "agree".

kingkakaone:

Lolsssss
na wa.
But I always have my reservations about the presence of the american military base in any nation because what follows is chaos, war and then imposition of puppets against the majority of the population so as to have control of that country without stress.

I thought they are d world police who makes peace whenever there's problem, how come they want to be in Ghana when there is no war?
Only reasonable persons should quote me.
Thanks

*looks to japan, Qatar, south korea, Bahrain, Belgium, the u.k , Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Norway etc.*
sure bruh.

Zoharariel:
Ghana is about to become a brewing ground for all kinds of false-flag ops.

Crime rate in Ghana is about to sky-rocket by 2000% - as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab & Al-Qaeda will be deployed to Ghana by the United Snakes of Amerika.

It should be borne in mind that in case of any confrontation between the “North Atlantic Terrorist Organization - NATO” & Russia; Ghana will automatically become a “target-practice” for all Russian short, medium & long range ICBMs & SLBMs.

The proximity of Nigeria to Ghana makes us vulnerable & susceptible to nuclear ashes when the showdown of the nuclear downpour begins - hence, Nigeria should severe ALL ties with Ghana & kick her kenke & dukunu-eating a$$ out of ECOWAS for attempting to bring the battlefield of WW3 down to Afrika - thereby putting our lives in clear & present danger due to her insatiable greed for useless Amerikan visas & soon-to-be-extinct paper money (dollars).

I will forever be grateful to patriots like the late General Victor Malu - who repeatedly opposed the presence of the Amerikan military in Nigeria when he was the Chief of Army Staff.

Ofcourse, this earned him the fury of the then C-in-C, and Malu was consequently retired.

Comrades, below is an interesting excerpt from the interview with General Victor Malu, Nigerian former Chief of Army Staff on the subject of AFRICOM in the Daily Trust in 2007.

Two weeks ago, the Americans renewed their moves to set up their African Command (AFRICOM) in Nigeria, but the Council of State rejected this. In this interview, Malu explained how the US first made its efforts, why he opposed it and what setting up an American military base here would mean.

Malu: What the Americans wanted to do was not to set up a command. The Americans because of five years of Abacha’s administration that blocked Americans from developing or updating their intelligence on armed forces of Nigeria took the opportunity of somebody who had no knowledge about military in the name of Obasanjo to come and associate with him and convinced him that they wanted to train us for peace-keeping. Americans cannot claim that they want to train us for peace-keeping. We’ve succeeded in peace-keeping where Americans have not succeeded. What they wanted was to update their intelligence on the armed forces.

[b]To make matters worse, even when we have reluctantly accepted because of the pressure from our Commander-in-Chief, to allow the Americans to train us, the Americans insisted they must live in the barracks with the soldiers. I left Abuja and flew to Sokoto to go and meet the governor, to plead with him to give us an area outside the barracks we would prepare it for the Americans. The governor accepted to do that. But the Americans turned it down insisting that they must live in the barracks with soldiers. I asked General Danjuma who was my GOC as far back as 1970, I said sir, you are my GOC in 1970, would you have allowed any army of any other country to come and stay with your own troops in the barracks? Well, at a point I didn’t know whether he understood me or not, but this was the type of argument that was going on. I don’t have direct evidence but I have every conviction in my mind that it was due to the interference of the Americans when they found out that I was becoming a stumbling block that they gave Obasanjo as a condition for their cooperating with him that he must get rid of the COAS.[/b]

The issue of African Command is nothing but because of the oil interest on the Gulf of Guinea, going out to the Coast of Liberia and so on.

(Shey una don hear? Amerika is to crude oyel, as moths are to a flame - Bastards! )

Americans are finding an easy place where they can extract oil, and you know is a much shorter route than going around to go to the Middle East.

DT: There is this report people are finding difficult to believe. Right now, the American soldiers are occupying the last floor of the Defense Ministry.

Can you imagine this outright abomination? Can the Amerikan bastards allow the Russian, North Korean or Chinese Soldiers to occupy the last floor of their Pentagon for any reason whatsoever?

Malu: I was in service before that happened. I remember I resisted that I was not going to have any American soldiers sitting with me in the building. That is to prove to you what I am trying to say. When America came we had a defence headquarters in the same place we have some blocks reserved for the Navy and the Air force. Americans are not interested in any of this, it was only where the army was. Having people sitting on one floor on top of you is like sitting with you, watching and observing everything you are doing.

If America wants to create democracy by use of force they would have invaded Saudi Arabia

Continue to rest in peace General Victor Malu!

*looks to japan, Qatar, south korea, Bahrain, Belgium, the u.k , Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Norway etc.*

sure bruh.

I won't lie, there is something very fishy about this story. definitely doesn't pass the smell test.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/19/17000704/russian-election-putin-results-authoritarianism

just gonna leave this here.

reading through some comments in this thread, it becomes more and more obvious to me why Nigeria remains so backward. smh.

scully95:


When you say half truth, it's good but not enough to continue believing in your own lies. This is what the U.S know how to do best, that is sell lies too much. I am glad you admitted that S-400 is far superior to the Patriot, but the real truth you are not saying is that, U.S has no doctrine, what it believes is The Best Form of Defense is to Attack. Now that is OYO.. On your own. Again another truth you are not telling is U.S industrial complex of junks like to build something and set up an artificial warfare to test that peace of junk and then sell it to all its puppets. That is not a doctrine, that is just a Business crookie marketing ideology. Something Russia does the opposite. There is a say that if you want to win war, buy Russian techs. But if you just want to flex muscle or buga, buy American junks. Russia looks into current conflict and build something to counter such in a real combat zone before selling it out to those who need it. That is the real machine that wins war.





Did you say F-22 flying junk ? Did you call that over rated junk 'unrivalled' and USS-NIMITZ (a mere seating duck) ? again balls down to what I have just explained above. F-22 flown once in Syria and that's it. Nothing and it was on the side of the terrorist U.S were supporting in Syria just for marketing purpose. How many countries placed order for it compared to another junkie over rated f-35 that is not "flying yet" according to Canadian PM.

smh. I know your type. y'all are ignorant folks who refuse to actually do research yet make noise up and down. I normally ignore your type but right now I have a bit of free time so here goes:
1) the s400 is superior to the Patriot missle system. there is no doubt about that. but the u.s. has never concerned itself with talk less of putting emphasis on air defense. it s more focused on ballistic missile defense which is what the Patriot missle is good at and which THAAD excels at (its radar capabilities alone worried China to the extent of considering imposing sanctions on SK for allowing it's installation).
the u.s. seeks air superiority (see the difference) hence literally every military unit (save maybe the army) has state of the art aircrafts enough to compete with any modern airforce. but if you want an idea of what a u.s. air defense would look like, do yourself a favor and Google "Aegis combat system"
2) Military doctrine : the greed of the U.S. industrial complex is well known but to say the u.s. has no military doctrine is a stupid assertion. the u.s. military doctrine varies depending on the specific needs of the various armed forces (e.g. marines are more of a quick strike force while the army usually serves long term military goals). However the overarching military principle of the U.S. is simply the ability to wage multiple wars on multiple fronts simultaneously. in fact under President Lyndon Johnson, the doctrine was specifically to be able to wage "21/2" wars i.e. two full scale wars and multiple small scale conflicts. hence why the U.S. has so many military bases, focuses more on offensive weapons and relies on air superiority (which is an effective way of destroying enemy targets whilst reducing casualty numbers). to give you a picture, the largest Airforce in the world is the U.S. Airforce. the second largest, the U.S. Navy.
also fyi, the u.s. is the only country with fighter jets dedicated primarily for the purpose of Electronic warfare (Google the E18 Growler). Basically why beat the s400 with stealth when you can combine stealth and an electronic offensive. (Google "S.e.a.d."

3) U.S. makes "junks": I won't lie, I chuckled a bit when I read this. to save time, let's go through the weapons you specified
i) USS Nimitz; first of all, Russia would kill to have a super carrier though considering the costs, it would probably severely injure their already fragile economy. But first, if a super carrier is such a "sitting duck" why is China developing one (with plans for more). because even a military novice understand the utility of having the ability to wage full scale war either defensively or in defense of allies away from home. no other country can do it (fyi, Syria is pretty close to Eastern Europe where russia is so that doesn't exactly count). War is not just won by superior weapons but by *LOGISTICS* . the ability to move massive amount of troops and fire power in an instant, the ability to literally bring the equivalent of another military base to another Territory without so much as a single brick, the ability to utilize air superiority to its full potential etc. all these and more showcase the huge utility of super carriers. it's not my fault that you don't understand basic military strategy.
as for the USS Nimitz being "sitting duck", apart from the fact that it has its own defense systems, no super carrier is ever truly alone. I would have thought you at least know what is called a "Carrier strike group". it's is being defended by a squadron of u.s.s. destroyers with a defense radius of over 400 kms (basically anything with weapons that comes within 100 kms and isn't recognised as an ally better have a death wish). it is also guarded by nuclear hunter subs and has Seahawks which are specifically designed to hunt subs from the air (Note that each destroyer also has anti submarine capabilities) and all these weapons are being coordinated by Aegis, literally the best combat system on the planet capable of taking over 100 targets from sea,air, land and under water simultaneously (can't wait for your rant about how it's all "lies and junk". Basically, good luck taking out a USS Nimitz

ii) F22; not even gonna bother explaining just how advanced the f22 is. just gonna state the fact that somehow you actually got something right (clap for yourself). no other country is trying to buy the f22. because after classified briefing, the u.s. congress deemed it too advanced to risk it's info falling into enemy hand hence all forms of export of the f22 was banned.
iii) F35; *sigh* at this rate I have to wonder what you ve been smoking. the f 35 is a technological marvel, a true 21st century multi role jet with capabilities russia can only dream of. it has a lot of bugs which need to be fixed but considering the roles it s meant to play and the fact that it's going to be in operation till 2070 and well, ... you get the idea.
also, it flies just fine and has been operational for over a year now.
the Israelis were full of praise for it and multiple allies are falling over themselves to get one. Pls a simple research before posting would save you a lot of embarrassment in future.

P.S. I didn't even have to Google much of the above. most are facts I already know cause I have a bit of interest in military hardware.

9inches:
Probably because the facts they were exploring weren't leading them to any real Trump-Russia collusion story. So, the Democrats went fishing sporadically; they had to be contained.

which facts can be explored when witnesses refused to answer questions and no relevant docs were subpoenaed?

Edit: yeah... I think we are done here.
" but for a collusion with Russia to interfere with the election, the Democrats and Obama's admin are the real culprits"
smh. and here I thought I was having a conversation with a smart person.

9inches:


Dealing with Russia is different from dealing with Russian individuals. "I have had dealings over the years where I sold a house to a very wealthy Russian many years ago. I had the Miss Universe pageant — which I owned for quite a while — I had it in Moscow a long time ago. But other than that, I have nothing to do with Russia," Trump said. Trump specifically said he has no investments or loans in or from Russia, and that's the key area. It's public knowledge that he had Trump SoHo financed in some way by either Russian or ex Soviet Union individuals in the past about the period Don Jr made that remark. Trump also has since the 80's trying to break into the Russian Market but clearly wasn't successful to this day.

The area of interest for a collusion case is whether he currently had any underhand dealings that might make him susceptible to blackmail. That is different from actual collusion. For a collusion to be proven, he had to willfully conspire with intent to interfere with the election process.

If he didn't release his tax returns because he defaulted in his tax payment or he has laundered money in some way in the past, that's a different story altogether and has nothing to do with Russia Collusion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJh0GbxIlAM

you are missing my point. I'm not saying there's actual proof of collusion, I m saying that the house intelligence committee investigation did come close to going far enough to reaching any definite conclusion

9inches:


Trump does not hide the fact that he's done business with Russians. He has sold property to a Russian, that's not a secret. The whole investigation is bordered primarily on the allegation that Trump colluded with Russia to help him win election. That allegation so far has not been proven to be true. You think if they really found substantiated evidence of collusion, CNN would still be covering Stormy Daniels. Mueller's indictment of Manafort and co has nothing to do with collusion. It's either for financial crime or for lying.

Nunes is a Trump buddy but he cannot single-handedly investigate or write reports on investigations.

Except trump denied having any financial links with russia while refusing to release his finances or the tax returns he promised to release during the campaign. not to
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/trump-denies-any-links-to-russia-no-loans-no-nothing.html

yes, collusion hasn't been proven but the investigation was far from competently done. what kind of investigation comes to a conclusion after witnesses refused to answer questions put to them.


those indicted trump campaign officials even without the indictments were within the trump inner circle. one would think they would be considered key witnesses in a collusion investigation. they were indicted as Mueller sees them as persons of interest in his investigation.

emmm... you obviously don't realise how much power the chairmen of special committees hold in the u.s. they can single handled frustrate investigations as subpoena to get documents or compell witnesses to testify can't be issued without their approval. they can also end the investigation at anytime and the final report is again subject to their approval.
even republicans within the committee are skeptical about its conclusion

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/15/house-intelligence-republicans-russia-probe-465805

that says a lot.

9inches:


False. Even Rep. Adam Schiff (Democrat) has said they have not seen any evidence of collusion. Same with senate intel committee.

nigga, no one said anything about collusion.
the house intelligence committee investigation was a farce. witnesses consistently refused to answer questions and were never subpoenaed, none of trump's finances were subpoenaed (and given that his son publicly boasted about receiving money from the Russians, one would think that his finances would be one of the first points of call). heck none of the witnesses indicted by mueller were called forward to testify.
and to add insult to injury, the committee concluded, against the u.s. and other allies intelligence apparatus, it's own republican members (specifically trey gowdy) and common sense that Russia wasn't trying to help Donald Trump win after it had been previously established by the Senate committe and even trump's justice dept that the exact opposite was true.


also the head of the committee is literally trump's house boy and was even a member of his transition team. to put it in Nigerian terms, that's like asking ameachi to investigate corruption allegations against buhari.

>Republican led committe
>head of said committe was a member of trump's transition team
>pretty much all witnesses refused to answer questions
>zero relevant subpoena issued
> several fellow republicans from said committe disagreed with it conclusion.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/12/politics/house-intel-rep-tom-rooney-russia-investigation-erin-burnett-outfront-cnntv/index.html
https://www.mediaite.com/online/trey-gowdy-splits-with-gops-house-intel-findings-russia-wanted-hillary-to-lose/


>posts an article from the daily caller, a known right wing/white nationalist site with zero credibility
>expects to be taken seriously


OP will not kill me with laughter today. ���

KwaraRat:
Nonesense.

A few days back, a Russian double agent and his daughter were found dead in a London park bench.

The MI5 quickly came out to state that the duo where most likely killed by radioactive poisoning and the M15 will later state that only Russian agents were capable of carrying out this type of assassination to which they referred to another similar case of a Russian turn-coat agent who was murdered similarly in the same London with radioactive poisoning.

Rex Tillerson was quick to comment on the murder and quicker to denounce Russia promising severe retribution.

Trump knew first hand that this was nothing but an MI5 job to further escalate tensions with Russia towards pushing for a war or at best escalating tensions with Russia towards reeling out additional sanctions.

Hope you know Tillerson is a major player with Exxon Mobile and the latter has being eyeing the huge Russian gas reserves in the arctic circle.

Also, the US and NATO were stunned when Putin reeled out a claim that Russia had developed hyper-sonic missiles that can reach speeds of up to Mach 10 (7.5km per second!) and also the development of a nuclear powered missile that can remain circling the earth at low orbits for months - this is akin to having a gun pointed at you for months!. Russia also claimed to have developed drone submarines that can go as deep as 500m (most man made subs can't go beyond 200m) and this same sub does not care about stealth since it can travel twice as fast as any regular submarine. The sub also has nuclear capabilities both as its primary arsenal and as its major source of power. With these new array of 6th Generation weaponry, Russia has finally made NATO and the US Obsolete as a fighting force.

There is also the 5th GEN all purpose fighter jet (SU-57) which has put shame to both the F-22 and F-35

Trump has come tp realize that Tillerson is neck deep in the swamp in Washington and as an establishment man. The only mistake Trump made in appointing him is thinking he was getting corporate America on-board. But alas, there is a level a man can not go beyond with out the fifth columnist giving you a helping hand.

Trump fired Tillerson for his careless rabble against Russia and for his desperate attempt at getting a WW3 on the way.

The likes of Tillerson think they can obliterate Russia and from there go for her natural resources. But thank God for Putin, the people of Russia who by the way are known to play chess and not bluff around like Americans who prefer to play poker!

damn. Nigerian can sure say some very stupid things.

chocberry:



Why do you think Saudis were angry with Obama. The world didn't know but i stumbled on a private ish. Obama was given the backing by the Islamic group of nations months before Russia steeped into the scene to go and overthrow Assad to prevent all that's happening. Saudi backed him but the guy kept playing back and forth, till Russia stepped on the scene. I don't know how God wants to settle Syria o. I don't know. If there's anyone that should be blamed It was Obama for his non-intervention stance. Imagine the lives that would have been saved between then and now. America was powerful enough to intervene and no one will stop them, the same way Russia can't be confronted on the battlefront at the moment.

neither obama nor the American public wanted troops on the ground especially after the disastrous Iraqi war that cost the u.s. trillions of dollars. not to mention obama was trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran which supports the Assad regime. a direct interference with the civil war would have seriously hindered the already small chances of getting a successful nuclear deal.
hence obama went with the cost effective method of supplying rebels with weapons. now obviously that back fired since terrorist groups got their hands on said weapons but it would have been much worse with u.s. forces on the ground which could have led to another decades long military engagement similar to Afghanistan.
besides, the obama policy of supplying weapons to groups wasn't a total failure. a good example of such success would be the kurds who were instrumental in pushing back ISIS.

*sigh* here we go again

"konji nah bastard"
-mahatma ghandi

very powerful piece of machinery. now imagine this vehicle being fully armored. *shudders*

Ronaldo is a great goal scorer. messi is a great footballer. but Ronaldinho remains the greatest artist to have ever played the beautiful game. a true genius. the smiling assasin. the man could nutmeg a mermaid.

remember the first time I saw him playing for Brazil and then barcelona. I can say without any doubt that without this man, I most likely would never have picked any interest in football.

*sigh* Thanks for the memories, dinho.

Ola514:

are they still reporting it? what did they do about it?

*scratches head* I am not understanding. is cnn the Libyan government? where they not to first new outlet to break the news? did they not report on it consistently for weeks?

smh. truly my people perish for lack of knowledge.

silastemplar:
trust me guys, the guys who write these news articles for CNN are far more intelligent, wiser , exposed and with a great deal of iq than you typing here. So CNN should just report the death of 72 as genocide or ethnic cleansing? on what grounds exactly? do you guys even know what that is? So yea actually its a clash between herds men and farmers. The Fulanis of course take their own to the extreme but its not yet a case of genocide.

congrats on being the only one with common sense here. very rare these days on NL.
I hate what the herds men did with everything in my body and even worse, the buhari administration lack of action to resolve the issue BUT people should research and avoid sentimental judgments.

these clashes have been going on for years. Heck several fulani herds men got murdered a while back but it got zero coverage. and obviously land is central to the dispute. anyone who says otherwise is IMO being mischievous and trying to politicize a tragedy.

I recommend y'all read this article
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2018/01/14/before-nigeria-becomes-somalia/



also lol at those actually paying FFK any mind.

so... this is where Chiwetel Agu tied ronaldo ' s destiny.