₦airaland Forum

I

DeepSight:
+
Sober up. The simple and inescapable fact of the matter is that he was suspended (not sacked) on account of a specific episode of the show where he exposed the insensitivity of Donald Trump to Kirk's death. He didnt't do anything on that episode other than show a clip of Trump being insensitive. That is exactly what led to his suspension, which Trump danced and celebrated. The fact that you failed to mention this well known fact and attributed it to falling ratings instead shows you are the one being unspeakably dishonest. And the fact that you immediately began to accuse me of lying and cheating shows that you are the one who is the teenager. These are the facts and I have nothing to add.

Come oh, you are accusing Trump to restricting someone's freedom of speech but you don't see Trump having the right to dance and celebrate like any normal human when someone he dislikes is punished?
I am sure you don't see the irony.
You wanted Trump to be sad and to morn his suspension right?

IjeBos:
Did you watch it?
Maybe try watching it half speed. It may be going to fast for you.
Or with closed captions, you're hearing may be going.
Then point me to part where you think they are telling the soldiers to to do something wrong.

You seem to be confused (makes sense you are MAGA).
If a commander tells a soldier to rape children and then burn them alive, yes, the Senators would be telling them to disobey that leader.
Because they are supposed to disobey that leader because that is an illegal order.
Because US soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution, not their military commander.

You seem to be confused as to what illegal means in "illegal order". You might want to google it.

You can refuse illegal orders
You must refuse illegal orders

I don't know how else to explain inciting the military to you. The video began by telling the military that the government is against the people and then asked them to disobey illegal orders. The word is inciting. Do you understand my short explanation? If you don't, let me offer a longer one below

Imagine you’re on a football team. You have a coach, and there’s a rulebook. Even if you think the coach is making a bad call, you can't just stand in the middle of the field and start shouting at your teammates to ignore the coach and start playing by their own rules. If you do that, the whole game falls apart. Nobody knows who to listen to, and your team loses.

In the military, that "rulebook" is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and it’s way more serious than a sports game. Here is why many people, especially those who served in the military, feel the senators were wrong:


In the military, there is a very strict ladder of who is in charge. This is called the Chain of Command. If a soldier has a problem with an order, there are legal ways to address it, such as talking to a military lawyer (a JAG) or the Inspector General.

By making a public video telling soldiers to "dissent" or "disobey," the senators were basically trying to jump into that ladder from the outside. When politicians start talking directly to the troops, telling them which orders to follow, it creates "static" and confusion. A confused army is a dangerous one.

When you join the military, you make a promise. Part of that promise is to keep the military out of politics. We don't want an army that picks and chooses which president to listen to based on whether they like their political party.
The Senators' Mistake: Because they used to be in the military, they knew how much weight their words would carry. By using their former ranks to tell current soldiers to "disobey," many veterans feel they used their "old uniform" to play politics. To a soldier, that feels like a betrayal of the quiet, professional code we all lived by.

There is a specific rule, Article 94 of the UCMJ, about Sedition. That’s when you try to get people to revolt against the government.
Now, the senators said they were just telling people to refuse illegal orders. On paper, that's true; you should refuse an illegal order (like an order to hurt a civilian).

The Problem: They didn't point to any specific "illegal" order. They just threw the idea out there. To a 14-year-old, it might seem like "standing up for what's right," but to a General or a Sergeant, it looks like someone is trying to start a fire in the barracks just to see what happens.

IjeBos:
You're punching above your knowledge level.
Let's see what the current Secretary of Defense had to say about this in 2016.
Oh yeah, he said, 'the Military won’t follow unlawful orders’.

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

The way you boys make connections that don't exist is a real gift. Please, where did he encourage the military to disobey their leaders?
Now watch the video and tell me if they are in any way related
https://youtube.com/shorts/Fk9Gh3qwW4I?si=7xfEBcV9VXVUeOzx

Do you see the difference now?

ijebosb:
Yes, it's called a reminder. That usually happens before someone needs what the reminder is for.
Maybe use 'google' to find the definition of remidner.
Reminding after soldires follow the illegal order wouldn't make sense, abi?
And giving what Hegeseth has been doing/saying both in this war and in with Venezuela, it was prescient.

I accused you of quickly googling something, not fulling understanding it, yet retyping it here.
The problem for you is that your lack of understanding of what you were talking about was glaringly obvious.
So, the problem isn't google, it's googling to make a point (a point you don't understand) and failing at it, instead of googling to learn.

And fyi, your posts are filled with unnecessarily grandiose words that makes your writing sound forced.
It makes you sound like someone trying too hard to punch above his weight/intellect and impress.
I don't know your age but you write like ur 16.

This is the most foolish thing I have heard you remind soldeirs to disobey their orders? You guys are truly strange.

ijebosb:
This post.
Cringe. Like you just googled it, barely understood what you read yet rewrote it here.
The most cringe part? Signing it off as "You are most welcome" as if you made any sense.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, soldiers are legally obligated to refuse unlawful orders as they have to only obey lawful ones.
They are thought this and trained that way.
Your argument seems to be that US Senators whose job is to provide oversight of the Military, reminding soldiers something that they are legally obligated to do and trained as such is a call for "revolution"?
The hint that your argument was nonsensical should have been when the Grand Jury who will indict anything chose not to indict and when a Federal Judge already ruled in Kelly's favor.

Furthermore, you should really google the First Amendment and Congress's Speech and Debate clause.

I don't know how to help you anymore. When the above senators were asked to mention one illegal order that the Trump government had given the military, they all said there was none so clearly you have no Idea.
You also showed a shocking level of ignorance by accusing me of using Google as if it's some strange nonsense.
The world today depends souch on Google and one would be a goat not to use it.

I see you don't use Google. It shows

DeepSight:
+
Oh I was just letting you know the nature of the gang you belong to.
Forget my age, your attempts at ad hominems cant mask your dishonesty.

You are always all over the place. And yes, I belong to a gang of people who are not foolishly sensitive and always acting the victim. You messed up at work like Jimmy, and you don't expect to be sacked because you are a democrat. Please, act your age.

DeepSight:
+
Here you go -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!

So why did you go silent on the key event that led to his suspension which had Donald Trump's imprimatur?

So who is dishonest now?

Are you sure this is the big evidence you have against Trump? So, while this article offers zero evidence to prove that ABC acted because of Trump, it says lots of things that, with a clear head, you will see make no sense. Let me show you how to read with wisdom.

The article says,
following criticism from conservatives and public pressure from Trump administration officials

But then, at least half of the country was mad at Jimmy Kimmel and rightly so. ABC saw half of its viewers hurt by the stupid words of this man. So picking out Trump in particular shows you are not serious. Everyone with good sense wanted Kimmel fired for crossing a line.

This is what Jimmy said.
"We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it."
If your TV presenter is this careless and lacks sensibility, wouldn't you sack him? Would you wait for the president to do so? His words were misinformation; he mocked half of the country and made a mockery of a dead man.

Now, let's educate you further.
While a Democrat (Barack Obama) was president in 2013, Martin Bashir on air insulted Sarah Palin and was suspended according to industrial standards.

Why do you think Jimmy should be treated differently? Is he royalty? Do you even know the meaning of freedom of speech, or are you just another careless Jimmy?

DeepSight:
+
You have always been the teenager in our interactions and it is not surprising that you are clicking heels with a pair of oddies who insisted the other day that there was nothing racist about Trump posting a video of the Obamas as apes. I am sure you agree with them, and this is why I cant be bothered about the opinions of such a circus of clowns.

Now you are beginning to act like a nagging wife. How did we go from freedom of speech to a video of the Obamas as apes, which was taken down after it was discovered?
Honestly, how old are you?

Lol Writing in red changes nothing. Trump has always criticized ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, so please, instead of copying and pasting a lengthy article that doesn't provide any evidence, can you please research and produce evidence that directly links Trump to the sack of that foolish man?

raumdeuter:
Which of the liberal posters does not sound like a 15yr old.

Research has shown that liberals are prone to depression and psychosis

You are so correct.

benalvino3:
He gets so emotional when he cannot defend his position

DeepSight once told me that he is above 40, but he always acts like a 15-year-old girl. Jimmy Kimmel has been insulting Trump unceasingly since 2016, and Trump did nothing about it, but like all democrats, they can't take responsibility for their failures. It's always Trump.

ijebosb:
You mean like the Six Senators who told Soldiers not to obey illegal orders they then tried to indict (but even the Grand Jury which would normally indict a ham sandwich wouldn't)
or Rep. Adam Schiff
or John Bolton
or Tim Walz
or John Brennan
or Chris Krebs

You sound wholly uninformed.

Now you are the uninformed one. When a soldier calls another to dissent, that's no longer free speech. That's the law, even before Trump.
While a civilian has a broad First Amendment right to call for "dissent" or "revolution" (as long as it doesn't incite "imminent lawless action", a U.S. soldier is governed by a much stricter set of rules called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Have you heard of Article 94? The law pre-dates Trump

Also, under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the regular military who are entitled to pay (those who did 20+ years) remain subject to military law for the rest of their lives.

You are most welcome

DeepSight:
+
Nonsense. You are the one engaging in lies and deceit and hypocritically pretending Trump had no hand in the affair. You are so dishonest you even leave out that everything happened after a particular show where he roasted Trump simply by showing his own words.

You have no integrity. Shame.

Oga, stop flearing up. Your anger is not going to save you here. Please show your evidence that it was Trump and not his poor results that led to his sack. You hate Trump, I get, but if you need to lie to criticize him, then he is not as bad as you claim.
Oga, I need your proof, not noise.

DeepSight:
+
Jimmy Kimmel. You said one person. Thats one.

Why must all of you anti-Trump lie, cheat, and deceive just to win an argument? Jimmy Kimmel was fired by a private, not by Trump or the US government. And he was fired for good reason.
1. He was a liability to the network. His show was losing upwards of $20 million annually. He was not profitable.
2. He had lost cultural relevance. By October 1, 2025, the show dropped to 1.7 million viewers, a 74% decline from the previous week's 6.48 Kimmel's audience has been experiencing a downward trend for years, with 2025 average viewership down 37% compared to 2015.
3. He is irresponsible, and his comments were unbecoming of someone in the broadcast industry. Remember what he said after Kirk's assassination. People have been sacked for less

Be honest, if you were his employer, wouldn't you sack him?

DeepSight:
+
Trump has sacked hundreds of Attorneys in the DoJ for being on the team that prosecuted him, he has gone after free speech big time, he has taken major steps to stifle constitutional liberties and he also let loose his goons to murder protesters.

Stop making up stuff and diverting from the topic. Please mention one person who the Trump administration has gone after for the crime of using his freedom of speech.
Let's see if you are just being dishonest.

DeepSight:
QuinQQ
Nwaikpe
TcTrills

Go to this post and see the attachment.

Ok, someone in Trump's administration disagrees with Trump, Big deal. Try it in Iran and let's see where it lands you.

DeepSight:
+
No you misunderstand me. I specifically said "stylishly" and "fraudulently" to show you that they were cutting corners and still acting illegally.

My point is, you might not agree with the US and Israel in fighting Iran but the greater evil is that of Iran, fighting the rest of us for no reason.
I know my enemies and I don't justify for people trying to kill me

DeepSight:
+
And everyone knows what happened in places like Korea and Vietnam was illegal.

The War Powers Act does not supersede the constitution. The War Powers Act is a statute meant to regulate the President's use of force; it cannot overrule the Constitution, which remains the ultimate source of Congress's power to declare war. In fact -

1. The President must consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing troops into hostilities.

2. The President must submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces.

In the present case, the President himself has called this a war. This in itself is enough to show that his actions are unconstitutional.

PS: Korea was stylishly called a "conflict" and some other cases have been fraudulently called "police action" or something similar.

Clearly, you don't know what happened in Vietnam. I am against the war in Vietnam just as I am against the war in Iraq. But then all these wars followed the very same process, no congressional approved. And most of them ended up lasting more than 3 months

Yes, the War Powers Act does not supersede the constitution. That's why Congress has the power to end the war after 90 days.

You last point here is just being childish. So if Trump calls it a conflict, he has all powers to continue but once it calls it a war, he loses legitimacy? Let's get serious for once.

DeepSight:
+
I hate it when people make outrightly false statements with confidence. Look at the bold. That is just the opposite of the law in the the USA. Congress holds the power to declare war, the sole power, the president can only take the actions he has taken where there is an imminent threat and even then, after acting, he has to revert to congress.

What kind of imminent threat against the USA EXISTED? NONE!
What kind of imminent threat in the middle of on-going negotiations?

Now, let's learn,
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the US President has the power to start a war for 2 months (60 days) and extend it by a month (30 days) before involving Congress.
Since WW2, Congress has not declared any war. Not Vietnam, South Korea, not the Gulf War 1 & 2, not Afghanistan, and not in Libya.
Now, who is making the outright false statements with confidence? Some of us know these things.

DeepSight:
+
But the bold was the result of the US intervention, just the same way it led to civil war and unrest in other places like Libya and Syria for example (in the case of Syria to show you the extent of their evil hypocrisy, they ended up installing an Al Qaeda Chieftain and now dance and play with him).

As for the red above, the point is that there is a history and a pattern which should not be ignored.

Mind you in the case of Iraq and WMD, Bush and Blair went to the extent of getting a broad based international coalition, congress approval and even went to the United Nations. The war was still globally unpopular and there were protests across the globe against it, but they went ahead.

In this instance, no congress approval, no discussion with allies to form any coalition, nothing. One man or rather two men just woke up and started and plunged the world into this mess and you are blaming the side who were suddenly attacked even in the middle of negotiation which Oman had confirmed was going very well in Geneva.

Let me explain what you are saying, you are taking away responsibility from others as you always do. You are blaming the US even when Muslims kill their fellow Muslims.

Again you have shown that you don't know what happened in Syria. It's the opposite of what you are claiming. Obama refused to bring in the US directly. That was why Asad and his russian friends were able to crush the resistance and that also led to the rise of ISIS.
Again, an Al Qaeda Chieftain taking power shows that the US did not interfere as you think. And it also shows great maturity that they can work with a formal enemy and invite him to the white house.

To your second point, Yes there is a historic pattern of great nations invading weaker nations but we can't get too lazy. We must look at each through its own Len.

Under the American law, Trump was completely in line. He broke no laws in declaring war on Iran without Congress and without his global partners. He needed the element of surprise and not bureaucracy.

Lastly, you seem to know very little about the
negotiation. If it was going as well as you claim, why was it extended twice without anything agreed upon? Please, let's use our brains here. Can you mention one thing from your Oman sources that was agreed on? Give me just one, I am listening.

DeepSight:
+
Of course not.

I asked you a question about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq for a reason. You ignored the question.

Oh, I am completely against the US invading Iraq. It was unnecessary. But unlike you, I judge each event on its own merits.

Again, the US did not kill millions in Iraq as you guys claim. In fact, it's a lazy Gen z claim.

The most outlier studies estimate 1 million deaths and only about 35% were attributed to the coalition forces.

Most of the deaths were Arab Muslims killing fellow Arab Muslims. Militias and insurgents killing their fellow Muslims just like the Iranians are doing today.

DeepSight:
+
What sort of abominable upside down reasoning is this.

I already know you, everyone that disagrees with you is abomination and upside down.
Question for you, be honest, how would you feel if the US and Israel are able to gain control of the Hormuz strait, restore global shipping and save the global economy?
I can bet you will be pained. Here, the US and Israel victory is clearly tied to global victory but people like you would rather everything falls to pieces as long as the US and Iran don't win.

DeepSight:
+
Thank you and well said.

QuinQQ, Nwaikpe, Tctrills, I hope you all remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction hoax that led to the invasion of Iraq (Gulf War 2).

Oga what's your point here?
At least the US has an excuse for their war with Iran. What is Iran's excuse for trying to crash the global economy and make you poor?
You and I and fighting then I turn around and start hitting everyone around including those sympathetic to me, how am I not a terrorist?

Again, nuclear weapons or not, Iran had this coming. Their first action after their revolution in 1979 was to kidnap 80 US embassy staff. Since then, they have sponsored bombing and killings of US citizens all across the middle east. The US had more than 10 reasons to take them out.

FreeStuffsNG:
According to you, the innocent minors, girls, trafficked and abused by the Epstein gang in the Epstein files, are collateral damages too.
Tens of thousands of babies killed in Gaza are collateral damages too. Now it is again the Iranian girls in school class, from ages 7 to 12, murdered are collateral damages too.

You will be judged by same measure you treat the misery of the weak , poor and powerless like you judged the misery of all these girl and baby victims.

It's funny that a supporter of Iran has a problem with innocent minors, girls, trafficked and abused by the Epstein gang, when every day in Iran, women and girls of all ages are abused and killed.

In Iran, girls can be legally married at 13 years old, or younger with paternal and judicial permission. While 13 is the legal minimum, Article 1041 of the Civil Code allows marriage at any age, provided a father or guardian consents and a court deems it in the child's interest.

Epstein and gang dey learn work

DeepSight:
+
So you agree with Muslims who say no one must draw or paint or depict Prophet Mohammad, Peace be upon Jinn.

I will not draw Mohammad. Why should I disrespect muslims for no reason? But just as I will not harm you for using the name of Christ in vain, no one should be harmed for drawing Mohammad. Is this so hard? We can respect each other without being in agreement.

DeepSight:
+
It is blasphemy to call a man God.

Again, you are missing the point. You don't believe Jesus Christ is God, we get that, but you know that Christians believe He is God, so why mention His name in vain when discussing with a Christian about the US and Iran? Just show some respect, how easy can that be? We can create a thread to discuss whether Jesus Christ is God, and why we should not take His name in vain.
I will not even use your father's name in vain, even though he is human.
You don't need to be a Christian to respect others.

DeepSight:
+
Of course I know that verse.

But what then is the difference between you and the Muslim who gets angry that someone draws Muhammad?

Besides have you looked into the meaning of the Greek "ego eimi"

I am not angry; I only tried to teach you to respect those things others hold sacred. We could argue about the Greek meaning, but it changes nothing. The only thing that needs to change is your lack of respect for the things others hold dear.

DeepSight:
+
Old testament verses to prove that it is blasphemy to mention the name of a man who had not even yet been born then?

This is not about whether you believe or agree with my religion; it's about whether both of us can live in a society together and treat each other with decency despite our disagreements.
Today in Finland, Christians are jailed for quoting bible verses online because of people like you. We thought a world with fewer Christians would have more freedoms, but Europe is teaching us that in a Godless nation, the state begins to take away your freedoms.

DeepSight:
+
Old testament verses to prove that it is blasphemy to mention the name of a man who had not even yet been born then?

Before Abraham, I AM. Oga, you claim to know the bible, why are you pretending just for the sake of argument? Just learn to be decent and show respect.

DeepSight:
+
Where is the disrespect? Merely mentioning his name is now disrespect?

Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11
You who claims to have read the bible 17 times should know that we don't merely mention His name.

FreeStuffsNG:
US , you mean. This is a war between US and Iran. It is just using its proxy in Occupied Palestine and the propaganda machine of its proxy.

Your narrative doesn't matter. As long as Israel or the US, as you call it, is getting the virgins busy, I don't care how you want to twist it.

DeepSight:
+
Jesus Christ of Nazareth

I don't understand why you can't respect another man's religion. I understand you hate Christianity and Christians, but please, no need to use the name of my God in vain. You don't need to be religious to learn to show respect for what others consider sacred.
As one who claims to have read the bible 17 times, you should know how to show respect to a Christian.