₦airaland Forum

MrPresident1:
You came to this thread trying to force the view that Palestinians are some distinct ethnicity, which they are not. You said Golda Meir was lying when she pointed out that she was Palestinian.

I didn't try to force the view that the Palestinians "are some distinct ethnicity . You're the person who is guilty of what you're trying to accuse me of by your insistent demand I mention which ethnic group are the Palestinians I said they're not an ethnic group but a national group, national identity. That has been my reply to you.

Show me where I said Golda Meir lied when she said she had a Palestinian passport and was a Palestinian? . I mentioned Meir having a Palestinian passport as evidence the Jews were once regarded as Palestinians within that region . That was what I said. The lie was her claim the land was " desolate".

The term Palestinian does nor belong to only the Arabs of Gaza or west bank so they cannot claim to be sole Palestinians, that is creating confusion. They are ARABS. The Arabs of West bank and the Arabs of Gaza.

. No. The correct descriptive word is , Palestinians Arabs or arabized Arabs, and they are not a single ethnic group. Prior to 1948, Jewish people living within the region identified as Palestinians Jews , but after then, only a few

All of them in that region including the Israelis are Palestinians.

You don't know history. Before 1948, yes Palestinians Jews, but after then, no. Only a few identified with Palestinians, but no longer call themselves Palestinians Jews.

Who are the Palestinians you are referring to here? Jewish or Arab?

, The Palestinians are primarily descended from the indigenous population of the Levant, with a genetic and cultural continuity that dates back thousands of years . Genetic studies confirms that modern Palestinians share significant ancestry with bronze age Canaanites and other ancient levantine people. This confirms a long standing presence in the region, not a foreign one.

sources ;
1. Genetic studies on Palestinian origin. Haber
2. Historical documents from the British mandate era .

You tried to spin that Palestinians are one unique, monolithic tribe. No they are not.

You didn't understand what you read. Your interpretation of my statement is incorrect.I never tried to spin anything.

The levantine population which the Palestinians descended from wasn't a single ethnic group..

I never said they were. So which "spin" are you talking about? The one you imagined ?

Misrepresenting me to win an argument is poor tactics. Please stop it and engage honestly if you want me to continue with you.

MrPresident1:
Your Palestinians are Arabs. There is no indigenous ethnicity or race called Palestinians. They are better called Gazans not Palestinians. But we keep hearing Palestinians in the news. The better term to describe them is Gazans

When the nakhba occurred in 1948, the Arabs fled to Jordan. Before Jordan was created in 1946, was Jordan not part of Palestine?

Jordanians are Arabs. Large Percentage of Jordanians have Palestinian heritage.

The stock of Arab Palestinians is in Jordan.

You cannot understand

They aren't " my Palestinians".

And who said Palestinians are an ethnic group or race? Me or you?

And again, they cannot be called just Gazans because they're are also found in the West Bank. Yes!

Until you understand the concept of nationhood,it will difficult for you to make sense of my contributions on this thread.

MrPresident1:
I see you now agree that the parent stock of these 'Palestinians' is Arab. Why is their silence on their Arabia origins, and what we hear always is 'Palestinians' discounting the fact that they are Arabs. Why so much noise about 'Palestinians' when the term is not absolute or unique to any ethnic group, race or nationality?

This is what you said

The reason for this adoption was to carve out a distinct national identity for themselves so they can rally under it as a unified front against threat to their lives and continued presence in the land after the creation of the Jewish state.

But you are confused. Who or what gives them the rights to appropriate Palestinians to themselves when all the people in that place are Palestinians? I ask you again, are the Jordanians not Palestinians?

Modified. Provide the source of your claim their stock is Jordan. Jordanian Arabs are Jordanians, not Palestinians,just like Yorubas in Benin republic are beninois, not Nigerians

Your question is for you to answer. If there was a homogeneous Yoruba nation, the Yoruba will all be in one country and will bear one name. They will not bear West Africans because many people are also West Africans

There are Arab countries, why are Arabs being called Palestinians, a name that is not unique to them or to anybody in that region? When did the name Palestinian become a unique identifier for only Arabs?

Arabs in Palestine have chosen that name to represent their national identity in that region which is also their homeland.

Talking about rights, there are no international laws barring them from choosing Palestinians or Palestine.

MrPresident1:
I see you now agree that the parent stock of these 'Palestinians' is Arab. Why is their silence on their Arabia origins, and what we hear always is 'Palestinians' discounting the fact that they are Arabs. Why so much noise about 'Palestinians' when the term is not absolute or unique to any ethnic group, race or nationality?

This is what you said

The reason for this adoption was to carve out a distinct national identity for themselves so they can rally under it as a unified front against threat to their lives and continued presence in the land after the creation of the Jewish state.

But you are confused. Who or what gives them the rights to appropriate Palestinians to themselves when all the people in that place are Palestinians? I ask you again, are the Jordanians not Palestinians?

Modified. Provide the source of your claim their stock is Jordan. Jordanian Arabs are Jordanians, not Palestinians,just like Yorubas in Benin republic are beninois, not Nigerians

Your question is for you to answer. If there was a homogeneous Yoruba nation, the Yoruba will all be in one country and will bear one name. They will not bear West Africans because many people are also West Africans

There are Arab countries, why are Arabs being called Palestinians, a name that is not unique to them or to anybody in that region? When did the name Palestinian become a unique identifier for only Arabs?

Oh boy na wah. What's all this "parent stock" mention for. Are you a poultry farmer.?

Listen, Palestinians are not an ethnic group,but national identity which included both the Arabs and Jews in the past.



The Arabs are alone now after the Jewish state was created. Your Golda Meir already confirmed she had a Palestinian passport. So what are you still arguing?

And FYI, the Palestinians aren't pure Arabs. They are actually called arabized Arabs due to the fact their ancestors adopted Arab language and culture.

MrPresident1:
Provide your sources, put them here let us all read it. You are stubbornly refusing to provide your sources, no one is interested in your opinions, provide sources of what you are saying. Where are the links to the 'documented history' you are peddling?

When did Palestinian become a unique identity for only Arabs living in Gaza and the West bank, and who made it so? When did West Africans become the unique identifier for only Yorubas?

I have provided 2 already which you continue to ignore,and I am providing another 2 : Palestinian identity. The construction of a modern national Palestine consciousness. Rashid Khalidi.

2 Haaretz"s historical investigation.

These are valid sources because they have been peer reviewed : published in reputable scientific journals.

You, on your part,have been making claims upon claims,but not for once have you provided any valid source to support them.Your Google and paste and the self serving video of Golda Meir can't be relied on.

MrPresident1:
Type: are Jordanians Palestinians on Google and read up what it says.

Excerpts:

Overview
No, Jordanians are not Palestinians, but most Jordanian citizens are of Palestinian origin due to historical events like the 1948 Nakba, leading to the annexation of the West Bank and the granting of citizenship to Palestinian refugees by Jordan. While a large segment of the Jordanian population has Palestinian heritage, and the countries share cultural similarities, Jordan and Palestine are distinct national identities, with Jordan having granted full citizenship to many Palestinians, creating a distinct Jordanian population with a majority of Palestinian heritage.

Read!

Honestly, you're confusing yourself. You claimed that the " parent stock" of the Palestinians are Jordanians,and I asked for your source.

Now, read again what you just Googled and tell me how it confirms your "parent stock"claim

MrPresident1:
Name the people.

Did they sprout from the ground of the Levant or they rained down like rain from the skies of the Levant? Durng the time the Ottomans ruled the area, which tribe was called Palestinians? The Kurds, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Jewish? Which specific tribe or race or nationality was called Palestinians?

You are not saying the truth. This is what you said, you said

, The Palestinians are primarily descended from the indigenous population of the Levant, with a genetic and cultural continuity that dates back thousands of years . Genetic studies confirms that modern Palestinians share significant ancestry with bronze age Canaanites and other ancient levantine people. This confirms a long standing presence in the region, not a foreign one.

I challenge you to name the indigenous populations that the modern 'Palestinians' descended from

Palestinian is a modern naming and it is a cover term for all the people living in that geographical area. A mishmash of tribes, not a single ethnicity or race or tribe or nation

The Jordanians are Arabs, they are also Palestinians. Jewish are Palestinians

Ascribing Palestinian to a single nation or ethnicity or race or nationality is a lie and that is what you are pushing

Anyone can easily find out the truth with just a little help from chatgpt

It's not what I said, but what was sourced from documented history which, unfortunately, you have stubbornly refused to consult.

Please , next time try to corroborate from elsewhere what you get from chatgbt so you're not mislead. Not everything it gives you is authentic info. It sometimes produces garbage if you don't know the right set of questions to ask concerning a topic .

And again, Palestinian is not the name of an ethnic group just like Nigeria is not the name of an ethnic group. Palestinian is national identity.So stop conflating it with the wrong thing if you want me to continue this conversation.

MrPresident1:
Writing a long epistle does not mean that you are correct. You are wrong.

There was never any people distinctly called Palestinians, they were all Arabs and Jews and other tribes living in that geographical location and they were all Palestinians as of that time. Golda Meir carried a Palestinian passport, consistent with the fact that she was Palestinian. A modern day distinct nationality and tribe of people called Palestinians is a lie.

Before Nigeria, there was Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Tiv, and they all became Nigerians. But there was never any tribe or race or nation called Palestinians that are going to be the nationals and citizens of a soon to be declared state of Palestine. Before this people who are quartered in Gaza and the west bank became the modern day Palestinians they were Jewish and Arabs in that land, Jewish formed Israeli and Arabs became Jordanians. Golda Meir correctly defined the geographical area of Palestine, and the people of Palestine was a mix of tribes.

These modern day Palestinians, they are Arabs and their stock is in Jordan. The stock that is in Jordan, are they not Palestinians? Why were they blockaded from joining Jordan?

Are Jordanians not Palestinians?

Golda Meir carried a Palestinian passport because, during the British Mandate, the name was used legally and geographically for all inhabitants of the land of Palestine, which included the Arabs and the Jews.

But after 1948,it became the adopted national name for the Arab people living there. This is evolution, not invention, and so, not a lie .

The reason for this adoption was to carve out a distinct national identity for themselves so they can rally under it as a unified front against threat to their lives and continued presence in the land after the creation of the Jewish state.

You don' t know all of this because of people like Golda Meir, whose aim in the video you posted was to suppress truth . And that was why she lied by claiming the land was 'desolate ', a claim that directly contradicts historical fact.

Modified. Provide the source of your claim their stock is Jordan. Jordanian Arabs are Jordanians, not Palestinians,just like Yorubas in Benin republic are beninois, not Nigerians

MrPresident1:
Being these sources, we want to see them

You have a phone. Use it. I have done my part.So, it's left for you to decide if you want to know the truth.

MrPresident1:
You didn't see the video.

Before the British got the mandate for Palestine, was there any district tribe, race or nation of people called Palestinians? The answer is No. It was a geographical location, there was no single unified group called Palestinians, they were just a collection of various people under umbrella of the location called Palestine.

Where did I argue against this? I said the modern day Palestinians are a descendant of the Levant. I never said there was an ancient tribe in that region called the Palestinians .

Anyone can easily know who is not saying the truth. Just go to google and make your research. Ask your AI if there was ever a distinct unique tribe or nation callled Palestinians and you will find out for yourselves.

Go to chatgpt and ask it there was ever any race or tribe called Palestinians. When the Ottomans ruled the area, was there a distinct Palestinian tribe?

You're asking these questions because you're confusing the name for the people the name represents . Name can change,but the people remain the same.

So, the question you should ask Chatbot if you really want to know the truth is, who are the modern day Palestinians?

Ask that and come back here with your answers

MrPresident1:
Did you listen to Golda Meir's interview that I posted?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixbdlUhELoU&pp=ygUkZ29sZGEgbWVpciBpbnRlcnZpZXcgaSdtIHBhbGVzdGluaWFu
I doubt you did. What is the parent stock of these 'Palestinians', who were they before they became 'Palestinians'? Have they always been known as 'Palestinians'?
When did Westbank and Gaza become Palestine, inhabited by 'Palestinians'?

When did their national identity as 'Palestinian' begin? For example like we have the Turks, the Iranians or Persians, the Arabs, the Americans, the French, the British etc., when did their national identity as 'Palestinians' begin?

I have seen the video before. However, Golda Meir' 's claims in it do not prove that the Palestinians didn't exist. Instead, they prove that she wanted a gullible public to believe they didn't exist. It was a strategic move to legitimize her own people's claim to the land of Palestine following the creation of the Jewish state in 1948.

A quick Google search will help you answer your other questions.

MrPresident1:
I corrected Bolivars to Bolivarians

Palestine people are called Palestinians. Who are the Palestinians?

Where is the extent of Palestine, and who are the original Palestinians?

1. No. That's not it. .Lagos is not equivalent to the others in your list . Look at it again. Lagos state is not the name of a country,but the name of a territory within the Nigerian state.

The correct thing should be , Lagos =Lagosians=Nigerians. Gaza=Gazans = Palestinians.

2, The Palestinians are primarily descended from the indigenous population of the Levant, with a genetic and cultural continuity that dates back thousands of years . Genetic studies confirms that modern Palestinians share significant ancestry with bronze age Canaanites and other ancient levantine people. This confirms a long standing presence in the region, not a foreign one.

sources ;
1. Genetic studies on Palestinian origin. Haber
2. Historical documents from the British mandate era .

Meir's statements about the Palestinians people are misleading. None of it is supported by authentic history . A people don't need a state to exist as a nation .

Before the British created the colonial state of Nigeria , there was no Nigerian state. But the land wasn't empty . There were clearly people living there for thousands of years. The Yorubas,Ibos Hausas, Fulanis and hundreds of other ethnic groups occupied the area.

The same applies to the modern day Palestinians. Their land wasn't empty before the creation of the modern state of Israel. It's a myth that it was.

MrPresident1:
Lagos people are called Lagosians
Canada people are called Canadians
Venezuela people are called Venezuelans
Bolivia people are Bolivars
Tunisia people are Tunisians
Algeria people are Algerians
Morocco people are Moroccans
Bangladesh people are Bangladeshi
Senegal people are Senegalese
Gambia people are Gambian
Sudan people are Sudanese

But Gaza people are Palestinians

So why are Gazans called Palestinians? Who are the parent stock of these 'Palestinians'? How did Gaza become synonymous with Palestine, is Gaza t only land in Palestine? Who are the other Palestinians or Palestinians are only found in Gaza?

There's something odd in your list above. If you can spot it, will help you answer your own question.

Palestinians are also found in the West Bank.

MrPresident1:
Next month, many nations have promised to recognise a 'state of Palestine'. What is a state of Palestine? Is it the same as state of Israeli?

Just a state and not a people?

Why are the people of Gaza called Palestinians instead of Gazans?

Why Palestinian instead of Gazan?

The same reason why Lagosians are called Nigerians.

The same reason Texans are called Americans.

Gaza ,just like Lagos and Texas to both Nigeria and America, is a part of the proposed state of Palestine . The other part is the West Bank .So,at the moment, before the creation of their state, the national identity is Palestinian.

This is the answer to your question.

Why do some segment of the public still refuse to see the truth?



Despite the large volume of evidence that has been presented, the NCAA "s official statement, suggesting a no case for the embattled passenger, multiple eyewitness accounts, and the damning video of a calm and fully dressed Ms Emmason begging to deplane before the fight, a segment of the public still continue to cling on the initial narrative, " an unruly passenger " who assaulted crew ".

This reaction is not a failure of evidence, but a predictable feature of how mass manipulation works on the human psyche. This phenomenon is driven by two potent psychological forces:

1. Confirmation Bias : The tendency to filter information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or rejecting evidence that challenges them. For those who initially accepted the airline's narrative, this analysis will be filtered through that bias.

2. Cognitive dissonance: Accepting that they were easily manipulated by a cooperate entity and influential figures creates a significant mental discomfort. To deal with this, it is psychological easier to dismiss the new information as lies or has being part of conspiracy rather than to admit they were initially deceived.

.
This is not theoretical. We can see this play out in the commentary of influential figures. VeryDarkman (VDM) a prominent social media critic has demonstrated this tactics . When an eyewitness voice note emerged contradicting the airline's story, he did not engage with its content. Instead, he immediately challenged the narrator to ", show his boarding details" and offered a monetary reward for proof, a tool designed to dismiss the evidence without addressing its substance. And when the damning video of Ms Comfort pleading to disembark emerged, he dismissed it as "in consequential" and continue to frame her as the aggressor, and even argued ridiculously that the video was recorded after the altercation. How can that be? This desperate, illogical counter - argument makes his bias even more obvious. A video of Ms Emmason pleading to get off logically must have happened before she was dragged off and not after.


A call for vigilance


This is not a matter of intelligence, but of awareness. Mass manipulation does not work because people are foolish. it works because it exploits universal cognitive blind spots and emotional triggers. Often targeting what an individual or group is ignorant of, or their own inherent biases

The fact that an influential and supposedly critical figure like VDM fell for this manipulation is the most powerful demonstration of a central truth concerning mass manipulation: no one is immune to these techniques . A professor of biology can be manipulated by a false political narrative, a brilliant engineer can be deceived by a sophisticated financial scam, an activist like VDM can be misled by a selectively edited video . Expertise in one field does not confer immunity

The only defence is conscious knowledge of these tactics, (which I will detail in part two of this article) , and a commitment to critical self reflection , questioning whether we are reacting to evidence or to engineered emotion.

Therefore, if you are reading this article and feel a surge of anger or an urge to dismiss it as "one sided" or bias " I challenge you to pause and ask yourself these critical questions;

Is my reaction based on a logical analysis of the evidence presented in the article, or an emotional allegiance to the first story I heard?

Have I been swayed by the shocking imagery of the viral video rather than the sequence of events that led to it?

Am I rejecting the conclusion in the article because it would force me to reconsider my trust in certain authorities or influencer?

However, I would like to mention that this article was not written to convince those who are determined to remain convinced by the initial narrative. It is for the critical thinkers, those who are willing to question, to analyze and to follow the evidence even if it leads to uncomfortable truths

Thank you

End of part 1. Part 2 will come later .

Cc: Seun
OAM4J
Mynd44
Nfpmod

Front-page please. The public deserves to know the truth that is being suppressed everywhere.

CC :naptu2, femi4, DeepSight, Lordreed,LivingEarthMan, deltateam, javilo,there daddy,Sleekman,Akinpresident,creamypie,Stainzvill, HallahGeister, Budaatum

And why is this breach so serious?

As already mentioned, the pilot—the captain—in command,is the ultimate authority on the aircraft and has the final say on all safety and security matters. By unilaterally bypassing this chain of command to block the passenger, Juliana Edwards created an unsafe and volatile situation that aviation protocols are specifically designed to prevent.

These protocols are not arbitrary rules; they are born from decades of aviation experience and are often written "in blood" They are meticulously designed to prevent chaos, ensure safety, and protect both passengers and crew. Crucially, they ensure that responses to incidents are proportional, authorized, and based on actual risk assessment, not on the personal feelings of a single crew member.

Furthermore, these protocols exist to ensure that genuine threats are neutralized efficiently by the right authorities: those who are specifically trained for the job.

If a passenger is non-compliant and poses a genuine threat, they are dealt with before the aircraft departs, not after.This standard procedure was clearly demonstrated in the KWAM 1 incident and a recent case involving an elderly passenger who refused to vacate his seat.

The fact that the pilot in Ms. Comfort's case allowed the flight to depart for Lagos signifies that the matter was resolved satisfactorily before takeoff. The principle that a significant threat must be addressed before takeoff is a standard global safety procedure in the aviation sector.

Therefore, blocking Ms Emmason from exiting the plane upon landing is not a standard procedure for a settled, minor infraction. The purser's unauthorized enforcement action created a new and unnecessary confrontation where none needed to exist.This breach was a dangerous subversion of a system that everyone relies on for their safety.
The battle of Armageddon: Light over darkness.

What triggered the violence?

While the breach of protocol itself is a serious issue,it only explains the environment that serves as catalyst which led to the physical assault.Ms Comfort Emmason",s decision to document the interaction,a sensible action for a passenger feeling targeted, clearly threatened Juliana Edward's control of the narrative. In response,she initiated a violent physical struggle to seize and smash Comfort's phone which contained evidence of her breaching protocol . It was this shocking violation: the forceful removal of her wig, ripping of her clothes and breaking of her neck chain , that prompted Comfort's distraught and justified question " why would you do that" while merely poking at Julian Edwards left jaw to admonish her. There were no wild punches,no severe slaps. The puser 's pristine makeup and unruffled uniform, contradicts her hysterical claim of ' she's beating me!?, she's beating me!? while staring into the camera of the person recording.

Comfort",s question" why would you do that " is not one of an aggressor,but a victim reacting to a sudden and degrading assault.

The coordination of the attack is further suggested by a colleague, who appears to be the other flight attendant, positioning herself to record the altercation instead of intervening. This sequence of events strongly implies, it was a setup for the camera to manufacture the evidence of "unruliness", a plan thwarted only because Ms Comfort 's own recording,which proved her peaceful intent before the fight, survived.

This sequence of events is the only one that logically reconciles the evidence of both videos. Comfort's, which shows her pleading to leave the plane peacefully before the attack, and the airline's, beginning with a distraught and justifiably incensed Ms Comfort after the brutal assault demanding, "why would do that"? ,a question which the assailant refused to answer.

Below is the image of a distraught and visibly angry Ms Comfort' Emmason merely poking at the jaw of the puser to demand, 'why would you do that ' an obvious reference to the savagery of the sudden attack on her person by her assailant. The visual evidence did not contain any part where Ms Comfort' was ,' slapping her left and right and beating her' according the other flight attendant seen in the viral video

LordReed:
For me this case is stark delineation between how the rich and powerful are treated vs how the "common" man is treated. Kwam 1 and Oshiomole posed active threats to the security and operations of the airport and airline(s) but not a single finger was laid on them. Contrast that with the treatment Comfort got, who was not disturbing anything beyond what the airline staff themselves escalated, yet she was humiliated beyond what any reasonable response should have been.

We are prisoners of our own warped perceptions is my take. That we would be quick to met out jungle justice to those we perceive as powerless while gritting our teeth and suffering under the Jack boot of the powerful is a testament to our collectively abused and subjugated minds.

Thanks for this comment Reed. The article is not complete yet. I will need your further participation in the thread once I am done. Thank you

DISCLAIMER & CLARIFICATION

This article presents an analysis of public information surroundring the recent incident at the Murtala Muhammad Airport (MMA) Lagos. My interpretation of events as "a personal vendatta", "set-up" ,"malicious fabrication", or a " breach of protocol " etc is my personal opinion. However, this opinion is informed by insider knowledge and experience garnered from working in the aviation industry in the past, and is based on the available evidence, including eyewitness account, and the official statement from the NCAA. It's offered while acknowledging that official investigation are ongoing. Nonetheless, the psychological framework of mass manipulation, including the tools of " repetition " "emotional manipulation" ,and the illusion of consensus are not presented as opinion, but as a well - documented phenomena supported by extensive research in social psychology and neuroscience,as referenced in works by authors such as, William Sargant; The battle of the mind, The purpose of this article is to engage critical thinking and public discourse on these important issues.

A note to the reader

This article presents a detailed evidence -based analysis. So, to enhance your reading experience, I have broken it into clearly labeled sections. You may choose to scan the headings and read whatever piques your interest . However, for a complete understanding, I recommend starting from the introduction to grasp the essential psychological framework .


INTRODUCTION


A warning from the Pupilt to the tarmac

I have decided to place this article strategically in the religious section of this forum for a crucial reason: to expose how the condemnable techniques of mental manipulation and mass hypnosis, used in other areas of life, are often deployed with devastating precision within religious circles by some religious leaders to brainwash their followers and put them under spiritual subjugation.. The recent ordeal of Ms. Comfort Emmason at the hands of Ibom Air and its staff at the Murtala Muhammed Airport (MMA) is a chilling case study in how these methods are employed in public life to destroy an innocent person's reputation and escape accountability.

Mass manipulation is a psychological process designed to systematically bypass our critical faculties, making us subsceptible to accepting a narrative as true , without any conscious analysis.

It's effected through the following methods:

1. Repetition . An authority figure makes a statement that's half-truth or a deliberate lie, which is then repeated until it takes on the appearance of truth.

2. Emotional manipulation: Using very graphic imagery to trigger outrage that surpasses what the mind can cope with in order to short-circuit logic.

3. Illusion of consensus: Using authority figure or organization to validate the false narrative


The Genesis: Sowing the seed of deception


The campaign against Ms Comfort Emmason was a perfect execution of this script. The airline's initial narrative was simple "an unruly passenger" refused to obey safety instruction , assaulted crew, and attempted to destroy the aircraft until security dragged her away. This narrative was repeated insistently across several news stations and social media shares Moreover, the statement had the effect of falsely equating the case with that of popular juju musician , Ayinde Wasiu Marshall, KWAM 1, who was caught on camera physically blocking a plane. The public familiar with that incident easily accepted the tag KWAM2 ., which became the sing -song representing Comfort's own incident.

However,the initial trigger, the alleged condescending and provocative behaviour of the flight attendant, Julian Edwards who has been accused by multiple passengers of maltreatment, especially towards female passengers , was omitted by the airline . By starting the story at the point of reaction rather than the point of provocation, the narrative was effectively ",paced" to lead to a predetermined conclusion

The crucification : The public execution of a reputation.


The viral video of Ms Comfort Emmason being dragged off the plane, her cloth torn, and her breasts exposed was a perfect instance of emotional sorcery. The shocking and degrading imagery triggered strong reflex reactions of disgust, outrage and moral judgement from the public.This emotional avalanche bypassed the targeted audience critical faculties , making them susceptible to accepting the follow up narrative, "an unruly passenger gets what she deserves", without questioning the events that led to that moment

. With this, the focus shifted completely from why the altercation happened to how it looked. Comfort's reaction and the humiliation that followed became the story, effectively drawing attention away from the airline' s staff potential misconduct in handling the initial dispute and the unethical leak of the video.


The aviation union’s quick decision to impose a life ban on the passenger served as a form of social proof, suggesting that authoritative bodies had investigated the incident and reached a consensus on her guilt, encouraging the public to fall in line with this "official" judgement

The Revelation. The truth shall set you free.


However , the airline's narrative began to crumble following the emergence of two key pieces of evidence: 1. Eyewitness testimonies, notably from a barrister, which effectively dismantled the airline's core accusation. He stated unequivocally in an interview on channels TV that at no time did the passenger refuse to switch off her phone. It was a minor misunderstanding caused by a faulty power button on Ms Comfort other phone, but excalated by the unprofessionalism of Juliana Edwards, the puser, who refused to assist and instead dismissed the passenger with "I won't touch your phone " ,and "I don't have time for your nonsense " .Nevertheless, the issue was settled by a fellow passenger who assisted in turning it off from its settings..
2.
The most damning evidence , however ,was the video which showed a calm and pleading Ms. Comfort begging to be allowed to depart peacefully from the aircraft upon landing in Lagos, while Juliana Edwards stood in front of the cabin door, immovably blocking her path, confirming that the puser"s intention was not to resolve but to confront in order to bait the passenger into a reaction, and even more, that the airline's narrative was a malicious fabrication meant to cast Ms. Comfort Emmason as the aggressor.

The timing of the Minister of Aviation 's intervention, ordering Ms. Comfort Emmason immediate release from Kirikiri and mandating a probe, directly followed the public emergence of this crucial piece of evidence, especially the one which confirmed that the puser had taken an enforcement action she was not authorised to take.


The heresy: A severe breach of protocol

This evidence begs the question? Why would a crew member act so unprofessionally ? The answer lies in understanding what happened next.

To understand the malicious intent behind the manipulation, we must focus on the moment the physical altercation started. This was not merely a spontaneous burst of anger; it was the execution of a promise allegedly made earlier. Edwards had threatened to "deal with" Ms. Comfort during their initial exchange in Uyo

More importantly, she had already broken a cardinal rule: she bypassed the chain of command. The original issue in Uyo was settled before takeoff. Standard aviation protocols demand that any issue of non-compliance or an active threat to the aircraft be reported to the pilot-in-command, who, has the ultimate authority on the flight,to decide if a situation warrants arresting a passenger by calling in security..


Critically, the pilot in this instance never made such a call because, according to an official statement released by the Chief Press Officer of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), the pilot didn't call in security because the issue seemed resolved during the flight."

The only justification for any arrest upon landing would be if the passenger posed an active threat during the course of the flight, but eyewitness testimony and the pilot's own inaction invalidate that.

Therefore, for the purser to single-handedly block the passenger from disembarking upon landing in Lagos, against the pilot's judgement, suggests only one thing: a personal vendetta rather than a professional motive. Her decision to take an enforcement action she was not authorized to take transformed an already settled matter into a new physical confrontation in Lagos.

In KWAM 1's case, we saw protocols working correctly to manage a genuine threat. In Comfort's case, we saw the dangerous consequences of one person ignoring those protocols. The resulting trauma, public humiliation, and legal ordeal for Ms. Comfort Emmason are a direct result of this breach.

JetApartment:
I am glad you finally admit you have been wasting your time repeatedly making zero sense.

I'm beyond your amateurish attempt to manipulate me. Look for mates to do that with.

JetApartment:
Translate the following word using Google translate into your local dialect for proper understanding "Why did she switch on any of her phone INSIDE the plane when told to switch off ALL phones whether the faulty one or the one that is not faulty" or should I type it in pidgin?

Hehehe

You have failed woefully, but your ego won't make you accept it.
Instead of replying to my last reply up there, you conveniently avoided it to type gibberish.

I can only blame myself for wasting time engaging you.

JetApartment:
Why did she switch on any of her phone while still in the plane wether the faulty one or the non faulty one as against the warning? Should I type it in your local dialect for proper understanding?

Your latest question is a deflection from the argument we're having.

The argument is , which phone did she use to record the incident at the point of alighting from the plane if the phone button was faulty according to her?

I replied you that it was the other one she had in her possession. She was carrying two phones, and this information has been corroborated by other eyewitnesses in the same aircraft to be true.

So, what are you still arguing despite this clarification?

JetApartment:
Did she not switch on the phone in the plane? Wasn't the rule that phones should be switched off inside the plane? If not that she is a stubborn person why did she now switch on one of her phone to record inside the plane? Una go just dey defend rubbish.

Please use your glasses. I said she had two phones in her possession and not one. It was the other non faulty one she turned on to record the scene between herself and the air hostess

Or you want me to use pigin to explain?

Her two phones are always turned on. Most people have their phones always turned on so they don't miss any call. My former boss never turned off his phone when I worked with him and he still does that. Any time you call him his phone is sure to ring. Don't use how you live your life go judge others whom you no nothing of

ComeToJesus:
Simple adherence to "switch off your phones" would have spared us all these..


Just like a simple "I am sorry" would have stopped a lot of divorces from happening.

You people should stop saying this. She didn't refuse to switch off her phone according to other passengers who witnessed what happened before take off. A lawyer who was in the same flight and sat very close to Comfort has come out to narrate what actually happened. He confirmed Comfort never refused to turn off her phone. That it was the condescending and power drunk Puser who excalated the situation and made it seem she was disobeying safety instruction.

The allegation she refused to turn off her phone and insulted an air hostess was made by the airline to evade responsibility and protect their staff who needlessly block Comfort from alighting from the aircraft at MMA.

Up till this moment, they're yet to provide any concrete evidence backing what they alleged she did on that day

Her phone couldn't be turned off immediately due to a faulty power button and because of that another passenger who noticed how she was struggling with it and even begging the air hostess to assist her took the phone from her and switched it off ., and the matter was settled

Unfortunately, this was what the rude and very intolerant Puser interpreted as refusal to switch off her phone and promised to deal with her, a threat she later carried out with the help of colleagues at the point of disembarkation.


The pilot didn't call for Comfort's arrest at Uyo or Lagos because the misunderstanding which ensued when she was being asked to turn her phone off was amicably settled at the point of take off

So , blame the air hostess and not Comfort.

If she didn't prevent her from coming down the incident wouldn't have happened.

Comfort"s behaviour at MMA was reactive and not causative. Those calling her unruly would even do worse if they find themselves in the same circumstances. Only few persons have control over their behaviour, others aren't capable of controlling themselves and not aware of it until they've triggered.

She wasn't only blocked, her phone was smashed on the floor, wig forcefully removed and called a prostitute. That's extreme provocation.

Moreover the attempted arrest was illegal. It wasn't sanctioned by the pilot at all as he didn't ordered it.

U

JetApartment:
Oga, watch the full videos, Is it not the same phone they told her to switch off is the one she used in recording the video you are now relying on as evidence? Looking at all the clips you will see she is a stubborn and violent person. Abi her breez don disconfigure your reasoning?

No, It's not the same phone. She had two phones in her possession,one with a faulty switch and the other very ok.

Go watch the video again

Immatex:
Your opinion might not be entirely wrong as mine might be entirely right but that was not self-defence.
As Nigerians, we are experts in criminal law and defence of criminals. Not that she’s a criminal but you are just putting up a defence for a someone who displayed an antisocial behaviour, a misdemeanour in any country’s bylaws.

There’s something called civil aviation bylaws. That act empowers airlines and aircrews to maintain the right onboard environment that’s both safe and comfortable for their passengers. It also authorises them to manage onboard disturbances.

That lady did not comply to lawful instructions without compulsion and she both verbally and physically assaulted flight crew members on duty. Nobody should be assaulted for doing their jobs or at their jobs.

When the flight landed, the crew did the right thing by trying to keep her onboard until she’s arrested even though they should have first waited until the airport security boarded before releasing the doors, that way they will come to the erring passenger whilst she seated and escort her out of the plane before releasing the door. In any case, they were right in apprehending for causing a disturbance inflight.

Saying she was prevented from leaving means you expected them to allow her go free for assaulting them.

This sort of incident can only end like this in Nigeria. Let her attempt it on her Dubai flight and see how it will turn out if they won’t cuff onboard and arrest immediately that plane touches down.

See, recently the American government sent fighter jets to Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities ,and it was celebrated as the right thing to be done in that circumstances, but if they had done that without any reason, it would have been condemned by the whole world.

The young lady, Comfort, acted the way she did for a reason, she was attacked verbally and physically first, by the airline staff both at the point of take off and when deboarding.

So, her behaviour wasn't unruly,but self defence in the face of extreme provocation.An unruly behaviour is one that's irrational, that's without any justification or matches why you reacted .But this doesn't mean everyone should react the way she did, but you can't blame her because she's not a perfect human being.

The allegation she refused to turn off her phone has been debunked long ago by other eye witnesses in that same plane, So what offence did she commit that require her arrest at the point off disembarkation .
If it were true she disrupted flight take off, they would not have allowed her fly with them to Lagos.

Modified. The airline hasn't provided any evidence to support their allegation she assaulted their staff hence their decision to block her from disembarking. The video you watched of her slapping the air hostess was after they had already assaulted her without any provocation . If you watch the video again, you will see where she was asking the air hostess, why did you do that ?

What was that she was asking her that wasn't captured in the video which she didn't deny? Answer me

JetApartment:
Trying to play on the sensibility of sane Nigerians by now playing the victim, Madam, we saw you hit and kick those security personnel and the cabin crew repeatedly without them retaliating. Abi na your twins dey display all that fight for the world to see? Abeg shift, your pity party isn't working.

You saw her attacking them because that was what the airline wanted you to see,but where they attacked her first by removing her wig to cause injury and destroy her phone which made her fight back , you haven't seen those ones.

How do you explain the video of her pleading with the air hostess to allow her alight from the plane? Ibom air have kept silent ever since that particular video was released to the public,but here you are defending them

VEE2010:
We are saying the same thing dear. For her to have switched off one phone simply meant that, her action was not intentional. Even at that, she should have exercised some restraint rather than exchanging words with flight attendants

It's easy to say she should have exercise some restraint when it didn't happen to you.

What restraint do you expect from her after she was verbally and physically assaulted. The air hostess called her a prostitute and caused injury by forcefully yanking her wig from her head

If she didn't create a scene by retaliating ,I bet you she would probably be locked up somewhere with nobody knowing about the case

Pythagoras001:
can an airline crew detain/restrain someone who is suspected to have committed a crime especially after take off? the answer is yes. the FG intervene becuase they want to use it as an avenue to let kwam 1 of the hook. if kwam1 had not happen she would have been in jail by now. if she has video evidence of the aircrew pulling her hair first she can sue the woman for assualt. ask yourself why did she wait to use the toilet not untill people started to disembark so she could be alone with the aircrew? no passenger is an eye witness now as to who assaulted who first as everyone has left the plane so it is her words against the flight crew words. the video evidence available shows she assualted several airport staff including even choking one. she can sue the person who uploaded/shared are nudes online but she would also be jailed for assualt/plus disobeying flight crew safety instructions/been unruly on the flight.

Abeg commot from my front with your Kwam1 conspiracy theory.

It is not yet proven she refused to turn off her phone. So what crime have you found her guilty of.
I'm sure you are amongst the Nigerians who misjudged her based on the airline's half truth and selected videos without waiting to hear her own side of the story.

opera1:
We kno for sure that you are on board with her but you can't say anything about where your lady is slapping someone's mother.
If the woman was your Aunty or mother you won't be here supporting thrash.

Yes ,she slapped her but why ignoring what caused it.

Why would a responsible mother call another person whom she doesn't know much about a prostitute, block her from disembarking and remove her wig like a tout

Moreover, she's an air hostess that's expected to display a higher level of tolerance while serving the public. Her lack of professionalism was what excalated the situation. If she feels too big to serve in a plane,then she should resign. Yes, because other passengers have come out to narrate how she had maltreated them in the past. The same person. Why are they still keeping her despite numerous complaints by other passengers?

If comfort where the daughter of Dangote or a prominent Nigerian who failed to turn off her phone , would she be subjected to such maltreatment?

Immatex:
I said she’s lying because that lady in that video is not the sort of lady that will ignore an insult or a slight from someone who she reckon is rendering her a service she paid.

She’s aggressive, mouthy, vile, violent and arrogant. Everything no one wants from a customer.

I don’t need to live with her to tell, she’s not the person to be honest and own up her mistakes.

If you believe her, you can believe anything!

It's wrong to judge her as unruly based on a singular incident. You that is saying this and judging her negatively might even react worse if you find yourself in the same situation. Nobody is perfect and anyone can have their crazy moment.

The air hostess, according to her, block her from disembarking,called her a prostitute, forcefully removed her wig from her head to cause her pain and then smashed her phone on the floor ,and you expect her not to react?

In case you don't know, the law supports her behaviour. It's called self defence in the face of extreme provocation . Ask a lawyer about what I just said so you stop framing her reaction as unruly.

shadrach77:
Thank you for this comment. Some goats 🐐 are even saying she should sue. Let her try it. She forgot that it was the Federal Government who bailed her out. Without the minister's intervention she would have been in prison by now. Those telling her to play the victim are misleading her

The Federal government intervened after it was found out that she was unjustly sent to prison .The video you saw didn't capture everything.

There's a video showing the air hostess blocking her from disembarking. The question now is ,why preventing her from coming down in Lagos and not deboard her at the point of take off ,Uyo where it was said she caused disruption of flight?

Moreover,she she has now come out to say her behaviour was as a result of the air hostess forcefully pulling off her wig, which caused her so much pain and the smashing of her phone on the floor which damaged the screen. If the airline think she's lying, let them release in flight videos and the ones at the point of disembarking so the public knows the truth.