US Bombs Nigeria

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I addressed this.  You are just in your typical TDS DEFCON -3, completely closed to anything that might remotely conflict with your model of OMB#!#$@#%#@!

You just lack the self awareness to see it.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the X posts.

You're obsessed with the dudes Twitter posts.  He could have the most biased Twitter account ever and that doesn't change the fact that Trump threatened military action on Nigeria, Nigeria came to the US and agreed to let the US bomb them.

[Horseman 2,741]

Here comes the victim pity party. 

[dogcows 1,294]

I don’t understand all this obsession over one man’s tweets.

There is no anti-Christian genocide in Nigeria. If the existing links weren’t enough, here’s a detailed document showing that only about 5% of targeted political violence in Nigeria targets Christians.

Quote

• Despite the spike in anti-Christian attacks, the Christian community is not one of the predominant targets of political violence in Nigeria. While Christians make up roughly 50% of the population, violence in which Christians have been specifically targeted in relation to their religious identity accounts for only 5% of reported civilian targeting events.
  

https://acleddata.com/brief/fact-sheet-attacks-christians-spike-nigeria-alongside-overall-rise-violence-targeting

[TimHauck 3,460]

14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thoughts on the security guy's X posts?  The guy who was the only support for the Leftie Reuters conclusions in the article?

To clarify, what exactly are you saying is their “leftie conclusion”?

[Horseman 2,741]

I have an idea....maybe if you found just one person with their head up their ass as much as you do. 

[jerryskids 7,210]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

I'd like to see someone that doesn't have a hard on for me chime in.  I have zero respect for horsesh1t and HT.  Maybe @dogcows or @TimHauck can chime in on if I was able to make the case that this bombing had little to do with fighting terrorism.

You even admitted it yourself.

Good idea, the moderates.   

And no, I didn't admit it.

To refresh your memory, my position is:

 

 

[jerryskids 7,210]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

To clarify, what exactly are you saying is their “leftie conclusion”?

Read the thread.

[Horseman 2,741]

56 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Can you just answer one simple question?:

Why on earth would a grown man (half-man) hang out in a place he's clearly not wanted (banned dozens of times) and is hated by everyone (just read the last page of this thread)?

I'll never get an answer. Just chalk it up to some sort of mental condition. Trying to make up for something lacking in real life I guess.  

[seafoam1 3,531]

4 hours ago, dogcows said:

I don’t understand.

gutternuts and his lack of "understanding".

This is shocking I tell you. 

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

 

 

[Maximum Overkill 2,641]

2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

 

Nice try, those aren't our warheads 

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

Nigeria is Africas largest oil and gas producer and top 5 rare earth mineral producer.

More Christians were killed by Putin in the month of December than by terrorists in Nigeria for the whole year.

 

[TimHauck 3,460]

11 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

I'd like to see someone that doesn't have a hard on for me chime in.  I have zero respect for horsesh1t and HT.  Maybe @dogcows or @TimHauck can chime in on if I was able to make the case that this bombing had little to do with fighting terrorism.

You even admitted it yourself.

 

11 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Read the thread.

Well like most discussions, there’s nuance here.  I think there is enough evidence that the government can claim US action in general in Nigeria is “about terrorism,” however as @nobody and the anonymous “official” pointed out, this particular strike didn’t seem to actually do anything.  And Nigeria specifically denies that the terrorism in question is targeting Christians.

 

15 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

Smh

By publicly cooperating with the United States on a Christmas Day airstrike, Nigeria's government may have averted humiliating unilateral military action threatened a month ago by President Donald Trump.

Last month, Trump threatened to order his forces to take military action in Nigeria unless the authorities there acted to stop what he described as the persecution of Christians.

Its government responded to Trump's threat by saying it intended to work with Washington against militants, while rejecting U.S. language that ‌suggested Christians were in particular peril.

"After Trump threatened to come guns-blazing in Nigeria, we saw a Nigerian delegation visit the U.S.," said Kabir Adamu, managing director of Abuja-based Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited.

In the future please read the posts youre talking about.

 

13 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Sigh,

Most of that is opinions of the Reuters reporters, supported only by some security management guy named Kabir Adamu, not by the Nigerian government.  If you check out his twitter feed, you'll see that he disagrees with the Nigerian president taking actions against terrorists.

https://x.com/kbadtweet

He may or may not be correct about the powers of the Nigerian president, but it seems odd for a security person to object to actions against terrorists... unless maybe it is bad for his security business if bad guys go away.

Regardless, he's not objective.

I hope this deeper dive has been educational for you.   

 

13 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

So you're on record saying that Trump did not threaten to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide?

 

13 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I'm on record as saying your link doesn't adequately support that position.  I wasn't there for the actual discussion.

Thoughts on Adamu's X posts?

Your argument here feels like semantics to me Jerry.  You appear to be focused on the headline that

“Nigeria averts unilateral U.S. action by cooperating on airstrike“

But the very first sentence says 

“By publicly cooperating with the United States on a Christmas Day airstrike, Nigeria's government may have averted humiliating unilateral military action threatened a month ago by President Donald Trump.“

Would you feel it wasn’t a “leftie conclusion” if “may have” was also included in the headline and not just the body of the article?

The main “opinion” I see in the article is the very last sentence talking about pandering to evangelicals, which Gutter did not include in his quote.   The stuff that he bolded seems like things that can be proven did happen, but it appears you just take issue with the implication that one thing happened because of the other?  I would say the article doesn’t necessarily “prove” that Trump 

“threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide”

But it does “support” it

 

[Horseman 2,741]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Nigeria is Africas largest oil and gas producer and top 5 rare earth mineral producer.

More Christians were killed by Putin in the month of December than by terrorists in Nigeria for the whole year.

 

12 hours ago, Horseman said:

Can you just answer one simple question?:

Why on earth would a grown man (half-man) hang out in a place he's clearly not wanted (banned dozens of times) and is hated by everyone (just read the last page of this thread)?

 

[dogcows 1,294]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

 

Well like most discussions, there’s nuance here.  I think there is enough evidence that the government can claim US action in general in Nigeria is “about terrorism,” however as @nobody and the anonymous “official” pointed out, this particular strike didn’t seem to actually do anything.  And Nigeria specifically denies that the terrorism in question is targeting Christians.

 

 

 

 

Your argument here feels like semantics to me Jerry.  You appear to be focused on the headline that

“Nigeria averts unilateral U.S. action by cooperating on airstrike“

But the very first sentence says 

“By publicly cooperating with the United States on a Christmas Day airstrike, Nigeria's government may have averted humiliating unilateral military action threatened a month ago by President Donald Trump.“

Would you feel it wasn’t a “leftie conclusion” if “may have” was also included in the headline and not just the body of the article?

The main “opinion” I see in the article is the very last sentence talking about pandering to evangelicals, which Gutter did not include in his quote.   The stuff that he bolded seems like things that can be proven did happen, but it appears you just take issue with the implication that one thing happened because of the other?  I would say the article doesn’t necessarily “prove” that Trump 

“threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide”

But it does “support” it

 

For some reason, many here wanted to focus the argument on that one article and the tweets of one guy with a connection to western media.

I posted half a dozen others showing local news reports, historical background, and stats showing that the “Christian genocide” appears to be a fiction.

 

We got way into the weeds and ignored the elephant in the room. This bombing was virtue signaling for the Christian nationalist base.

That being said, if the Nigerian government DID want help rooting out bandits and extremists from the north of their country, our military would be up to the task. But I thought Americans were tired of us trying to be the world’s police. And surely if we are getting back into that business, protecting Ukraine should be at the very top of the list.

And since I don’t know when to stop, here’s something else to think about. Russia is trying to increase its influence in Africa, and Nigeria is one of the targets. This strike might have been a chance to remind them that we’re still around. Not JUST a chance for Trump to blow something up and pretend to save Chrisrians. Problem is, Russia is playing an intelligent game of media influence, which we just ceded to them through VoA cuts. The U.S. just dropped bombs in an area where Nigerians know they weren’t effective. Probably helped Russia more than helping us.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/russia-is-winning-the-battle-for-influence-in-nigeria

Quote

The United States currently shows little interest in tackling Russian misinformation—despite Nigeria’s importance as a bulwark against the potential spread of terrorism and military rule in the Sahel. Voice of America’s Hausa service ended in June this year after 46 years on air, and USAID and State Department funding for Nigeria, which previously supported journalists and civil society groups, has declined sharply since February. On multiple occasions, people in Abuja and Lagos told the author that while the United States remained Nigeria’s partner of choice, there was a feeling that Washington couldn’t offer what the government felt was needed for Nigeria’s development—a sentiment that Russia amplifies through its anti-Western messaging. 

 

 

[Horseman 2,741]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

And since I don’t know when to stop. 

 

So true. It's a condition.  

[Hardcore troubadour 16,071]

Nigeria best get on board and up its oil production.  

[jerryskids 7,210]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

Well like most discussions, there’s nuance here.  I think there is enough evidence that the government can claim US action in general in Nigeria is “about terrorism,” however as @nobody and the anonymous “official” pointed out, this particular strike didn’t seem to actually do anything.  And Nigeria specifically denies that the terrorism in question is targeting Christians.

 

 

 

 

Your argument here feels like semantics to me Jerry.  You appear to be focused on the headline that

“Nigeria averts unilateral U.S. action by cooperating on airstrike“

But the very first sentence says 

“By publicly cooperating with the United States on a Christmas Day airstrike, Nigeria's government may have averted humiliating unilateral military action threatened a month ago by President Donald Trump.“

Would you feel it wasn’t a “leftie conclusion” if “may have” was also included in the headline and not just the body of the article?

The main “opinion” I see in the article is the very last sentence talking about pandering to evangelicals, which Gutter did not include in his quote.   The stuff that he bolded seems like things that can be proven did happen, but it appears you just take issue with the implication that one thing happened because of the other?  I would say the article doesn’t necessarily “prove” that Trump 

“threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide”

But it does “support” it

 

No.  Including "may have" would soften the bias, but the fact remains that they made an assertion and never sourced it.  Surely the great and unbiased Reuters can include a link to an earlier article, post, or anything to support their conclusion?  Since they didn't, as a reader I'm led to believe that support is to follow in the article.  Instead we get a quote from the foreign minister saying they are working with the US on anti-terrorism.  What now?  This is the opposite of the assertion they just made.

And of course Gutter selectively posted stuff.  He's a man of integrity after all.   

[TimHauck 3,460]

14 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nigeria best get on board and up its oil production.  

So you agree it’s not about stopping “Christian genocide”?

[jerryskids 7,210]

4 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

 

Anonymous?

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

No.  Including "may have" would soften the bias, but the fact remains that they made an assertion and never sourced it.  Surely the great and unbiased Reuters can include a link to an earlier article, post, or anything to support their conclusion?  Since they didn't, as a reader I'm led to believe that support is to follow in the article.  Instead we get a quote from the foreign minister saying they are working with the US on anti-terrorism.  What now?  This is the opposite of the assertion they just made.

And of course Gutter selectively posted stuff.  He's a man of integrity after all.   

Still not willing to admit that this strike was not about making America safer?

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Anonymous?

You've never heard of them?

[Horseman 2,741]

4 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Still not willing to admit that this strike was not about making America safer?

 

3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

You've never heard of them?

You won't answer a simple question.  Not sure why you think anyone should play your grade school 20 questions routine.  

[jerryskids 7,210]

3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

You've never heard of them?

No, should I?  As I've said before, I mostly use X for sports info.

Here is the top post on their account:

Seems moderate, by your and Tim's standards.  

[jerryskids 7,210]

6 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Still not willing to admit that this strike was not about making America safer?

How's that review of those X posts going?

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

No, should I?  As I've said before, I mostly use X for sports info.

Here is the top post on their account:

Seems moderate, by your and Tim's standards.  

Yes you probably should have heard of them before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(hacker_group)?wprov=sfla1

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

How's that review of those X posts going?

I looked at the x account you linked, didn't see anything noteworthy either way and like I said it's irrelevant.  Still  not willing to admit that this strike was not about making America  safer ?

[TimHauck 3,460]

49 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

No.  Including "may have" would soften the bias, but the fact remains that they made an assertion and never sourced it.  Surely the great and unbiased Reuters can include a link to an earlier article, post, or anything to support their conclusion?  Since they didn't, as a reader I'm led to believe that support is to follow in the article.  Instead we get a quote from the foreign minister saying they are working with the US on anti-terrorism.  What now?  This is the opposite of the assertion they just made.

And of course Gutter selectively posted stuff.  He's a man of integrity after all.   

So to be clear, do you acknowledge that Trump:

“threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide”

but you’re just saying this particular article doesn’t show where he said that?

Because Trump of course did say this:

“If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.   I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!”

Or is this more semantics and you’re going to say “well that was only a threat against the terrorists and not the country”?

[jerryskids 7,210]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So to be clear, do you acknowledge that Trump:

“threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide”

but you’re just saying this particular article doesn’t show where he said that?

Because Trump of course did say this:

“If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.   I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!”

Or is this more semantics and you’re going to say “well that was only a threat against the terrorists and not the country”?

So to be clear, I made my position clear, twice, including a second time just for you.  Nothing you "quoted" was either supported or in the link that was my objection.  If this third time doesn't help, I apologize in advance, as I can't fix your or Gutter's stupid.   

[TimHauck 3,460]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So to be clear, I made my position clear, twice, including a second time just for you.  Nothing you "quoted" was either supported or in the link that was my objection.  If this third time doesn't help, I apologize in advance, as I can't fix your or Gutter's stupid.   

So you’re just wasting our time with semantics arguments, got it.

[jerryskids 7,210]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So you’re just wasting our time with semantics arguments, got it.

That's exactly right, Tim.  You should leave the thread.  Maybe even delete your account.   

[Ron_Artest 2,509]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So you’re just wasting our time with semantics arguments, got it.

He got schooled but will never admit it.  Low character.

[TimHauck 3,460]

46 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That's exactly right, Tim.  You should leave the thread.  Maybe even delete your account.   

Reuters!!  I remember when you said a Reuters camera was Hamas, lol

[TimHauck 3,460]

48 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That's exactly right, Tim.  You should leave the thread.  Maybe even delete your account.   

So forgetting some random article that got posted, do you agree that Trump threatened military action against Nigeria if they didn’t stop the “Christian genocide”?

[Horseman 2,741]

53 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That's exactly right, Tim.  You should leave the thread.  Maybe even delete your account.   

Meglamaniac should have taken both Tims with him.  

[jerryskids 7,210]

47 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So forgetting some random article that got posted, do you agree that Trump threatened military action against Nigeria if they didn’t stop the “Christian genocide”?

What do you think, Moderate Tim?

[TimHauck 3,460]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What do you think, Moderate Tim?

What do I think about the statement, or what do I think you think?  It definitely happened, I’m just not sure if you are willing to acknowledge it.

[Grace Under Pressure 241]

2 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

I looked at the x account you linked, didn't see anything noteworthy either way and like I said it's irrelevant.  Still  not willing to admit that this strike was not about making America  safer ?

“They were not, in fact, willing to admit that the strike was not about making America safer.”

Trump wanted to bomb something on Christmas, and MAGA wants to defend him no matter what every day. That’s this topic in a nutshell. Personally I would never even spend a minute with MAGAs pedantic nonsense that they mistake for discussion. MAGA will simply defend Trump daily, that’s it. 

[jerryskids 7,210]

22 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What do I think about the statement, or what do I think you think?  It definitely happened, I’m just not sure if you are willing to acknowledge it.

What definitely happened?

[TimHauck 3,460]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What definitely happened?

Trump threatened military action against Nigeria if they didn’t stop the “Christian genocide”