AdeOAde

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@mtmalinen That's the most calamitous foreign policy ever. It will be okay if Finland could silence broker it's own deal with Russia and maintains the doctrine of neutrality

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@WW3_Monitor Trump Always Chicken Out - TACO

[Kerry Burgess @KerryBurgess]

Absolutely no need for this. Iran is not and never was a threat to the United States.

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@steve_hanke We are all watching as the Gulf is gradually heading to the stone age!!!

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@ogundamisi You guys are back on this exercise in futility? Where were the laws when he became 2 times governor, and now the president? This must be generating online debate ONLY within your household!!

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@DougAMacgregor Time for Russia to end the war once and for all!!!

[Senior Pst Okezie James Atañi. @Onsogbu]

Peter Obi said. An
NO BEGGAR. INDONESIAN
in INDONESIA. Responded

[Skeptic Scope @SkepticScope]

@s_m_marandi Clip of the year… 👏👏🫡🫡

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@DeeOneAyekooto Who is listening to this one? Only God on knows what made him the governor of the politically savvy Anambra State.

[Birger Høst @CommonSenseASAP]

🇷🇺Russia: The Soviet Union no longer exists, can you let us into NATO like everyone else?

🇺🇸USA: No

🇷🇺Russia: Okay, but can you please not threaten us by expanding NATO to the East?

🇺🇸USA: No

🇷🇺Russia: Alright, we saw you're developing new missile systems, will you let us work on them with you?

🇺🇸USA: No

🇷🇺Russia: Fine, hypersonic missiles it is, but can you at least not put military bases right in front of our borders?

🇺🇸USA: No

🇷🇺Russia: Well, you just carried out a military coup to overthrow a democratic election in Ukraine, can we still have a friendly relationship with them?

🇺🇸USA: No

Russia: Gotcha, but the people of Crimea are really pissed off about that coup, can you please let them have independence?

🇺🇸USA: No

🇷🇺Russia: Roger, but surely you can at the very least stop bombing the civilians living in Donbass, right?

🇺🇸USA: No

🇷🇺Russia: Huh, we've been trying to find a diplomatic solution for a 8 years but you refuse to even talk to us... I guess that if you want to use military force to solve issues so much we have no choice but to do the same.

🇺🇸USA: OH MY GOD PUTIN IS A MADMAN, AN IMPERIALIST GENOCIDAL DICTATOR, LITERALLY THE SECOND COMING OF HITLER, WE MUST STOP HIM AT ANY COST BEFORE HE TRIES TO CONQUER ALL OF EUROPE

#SigerDetBare

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@jmbprime Why are you not ululating when he he chooses Israel over the United state itself???

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@tparsi Whatever outcome the subterfuge is meant to achieve, Iran is loaded, ready, steady, and anxiously waiting to countert-attack! WAIT FOR IT!!!

[Esmaeil Baqaei @IRIMFA_SPOX]

إيران أمةٌ ذاتُ حضارةٍ عريقةٍ تمتدُّ لآلاف السنين، اعتنقت الإسلام، ثم أصبحت في القرون اللاحقة إحدى أهم الركائز التي أسهمت في قيام الحضارة الإسلامية وازدهارها؛ من الفقه والحديث إلى الفلسفة والطب والرياضيات والأدب. غير أنَّ معيار التفاضل في الإسلام ليس اللغة العربية، ولا الانتماء الجغرافي إلى أرض الوحي، كما قال الله تعالى: ﴿إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ﴾ [الحجرات: 13]. ومن ثمَّ، لا يحقُّ لأيِّ حاكمٍ أن يجعل من مجرد تكلُّمه باللغة العربية مسوغًا لادعاء تمثيل «الرسالة المحمدية (ص)»، أو أن يستبدل هذا الادعاء بالعمل بتعاليم الإسلام الواضحة.

لقد أكدت الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية، بصرف النظر عن الخلافات السياسية، مرارًا على مبدأ حسن الجوار والعلاقات الأخوية بين البلدان الإسلامية، حتى في تعاملها مع نظامٍ حديث النشأة يحكم جزءًا منفصلًا من الأراضي الإيرانية. وفي المقابل، يحذِّر القرآن الكريم بوضوح: ﴿وَلَا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا﴾ [هود: 113]، كما قال رسول الله (ص): «مَن أعانَ ظالمًا سلَّطَهُ اللهُ عليه».

وعليه، فإنَّ من يتحدث عن «الرسالة المحمدية (ص)» يجدر به، قبل أن يوجِّه النصح إلى الآخرين، أن يزن سلوك حكومته بهذه المعايير نفسها: فهل ينسجم الوقوف إلى جانب قوى شنت عدوانًا عسكريًا على دولةٍ مسلمة مع النهي القرآني الصريح عن موالاة الظالمين أو إعانة المعتدين؟ وهل يتوافق استقبال أعداء المسلمين وتقديم الدعم لعملياتهم العسكرية ضد دولةٍ مسلمةٍ مجاورة مع حقوق الجوار والأخوَّة الإسلامية؟ إنَّ الجواب عن هذه الأسئلة قد بيَّنه القرآن الكريم، وأكدته سنة النبي (ص)، وشهد له ضمير الأمة الإسلامية.

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@Mautiin01 Eleeribuuuu...eleko ofooo.

[Reza Nasri @RezaNasri1]

Some in the United States are working to construct a legal rationale for striking Iran's infrastructure. Their central argument is always the same: because these facilities sustain Iran's war effort, they may be attacked. The claim is absurd. It treats a nation's economy as a battlefield, collapses the line between what fights a war and what merely sustains a State, and reads that erasure into a body of law written precisely to forbid it.

The fact is that Infrastructure that serves the civilian population cannot lawfully be attacked, and the argument that it becomes a target because it sustains the enemy's economy does not survive contact with the governing rule. Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I defines military objectives exhaustively: objects that by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage. The two conditions are cumulative, and both are narrow by design. Civilian infrastructure satisfies neither. The "war-sustaining" theory is not a permissible construction of this text; it is a rejection of it.

The defect begins with a deliberate choice of words. The drafters wrote "military action," not "war effort," and pointedly not "war-sustaining capability." That was no accident of style. Military action requires a proximate nexus to the conduct of hostilities, whereas an economy sustains everything a State does, its armed forces among them. To read economic contribution into the definition is to reinstate a term the negotiators considered and refused.

The broader reading is fatal to the rule it claims to interpret. Every economy that funds an army funds it through farms, factories, ports, power stations, and the taxes drawn from ordinary trade. If the mere capacity to generate revenue rendered an object military, nothing civilian would lie beyond the target list. The grain that feeds a population feeds soldiers; the current that lights homes lights ministries. A criterion that expands to swallow the whole of civilian life is no limiting principle at all. It dissolves the distinction between civilian and combatant that the entire law of targeting exists to hold.

The second condition is equally decisive. A definite military advantage, assessed in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time, cannot be derived from a causal chain running from revenue, to the treasury, to some unspecified future acquisition of arms. The claimed advantage is speculative, temporally indefinite, and causally remote, the very opposite of the definite military advantage required by international humanitarian law. War-sustaining targeting does not identify a concrete military benefit. It merely assumes one.

This is why the ICRC and the overwhelming majority of States reject the theory. It reflects not the shared understanding of the international community but an isolated position, unsupported by the general practice and *opinio juris* that would be required to bind others. It has not passed into customary law, and the treaty text forecloses it directly.

Interpretation must serve the instrument's purpose. Additional Protocol I exists to shield civilians from the effects of hostilities, and where doubt persists, objects ordinarily devoted to civilian use are presumed civilian. A construction that hollows out that protection cannot be the correct one, for it defeats the very object the rule was written to secure.

Sustaining a war and waging one are distinct acts, and the law does not conflate them. To erase that line is to license attacks on civilians under an economic pretext, and to smuggle back, through interpretation, the doctrine of total war that this body of law was built to abolish.

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@PeterObi PO, did you hear Baba Ahmed say it will be difficult for Kwakwanso to market you in the North? He was your Vice during last election!! Tinubu til 4044!!!

[Steve Hanke @steve_hanke]

China has eliminated all tariffs on Nigerian goods. China's imports from Nigeria rose by a STUNNING 81% in the first half of 2026.

FREE TRADE MAKES FRIENDS AND IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

TARIFFS ARE FOR LOSERS.

[Steve Hanke @steve_hanke]

#JapanWatch🇯🇵: Japan spent a RECORD $73.1B to defend the yen. Its latest intervention sparked a brief 3.3% yen surge against the USD. But more than half the gain vanished after the BOJ held rates steady.

As I’ve said for decades, FX interventions are FUTILE.

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@RT_com This was why Netanyahu went to the white house

[AdeOAde @ADEOLAADE]

@BarakRavid @axios What happens to the US investments and infrastructure in the Gulf?? It's a lose-lose situation