Kindly send your name and location ONLY to this WhatsApp Number 09069473894 to receive our daily news updates.
Enough of the moral contortions.
Yes Muslims are being killed. Yes Christians are being killed. Yes innocent Nigerians of every faith and tribe are dying. We all agree on that. The question that separates sense from nonsense is this:
What is wrong with neutralising those who are killing Nigerians by law, by force when necessary, and by justice after capture?
Answer: nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, failing to neutralise murderers is the real crime.
Below is a hard, fact-driven for anyone who still thinks “it’s wrong to call out Christian massacres because Muslims also die.” Read it and stop choking on excuses.
1) Neutralization is not revenge it’s the basic job of the state.
A state that cannot stop killers or bring them to justice has abdicated its sovereign duty. Neutralisation meaning the coordinated use of intelligence, police action, and military force to remove imminent threats is a lawful, necessary, and proven response to terrorism. It is how civilized states protect citizens.
When ISIS seized territory in Iraq and Syria, the international coalition used targeted airpower and partnered ground forces to remove the group’s capacity to hold land and slaughter civilians.
The operation degraded ISIS’s ability to command and administer territory and saved countless lives. That is neutralization, not imperial malice.
When militants threatened to overrun Mali, France launched Operation Serval in 2013 (and later Barkhane) to stop jihadi columns and retake cities.
The immediate effect was blunt and effective: cities were retaken, Jihadi advances stopped, and civilians were spared mass slaughter at least temporarily. That is how states defend citizens when local forces cannot.
If you want to argue against neutralization, first explain why these real examples of state action which prevented further mass slaughter were wrong. Good luck.
2) “Muslims also die” is a truth used as a shield for cowardice
Pointing out that “Muslims are also victims” is true and we should say it loudly. But that truth does not cancel the specific reality that in many attacks Christians were deliberately targeted, that entire Christian villages have been wiped out, and that killers acting in the name of Jihad have repeatedly committed sectarian slaughter.
The proper response is not to silence the one victim to prove we care about the other it is to go after the killers of both.
The Deborah Yakubu lynching in Sokoto is not an opinion it is documented violence in which a Christian student was killed and her remains burned, dozens were involved, videos circulated, and the legal response was weak and slow. That is a failure to protect citizens and to punish the killers. Silence or relativising won’t fix that.
Similarly, in Kaduna’s Birnin Gwari and other communities, traders and villagers have been abducted and massacred and those attacks are not “clashes,” they are criminal operations led by organised militants. Calling them anything else is lying with language to avoid responsibility.
3) Pretending every atrocity is symmetrical is a political trick don’t fall for it
There are three ways a society reacts when violence hits multiple communities:
1. Name the perpetrators, pursue them, and apply justice equally.
2. Deny or minimise the problem to protect reputations.
3. Weaponise “both sides suffer” as a rhetorical get-out-of-jail card for criminals and complicit officials.
Option 1 is what any functional state does. Options 2 and 3 are what failing states and cowardly elites choose to preserve power. If you defend option 2 or 3, you are defending the killers by proxy.
4) There are real, effective tools use them, don’t moralise them away.
Neutralization must follow law and oversight. It does not mean summary executions or foreign adventurism without consent. It does mean:
Intelligence-led operations to capture or kill militant leaders and degrade networks. (Look at the coalition campaign that culminated in the killing of ISIS’s leader as an example of targeted action with strategic gains.)
Partnerships with regional and international allies for surveillance, training, and logistics when needed because refusing help on principle is refusing to save lives.
Accountability: arrest financiers, complicit officials, and politicians who shield criminals. Freeze assets. Prosecute.
Clear legal processes for captured fighters: trials, transparent evidence, and sentences. No secret deals or photo-ops that normalise the trade of blood for stipends.
If you cannot defend these steps, you are choosing semantics over security.
5) Examples show neutralization works then finish the job with justice.
The US-led campaign against ISIS removed the group’s territorial caliphate and killed or captured many leaders, it did not “solve” all problems, but it proved decisive force paired with local partners can topple murderous organisations and save lives.
The lesson: neutralization plus follow-up governance and justice is the route to stability.
France’s Serval/Barkhane operations in Mali pushed Jihadists back and prevented the fall of Bamako again demonstrating that timely intervention can stop massacres. (Yes, the Sahel experience also shows the need for long-term strategy, military force alone isn’t a panacea but doing nothing is not an option either.)
READ ALSO: WE Urge Our Allies To Stand Firmly With Us As We Amplify Our Fight Against Terrorism – TINUBU
6) Nigeria’s real shame is official impotence and complicity not foreign criticism.
If a foreign leader calls Nigeria “disgraced,” it’s because they see what ordinary Nigerians live with: mass graves, impunity, and state statements that “note” tragedies while nothing changes.
The embarrassment belongs to the rulers who failed to secure the country, then rage at outsiders who point out the failure. If you’re angry at the messenger, examine the message. If you’re outraged at the diagnosis, fix the disease. Simple.
Don’t demand perfect political messaging from outsiders while your own governors ignore calls for help and your security Chiefs trade blame for headlines.
7) Condemning calls for protection is the moral bankruptcy of our time.
If someone cries “stop the killing,” you don’t cancel them because “Muslims also die.” You join them, then demand that the state go after the killers of both.
To condemn a person who pleads for an end to slaughter is to side with death.
The police are not supposed to say, “we won’t protect your street because other streets are also attacked.” That is absurd. Protection and justice are not zero-sum. Protect one neighbourhood well and you make all neighbourhoods safer.
If you think otherwise, show me a country where neutralising killers was wrong. I’ll wait.
For the doubters and the defenders of indecision:
Neutralise killers by law and by force when necessary, prosecute them, dismantle their funding, logistics, and safe havens.
Stop hiding behind “both sides suffer” as an excuse for paralysis. That is moral cowardice.
If you want to criticise foreign speech, do so after your own house is in order. Otherwise you look like a guilty party scolding a passerby.
Enough equivocating. Neutralise the killers. Protect the people. Prosecute the collaborators. That is the smallest demand of decency.
CALL 08023851511 to kick-start business relationship with us for your Documentary, Advert, PR, Publicity, Awareness, Interviews, Feature Stories, Press Release/Statement, Documentary and so on.
Leave a Reply