The Zizaplex, 3333 Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara, CA (2026)

04/05/2026

He was alone. Hunted. Deep inside enemy territory…

Picture how tough it was supposed to be, rescuing the 2nd U.S. pilot from Iran.

Big bounty rewards hanging over his head.

But CIA's masterclass deception was put in action!

How did we get here?

After a US F-15E Strike Eagle was shot down over Iran, a second U.S. airman remained hidden deep in hostile territory.

Now comes CIA’s deception plan!

While the airman hid, and evaded capture, the CIA launched a misinformation campaign inside Iran.

Key Tactic!

The CIA spread false signals suggesting:

• U.S. forces had already located the airman.
• A rescue operation was happening elsewhere.

This narrative was deliberately circulated to reach Iranian actors:

• Iranian security forces (including the IRGC).
• Local militias and civilians searching for him.

The Result?

Iranian forces were pulled in the wrong direction, buying critical time for the real rescue.

Why it Worked:

The deception created confusion and split enemy focus:

1. Units moved toward fake rescue locations.
2. Search efforts became less coordinated.
3. Pressure on the real hiding location dropped.

Meanwhile!

• The CIA used surveillance and intelligence to pinpoint the airman’s position.
• U.S. Special Operations forces prepared the true extraction mission.

What happened next!

Once confirmed:

1. U.S. commandos launched a high-risk rescue.
2. Air support held off approaching Iranian forces.
3. The airman was rescued after two days evading capture.

The Bog Picture!

A classic intelligence play:

Deception + Real-Time Intelligence = Mission Success

It’s not about fooling everyone forever—
just long enough to change the outcome.

04/03/2026

The Space race is Back!

But this time, it's not US vs. Russia.
It's US vs China.

I watched the Artemis liftoff holding my breath.

That moment before ignition—
when everything could still go wrong—
and then suddenly… fire, thunder, and liftoff.

Why are humans going back to the Moon?

And it hit me:
this isn’t just another space mission.

This is a $93 BILLION bet on the future.

We’re not going back just to plant a flag.

We’re going back to:

1. Build a permanent presence in space,
2. Prepare for Mars, and
3. Develop technologies that could reshape life on Earth.

This isn’t Apollo 2.0.
This is something much bigger.

But here’s what really changed:

This is NOT the old space race.

Again, it’s not U.S. vs. Russia anymore.

It’s U.S. vs. China.

China is coming—fast.

They already have:

A space station,
Robotic Moon missions, and
A plan to land humans on the Moon by 2030.

They’re not rushing.
They’re executing.

How about Russia?

Russia is not leading anymore.

They are contending with:

1. Failed lunar mission.
2. Shrinking capabilities (poor funding and not-so-good technologies).

They are now partnering with China.

They’ve gone from rival… to junior partner.

Two blocs are forming in space:

Who are U.S. allies?

1. European Space Agency
2. Japan
3. Israel
4. Canada
5. United Kingdom
6. Australia
7. Italy
8. Germany
9. France
10. India (cooperates, but also stays somewhat independent)

Who are China's partners?

China’s group is smaller and more centralized:

- Russia (main partner)

Other partners (smaller roles):

1. Pakistan
2. Iran
3. South Africa
4. Egypt
5. Venezuela
6. Thailand

The real question isn’t “why go back?”

It’s this:

1. Who builds the first Moon base?
2. Who sets the rules in space?
3. Who leads the next era of technology?

Because what’s happening right now is bigger than rockets.

We’re watching the next chapter of global power…
unfold off Earth.

And for the first time in decades,
I can honestly say:

The space race is back.

02/24/2026

Did you know? Israeli Architect Arie Sharon led the architectural planning of the University of Ife (now OAU) campus in 1961, which gave West Africa, not only its then most architecturally appealing campus, but its first faculty of pharmacy, first department of chemical engineering, and first faculty (later, department) of electronics and electrical engineering? The award-winning architect died on July 24, 1984 (aged 84), in Paris, France.

02/16/2026

Helen Gomwalk — the Super-Ambitious Woman Who Escaped the Firing Squad in 1976

The names of Lt. Col. Bukar S**a Dimka and General I.D. Bisalla dominate most accounts of the failed 1976 coup that ended the life of Head of State Murtala Muhammed. Yet another figure from that episode—Helen Gomwalk—remains one of its most curious and debated personalities.

In the mid-1970s, Helen was known in elite Nigerian society as socially prominent, well connected, and intensely ambitious. She reportedly set herself the bold target of becoming Nigeria’s first female millionaire by 1977. That trajectory was abruptly interrupted in February 1976 when she was arrested for alleged links to the coup plot.

Her visibility stemmed partly from family ties. She was related by marriage to Joseph Gomwalk, the former governor of Benue-Plateau State, who had been removed from office after the 1975 change of government and later investigated for corruption. One inquiry reportedly accused a company associated with Helen—Votenisky—of serving as a channel through which public funds were diverted, leading to its confiscation.

After the coup attempt, investigators alleged that Helen acted as a courier for the conspirators, carrying messages between her brother-in-law in Jos and plotters elsewhere. Some accounts attributed to interrogation records claim Dimka himself said she delivered communications to him personally. Despite these accusations, she was sentenced to life imprisonment rather than death. Others convicted in connection with the plot—including Dimka and Joseph Gomwalk—were executed.

Why she was spared has long been debated. Two social dynamics are often cited. The first is gender norms: some believe the authorities were reluctant to execute a woman in such a highly public case. The second is elite social capital—the protective influence that status, connections, and prominence can sometimes confer in political crises.

The argument that she survived simply because she was a civilian is less persuasive. Historical discussions frequently note that Abdulkarim Zakari—described in some accounts as a civilian associate who helped guide Dimka’s men into the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation studios—was executed. Joseph Gomwalk’s case also complicates matters: though not a soldier, but a former police commissioner and senior public official, he too faced the firing squad. These examples suggest that neither civilian status nor lack of military rank guaranteed mercy.

Helen was reportedly granted amnesty during the presidency of Shehu Shagari and thereafter lived quietly out of the spotlight. She died on 8 January 2014 at age 80. In Nigerian historical memory, she endures under a striking label: the woman who escaped the firing squad.

12/26/2025

In light of the reported U.S. strike on alleged ISIS targets in Sokoto on Christmas Day, rather than in more established conflict theatres such as Borno, Plateau, or Benue, understandable questions have emerged. Chief among them are concerns about the quality and accuracy of the intelligence that informed the strike, and whether the Nigerian government actively collaborated with the United States in the operation.

At present, no one can answer these questions with certainty.

What I am doing is this: I am currently conducting a computer-aided probabilistic analysis to assess both the likelihood of meaningful U.S.–Nigeria operational cooperation and, more importantly, the probability that the intelligence behind the strike was accurate. However, I will share that deeper analysis on a paid platform elsewhere.

For now, however, I think, the Nigerian audience—especially those on Facebook, might appreciate one key context: Nigeria is widely regarded as possessing the most sophisticated intelligence architecture in Africa, based on comparative institutional strengths and operational reach. We can leave questions of Nigeria's political will to tackle terrorists for another day.

As we continue to process the implications of U.S. strikes occurring outside traditional front lines of terrorism, here is how Africa’s Top Five Intelligence Agencies broadly stack up:

Nigeria (Department of State Services — DSS)

Role: Domestic intelligence, counterterrorism, internal security

Strengths:

Deep nationwide presence and local intelligence pe*******on.
Central role in counterterrorism and counter-subversion.
Strong presidential and state security mandate.

Reputation: One of the most influential internal security services in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Egypt (General Directorate of State Security)

Role: Internal security, counterterrorism, political intelligence

Strengths:

Long institutional history and professional bureaucracy.
Strong counter-insurgency and urban intelligence experience.
Tight integration with military and regional intelligence networks.

South Africa (State Security Agency)

Role: Domestic and foreign intelligence, counterintelligence.

Strengths:

Advanced analytical and legal-institutional framework
Strong counterintelligence and strategic assessment capacity
Experience in cyber, economic, and political intelligence

Ethiopia (National Intelligence and Security Service).

Role: National security, counterinsurgency, regional surveillance.

Strengths:

Extensive counterinsurgency experience
Strong regional reach in the Horn of Africa
Effective integration with military and federal forces

Algeria (Directorate General for Documentation and Security).

Role: Internal security, counterterrorism, defence intelligence.

Strengths:

Deep counterterrorism expertise built over decades
Strong military–intelligence fusion
Effective border, desert, and transnational threat monitoring

As debate continues, one point remains clear: precision strikes presume precision intelligence. Understanding the intelligence ecosystems involved is essential before drawing firm conclusions about intent, error, or collaboration.

12/04/2025

Did you foresee architecture, engineering, nursing, and education losing ‘professional’ status?

Wow—this was really unexpected. The U.S. government has announced that it will no longer classify a wide range of graduate programs as “professional degrees” for federal financial aid purposes. The list of affected fields is far broader than many anticipated.

Degrees no longer considered “professional”:

These programs—many of which require licensure, advanced study, or years of specialized training—will lose access to higher federal financial aids limits:

Nursing (MSN, DNP, DNSc, PhD).
Architecture, Engineering & Technology (MArch, DArch, MLA, MTech, MEng, DEng, DTech, DSc, PhD, etc.)
Education (MEd, DEd, PhD).
Social Work (MSW, DSW, PhD).
Allied-health, including physical therapy, audiology, physician assistant, and more (DPT, DAud, MSPA, DHSc)
Public Health (MPH, DrPH, PhD).
Business, counseling/therapy degrees (MBA, MAcct, MS, DBA, PhD, etc.).

Degrees still recognized as “professional”:

A much smaller group of programs will continue to qualify for the higher financial aids caps:

Theology (MDiv, DTh, MDiv, MTh, PhD)
Medicine (MD, DO, MBBS)
Dentistry (DDS, DDM)
Pharmacy (PharmD)
Optometry (OD)
Veterinary Medicine (DVM)
Podiatry (DP)
Chiropractic (DC)
Law (JD, LLB)
Clinical Psychology (PsychD, PhD)

What does this change actually mean?

Beginning July 1, 2026, federal financial aid limits will shift dramatically.

Students in the fields newly reclassified as non-professional will see their annual financial aid capped at $20,000 per year. Meanwhile, students in the remaining “professional” programs—such as medicine, law, or theology—will still be eligible for up to $50,000 per year, though total aid is capped at $200,000 overall.

That lifetime limit is still well below what many medical students typically need for four years of basic training, which makes the changes all the more surprising.

Reaction so far

The announcement has caught many professional communities off guard. Organizations such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) have voiced strong concern about the implications for students entering their fields.

https://qr.ae/pC5Duh

11/18/2025

"A Pakistani Imam in Italy gave a sermon saying that every Muslim should fight the infidels or face ‘catastrophic consequences’. The next day, Italian PM Giorgia Meloni personally requested that he be deported. He had lived in Italy for 30 years and was a permanent resident!" That's what's in circulation.

Here's what's true:

It's true that Imam Zulfiqar Khan, a Pakistani who had lived in Italy since 1995, had his residence permit (“green card”) revoked and was expelled on 8 October 2024. However, the expulsion decree was issued by Italy's Interior Ministry, not by the Prime Minister. In true democracies, Prime Ministers or Presidents don't issue such orders.

The decree cited “increasing ideological fanaticism, anti-Western, antisemitic, homophobic, and anti-feminist rhetoric; links to extremist networks like Hamas; and sermons advocating resistance against the Italian state’s tax laws.”

Italian news outlet 9 Colonne further reported that Khan “claimed that every Muslim has an obligation to fight for faith and participate in the war against infidels, including Italians.” He believed that every Italian should surrender to the "ways of Allah."

This leads to a blunt, unavoidable question:

If a person harbors such hostility toward a country’s values, laws, and civic foundations, why leave your own country, which is probably more conducive to your beliefs, and live in that foreign "infidel" country for nearly thirty years?

The usual excuse—“I oppose the system, not the people”—collapses instantly. A country’s “system” is the cumulative creation of its people: their laws, culture, civic institutions, and democratic choices. Even seemingly "off" regimes in those Western countries were voted in by a majority of the people. To claim love for the people while openly denouncing the entire structure they built is not nuance—it is contradiction.

What we see here is textbook cognitive dissonance: condemning a nation while simultaneously benefiting from its stability, rights, economic security, and public institutions.

It is also special pleading: demanding to be treated as an exception while undermining the very society providing that exception.
Yes, to condemn a nation while accepting its advantages is to violate the principle of consistency (Aristotle’s non-contradiction), the social contract (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau), and integrity of action (Kant’s universalizability).

Permit me to put plainly:

You cannot declare war on a house while continuing to sleep in its bed. In other words, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Trying to do so is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Consider my dilemma in 1989/1990.

There is a country I genuinely reject because of how its values and machinations have affected me to date. While seeking post-graduate educational opportunities abroad, I declined an invitation for a prestigious, fully funded academic scholarship in that country—almost guaranteed. Instead, I chose a less attractive one in another country I could live in and wake up without a guilty conscience in the morning.

At another time, it was so painful even having to pass through that country’s airport on a connecting flight. That is ideological integrity—beliefs matched by behavior.

By contrast, choosing to live for decades inside a country one publicly denounces is not moral consistency—it's ideological posturing cushioned by the comforts of the very system being condemned.

And this is where the deeper contradiction lies:

While anyone may disagree with many policies of their host country, permanent residents and naturalized citizens are welcomed and, in fact, encouraged to engage in constructive participation—not subversion.

There is a vast moral difference between:

Critically engaging with a society (your host country) to improve it—addressing injustice, supporting reforms, and strengthening institutions, is one thing. But openly advocating for the destruction of its systems in the name of "faith", ideology, or dogma, is another thing.

One is civic responsibility. The other is hostility disguised as resistance.

If someone genuinely believes a nation is fundamentally illegitimate or must be torn down, the intellectually honest response is to live elsewhere—not to attack the society from inside while continuing to rely on its protections and benefits.

https://qr.ae/pCPkSi

11/02/2025

A lot has been said about Trump’s “Why are you killing Christians?” question to Nigeria, and his threat last week to send U.S. troops to Nigeria — and, as usual, people are split into extremes. I wrote this piece to slow things down a bit, look at the facts, and listen to every side of this painful, complicated issue, and hopefully find solutions. Here is the link https://zizaplex.quora.com/Why-are-you-killing-Christians-Understanding-Trump-s-Nigeria-declaration-and-the-debate-over-the-targeting-of-Christ

11/02/2025

President Donald Trump says Nigeria must end the slaughter of Christians or face some very tough consequences.

10/17/2025

What a miracle!

09/28/2025

Separation Without Suppression: Why Both Religious and Secular Powers Must Fear Merging with the State.

I recently engaged with participants in a fiercely anti-religion thread where people, mainly atheists, argued that so-called Christian powers in the past tortured and murdered many in the name of their religion. They shared several memes (three of which I have shared here, and this would not be the first time most of us are seeing these gory images) with which they mocked Christians.

Their argument centered on the need for the separation of Church and State.

It often sounds as if only those against religion are the ones advocating for this separation. Yet, I’ve often noted that some of their arguments rest on logical fallacies or philosophically loaded assumptions.

For example, some in this camp conflate separation (of Church and State) with suppression (of the Church) as though keeping religion out of government requires silencing religion altogether.

Some will quickly object: “No atheist wants to silence religion altogether.” Yet in practice, many betray that very intent. They argue, for example, that churches should be directly taxed by the government, which not only undermines the principle of separation, but also hands the State undue leverage over religion. Others insist it is society’s responsibility, in reality, through government agencies to “put religion in check.”

This position is riddled with contradictions. On one hand, they claim to want freedom from religious interference in government; on the other, they invite government to police religious life. Ironically, when taken to that extreme, such thinking mirrors the very error they condemn in religious powers of the past: using ideology as a weapon to suppress others.

Who Really Wants the Separation More?

In reality, it has often been Christians themselves, and indeed the majority of us, who most strongly fear the merging of Church and State. History taught us why: whenever faith and political power fused, the result was typically corruption, coercion, and violence.

But, I'll show just a glimpse of history here: While religious tyranny has scarred history, atheist regimes have also produced enormous suffering when they bound absolute state power to ideology:

Stalin (Soviet Union): Enforced state atheism, persecuted clergy, and starved millions through collectivization and gulags. Death toll: 20–30 million.

Mao Zedong (China): Declared religion “poison,” destroyed temples, and unleashed policies that killed 40–70 million.

Pol Pot (Cambodia): Brutally suppressed all faiths, executing monks, priests, and ordinary believers. Around 1.7–2 million died.

Enver Hoxha (Albania): Made Albania the first officially atheist state, outlawing religion entirely. Thousands executed or tortured.

The real danger, then, is not religion itself, nor atheism itself, but any ideology— religious or secular—when it merges with unchecked political power and demands absolute conformity. This is precisely why the separation of Church and State matters, and why people of faith, especially Christians who remember history, have so often insisted on it.

Cheers and God's blessings and protection to all: It was a very blessed Sabbath experience today.

09/24/2025

Pascal’s Triangle: Better if European than Chinese or Muslim?

While debating with some physics and math enthusiasts in a forum yesterday, I raised an old irritation that has haunted me since my student days.

Please bear with me, even if you are not a maths person. I will not bore you with numbers; you’ll get the whole gist, I promise.

Our discussion was about Pascal’s Triangle—a subject my professor once brushed aside in a History of Science & Technology class—an elective I took during a master’s degree program. He dismissed it without a thought, as if the question of its origin were discourteous. I swallowed my doubts then, not because I was convinced, but because I didn’t want to risk failing the course. As the only black in the class, I already stood out, and I already had some issues with the teacher.

Well, most of us remember Pascal’s Triangle from high school (add maths) or university: that tidy pyramid of numbers shaping probability, combinations, and patterns. But I have been asking: why Pascal? Why not Yang Hui’s Triangle or Omar Khayyam’s Triangle? After all, Chinese and Persian scholars studied this arrangement 400 years before Blaise Pascal was even born in France. As China has become a more powerful and assertive nation today, they are insisting on the Yang Hui’s name. Yet, outside China, it’s Pascal.

And this is no accident. It is a pattern.

Take Pythagoras’ theorem — the famous geometric rule that helps us resolve so many triangle problems. We all grew up thinking Pythagoras of Greece discovered it. Yet Babylonian tablets and Indian sutras recorded the formula centuries earlier.

Or consider Newton’s laws. We exalt Sir Isaac Newton of England as the genius who explained inertia and motion. However, long before him, Islamic scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham and Indian thinkers had already described many of these principles.

Or the word algorithm. Today, this mathematical principle is a sterile term in maths and computer science. But it has been stripped of its history. Yes, it comes directly from Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, the brilliant Persian mathematician whose name was turned into a word but whose story was erased.

Even zero — a number so basic we forget it had to be invented. Zero, as a number, was crafted by Indian mathematician and astronomer Brahmagupta, refined by Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and only later carried to Europe. It was after the problem of zero was resolved that higher levels of maths and physics could progress. Yet Europe wears the crown for the “birth of modern mathematics.”

There are countless more examples. But the point is the same.

Let me mention just one more thing.

Do you know that prefabrication of building components (“prefab”) is not entirely a Western engineering concept? I once worked on a structural engineering project that demonstrated that the way our forefathers built their houses in Igboland was essentially what we would call prefab today (I’m not saying that our forefathers invented prefabrication; it’s a construction method that evolved everywhere).

Now, here is the question I seriously want to ask: why do ideas only seem to become “universal” or “standard” once Europeans name them? And equally important: why did Asia, the Islamic world, and Africa allow their own intellectual treasures to be renamed, repackaged, and now remembered as someone else’s?

When you have time to kill, think about who built the pyramids of Egypt, but read on; that’s a topic for another day.

Yes, colonialism, translation, and Eurocentric education systems play their part. But let’s be blunt: if you do not control the story of your knowledge, someone else will. Europe didn’t just borrow ideas — it branded them, taught them, and institutionalized them. Meanwhile, the civilizations that first birthed these insights often failed to guard, promote, or globalize their legacy.

The challenge today is clear. Will Asian, Muslim, and African scholars continue to let their ancestors’ brilliance wear European labels? Or will they reclaim the narrative — by teaching, publishing, and insisting the world remember the Yang Hui Triangle, the Khayyam Triangle, the Shulba Theorem, the Indian sequence of prosody, the al-Khwarizmi algorithms?

History is not only about who discovers first. It is about who makes the world remember.

The Zizaplex

04/05/2026

04/03/2026

02/24/2026

02/16/2026

12/26/2025

12/04/2025

11/18/2025

11/02/2025

11/02/2025

10/17/2025

09/28/2025

09/24/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category