Boko Haram and the kidnpping of the school girls

[BruceVC]

If you haven't heard about this story yet you will. CNN is now really starting to focus on it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/nigeria-boko-haram_n_5232957.html

 

In summary Boko Haram is another Islamic fundamentalist group that operates out of north-eastern Nigeria and is linked to Al-Qaeda. For the last 4 years they been involved in numerous bombings and mass killings in the region in order to achieve some sort of Islamic conservative independent state from Nigeria. I have to say there tactics are particularly cruel and barbaric. Very similar to Al-Shabaab in Somalia

 

Anyway over 2 weeks ago they marched into a remote town in the area and kidnapped over 200 school girls. They then fled into forests on the border of Nigeria and Cameroon. Some of the school girls escaped  but the rest are still being held captive in an unknown area. Over 2 weeks later the Nigeria government has been utterly unable to get the girls back due to incompetence or lack of properly trained military resources. This raises many questions and concerns  but 2 that come to mind for me are

 

• Can you imagine a situation in your country where it could be in any way possible that such a large group of children could be kidnapped and your government is unable to get the people back? This region of Nigeria is suppose to be under a state of emergency so it just highlights the lack of security and ineffectiveness of the Nigerian security forces
• Certain African and Nigerian commentators are asking  " what is the world doing about it". And I have to ask why is this a problem that the West has to deal with? ( I say the West because when that question is asked people mean the West as Russia and China never intervene militarily unless it directly suits there national interest. They are happy to let  Western countries commit resources and manpower to humanitarian conflicts)

The rise of the power of Boko Haram should be a Nigerian and African Union problem. But this incident highlights again one of the main reason why the AU isn't achieving its full potential. The lack of political will and proper financial commitment  to deal with serious internal problems in the continent . So when the West helps to remove a dictator like Gaddafi its considered "imperialism and neo-colonialism" but when it comes to military missions or funding then the West needs to get involved or its gets criticized.

 

Nigeria has just surpassed South Africa as the country with the biggest GDP in the continent. But what's the point of having a growing GDP if you cannot even ensure the safety and security of your citizens when it comes to examples like this mass kidnapping

 

I hope this school girls get reunited with there families but I'm not hopeful

[Malcador]

I say the West because when that question is asked people mean the West as Russia and China never intervene militarily unless it directly suits there national interest

Uh, I think that's pretty much every power.

[BruceVC]

 

I say the West because when that question is asked people mean the West as Russia and China never intervene militarily unless it directly suits there national interest

Uh, I think that's pretty much every power.

 

 

No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples  where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort

[Orogun01]

 

 

I say the West because when that question is asked people mean the West as Russia and China never intervene militarily unless it directly suits there national interest

Uh, I think that's pretty much every power.

 

 

No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples  where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort

 

Was that when we were still fighting proxy wars against the spread of Communism?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I say the West because when that question is asked people mean the West as Russia and China never intervene militarily unless it directly suits there national interest

Uh, I think that's pretty much every power.

 

 

No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples  where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort

 

Was that when we were still fighting proxy wars against the spread of Communism?

 

 

No, all those conflicts I mentioned are examples of Western intervention in Africa after 1990.

[Malcador]

No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples  where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort

Well no other blatant reason, you think the US/EU likes spending money and risking their people's lives for no return? Security reasons I'd guess for most of those - no need to have some failed state be the next training ground for terrorists to come bomb you in a couple of years.

 

Heh, thinking of how Russia would have handled the whole 'Blackhawk Down' incident if it were their people.

[JadedWolf]

BruceVC, I always find it difficult to tell when there is an "intervention" whether or not lurking in the background are some economic benefits to be gained from it.

 

For example, some people claim the intervention in Somalia was because of oil interests. Now, I don't really have enough information to judge, but I wouldn't be able to say confidently that these interventions you are talking about were all purely based on a desire for justice and the well-being of the people involved.

[Walsingham]

I dare say that quite a few Nigerians aren't too happy about this.

 

I was already aware of this, but what do you expect? It doesn't change any of the basic dynamics of public opinion that are evident on these forums in microcosm. There are no bad guys any more. Just plucky revolutionaries and evil establishmentarians.

 

Boko haram are revolutionaries and are therefore cool. I'm sure they're only raping those children because they didn't receive effective governance and postage stamps or something.

 

The Western world has gone completely mad.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Walsingham

[BruceVC]

BruceVC, I always find it difficult to tell when there is an "intervention" whether or not lurking in the background are some economic benefits to be gained from it.

 

For example, some people claim the intervention in Somalia was because of oil interests. Now, I don't really have enough information to judge, but I wouldn't be able to say confidently that these interventions you are talking about were all purely based on a desire for justice and the well-being of the people involved.

 

Jadedmeister

 

Yes Somalia does have some oil reserves that are obviously not in production due  to the violence that has been raging in the country the last 20 years. But you raise an interesting point. The initial background to Black Hawk Down was the  humanitarian crisis, there is no doubt around that point. But lets say the Americans had stabilized the country and then the various energy corporations started investigating sources of potential oil. Lets say they did find oil and started building refineries. What is wrong with that?

 

Someone has to make the huge capital investment to refine and produce oil and gas. Why cant it be Western countries, would you prefer Chinese companies that didn't contribute towards ensuring peace? These energy  companies employ thousands of people and still pay tax to the home country but the reality is there will always be some large corporation behind the building of refineries.

 

But for me the more important point is that Somalia would have had a working and growing economy as opposed the reality of the country now which is basically one of the worst failed states in the world where most of the people live in dire poverty.

Edited May 4, 2014 by BruceVC

[JadedWolf]

I dare say that quite a few Nigerians aren't too happy about this.

 

I was already aware of this, but what do you expect? It doesn't change any of the basic dynamics of public opinion that are evident on these forums in microcosm. There are no bad guys any more. Just plucky revolutionaries and evil establishmentarians.

 

Boko haram are revolutionaries and are therefore cool. I'm sure they're only raping those children because they didn't receive effective governance and postage stamps or something.

 

The Western world has gone completely mad.

 

Where in this thread do you see anyone saying that Boko Haram fanatics are "plucky revolutionaries"?

 

I'm quite confused, I don't see anyone here cheering them on or even remotely defending them.

[Malcador]

I guess pointing out that all states are self-interested meant all that. Okay then, off to go write a treatise rationalizing kidnapping and sexual slavery.

[BruceVC]

 

No Malc that's incorrect. There are numerous examples of direct intervention and military assistance by the West in Africa when there was no other reason to do it but humanitarian interest. Sierra Leone, Somalia, CAR, Mali are just some examples  where the West has intervened and they didn't gain anything by it but to try to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of some sort

Well no other blatant reason, you think the US/EU likes spending money and risking their people's lives for no return? Security reasons I'd guess for most of those - no need to have some failed state be the next training ground for terrorists to come bomb you in a couple of years.

 

Heh, thinking of how Russia would have handled the whole 'Blackhawk Down' incident if it were their people.

 

 

Actually the USSR basically pulled out of Afghanistan when the war turned for them the moment the Mujahideen learnt how to effectively use RPG that started bringing down there helicopters at an alarming rate. The Afghanistan war became too expensive for them from a military hardware perspective

[JadedWolf]

 

BruceVC, I always find it difficult to tell when there is an "intervention" whether or not lurking in the background are some economic benefits to be gained from it.

 

For example, some people claim the intervention in Somalia was because of oil interests. Now, I don't really have enough information to judge, but I wouldn't be able to say confidently that these interventions you are talking about were all purely based on a desire for justice and the well-being of the people involved.

 

Jadedmeister

 

Yes Somali does have some oil reserves that are obviously not in production due  to the violence that has been raging in the country the last 20 years. But you raise an interesting point. The initial background to Black Hawk Down was the  humanitarian crisis, there is no doubt around that point. But lets say the Americans had stabilized the country and then the various energy corporations started investigating sources of potential oil. Lets say they did find oil and started building refineries. What is wrong with that?

 

Someone has to make the huge capital investment to refine and produce oil and gas. Why cant it be Western countries, would you prefer Chinese companies that didn't contribute towards ensuring peace? These energy  companies employ thousands of people and still pay tax to the home country but the reality is there will always be some large corporation behind the building of refineries.

 

But for me the more important point is that Somalia would have had a working and growing economy as opposed the reality of the country now which is basically one of the worst failed states in the world where most of the people live in dire poverty.

 

 

If some Western companies making a quick buck would be a nice byproduct of increasing the safety and the well-being of the people in Somalia, and if the people in Somalia would see an economic benefit of the exploitation of their natural resources as well, I don't think anyone would be against that.

[BruceVC]

 

I dare say that quite a few Nigerians aren't too happy about this.

 

I was already aware of this, but what do you expect? It doesn't change any of the basic dynamics of public opinion that are evident on these forums in microcosm. There are no bad guys any more. Just plucky revolutionaries and evil establishmentarians.

 

Boko haram are revolutionaries and are therefore cool. I'm sure they're only raping those children because they didn't receive effective governance and postage stamps or something.

 

The Western world has gone completely mad.

 

Where in this thread do you see anyone saying that Boko Haram fanatics are "plucky revolutionaries"?

 

I'm quite confused, I don't see anyone here cheering them on or even remotely defending them.

 

 

I believe Walsie is predicting comments from some of our members who tend to dismiss anything the West does as having an ulterior motive and any example of an organization or country opposing the West as noble and righteous. But I don't think we will see this sentiment on this thread as its unequivocal who the " bad guys " are

Edited May 4, 2014 by BruceVC

[Sarex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFLpZcY3ss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pAmhsqqQqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeTe2GbjiTc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Z-AK_FTEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDUOHlVYTXo

 

All about how the west was helpful to those states past 1990, amongst other things.

[Malcador]

Actually the USSR basically pulled out of Afghanistan when the war turned for them the moment the Mujahideen learnt how to effectively use RPG that started bringing down there helicopters at an alarming rate. The Afghanistan war became too expensive for them from a military hardware perspective

Stingers were the problem, not RPGs. But in terms of the response, I'd imagine they'd do what Oakley hinted at, shame the US didn't do it though - not like the world would care that much for a while.

 

``I have no plan for this, and I'll do everything I can to prevent it, but what will happen if a few weeks go by and Mr. Durant is not released? Not only will you lose any credit you may get now, but we will decide that we have to rescue him. I guarantee you we are not going to pay or trade for him in any way, shape or form. . . .

 

``So what we'll decide is we have to rescue him, and whether we have the right place or the wrong place, there's going to be a fight with your people. The minute the guns start again, all restraint on the U.S. side goes. Just look at the stuff coming in here now. An aircraft carrier, tanks, gunships . . . the works. Once the fighting starts, all this pent-up anger is going to be released. This whole part of the city will be destroyed, men, women, children, camels, cats, dogs, goats, donkeys, everything. . . . That would really be tragic for all of us, but that's what will happen.''

I believe Walsie is predicting comments from some of our members who tend to dismiss anything the West does as having an ulterior motive and any example of an organization or country opposing the West as noble and righteous. But I don't think we will see this sentiment on this thread as its unequivocal who the " bad guys " are

That's pretty stupid then.

[HoonDing]

Kidnapping school girls? Does Boko Haram have any Japanese recruits?

[Walsingham]

1) stingers didn't bring down many helicopters. They're too finicky. But they did make the pilots change the way they acted, which helped the muj.

 

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Western world has gone completely mad.

Let's not generalize to everyone, shall we?

 

Probably the most effective thing we can do is train the Nigerians to respond to those kinds of problems themselves. I'm not sure a military intervention would work out so well, and is bound to be very controversial, which alone means Obama won't do it.

[HoonDing]

This is the kind of comic book evil one'd typically find in Silver Age Superman comics.

[JadedWolf]

1) stingers didn't bring down many helicopters. They're too finicky. But they did make the pilots change the way they acted, which helped the muj.

 

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

 

What would you like to see done, then? You talk about apathy, but for me the matter is that I haven't seen anyone come forward with a good gameplan of what exactly needs to be done here. It's a very complex matter, and it needs a bit more thought than "Hey, let's just send in the marines."

[obyknven]

Actually the USSR basically pulled out of Afghanistan when the war turned for them the moment the Mujahideen learnt how to effectively use RPG that started bringing down there helicopters at an alarming rate. The Afghanistan war became too expensive for them from a military hardware perspective

 

It's just propagandistic myth. I talked with some "people" who give me info when Soviets decide leave Afghanistan. This happened yet  in 1985 year when Gorbachev take power, some serious military projects tied with this war has been rejected in this moment, later Politburo just try find reason for justification of this decision. Few years they consume for PR - make Afghanistan war unpopular in society. I can't say what really happened in this moment -   Soviet political elite actually has been counterrevolutionary opportunists and decide use this event for transformation of society, or they just  too busy byinternal struggle to power, but factically Soviet retreat from Afghanistan not caused nor by Stingers (first ones appeared only in 1986 year here), nor by any NATO/CIA activity.

Sorry if i ruin your faith about Epic Western win in Cold War by this.  

 

[JadedWolf]

 

The Western world has gone completely mad.

Let's not generalize to everyone, shall we?

 

Probably the most effective thing we can do is train the Nigerians to respond to those kinds of problems themselves. I'm not sure a military intervention would work out so well, and is bound to be very controversial, which alone means Obama won't do it.

 

 

Okay now, I don't know all that much about Nigeria, but what I've read doesn't exactly paint a nice picture of the Nigerian army.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-08/nigeria-army-abuses-may-undermine-fight-against-islamists.html

 

If by training Nigerians, you mean the Nigerian soldiers would be taught not to vent their frustration on civilians, then yes, that'd probably be a good first step.

[Zoraptor]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone describe prokul harem boko haram as anything other than a standardly unpleasant Al Qaida like. There are some fair reasons for muslims in Nigeria to feel discriminated against, and the violence has certainly not been one way as the western press tends to simplify it to- but then Nigeria is so corrupt as an entity that pretty much everyone is discriminated against in some way. Even so, boko haram don't have huge support even amongst the muslim population, they just have enough to be effective in a country that is still massively underdeveloped and has porous borders with equally underdeveloped countries.

 

As for western interventions, well, CAR is a good example in all the wrong ways. Having got their favoured group (Christians, in this case) back into power the French are largely sitting on their hands while they settle scores with their muslim neighbours who were in power previously- french colonial and post colonial policy in a nutshell, get their favoured group into power and (try to) keep them there whatever they do, as was so shamefully on show in Rwanda twenty years ago.

 

1) stingers didn't bring down many helicopters. They're too finicky. But they did make the pilots change the way they acted, which helped the muj.

 

Yep, the practical effect of the Stingers was massively overstated, with the number supplied and the size of Afghanistan there was very little probability of running into one on any given sortie. The vast majority of Russian air losses were due to wholly conventional stuff like AAA and even small arms. But the presence of some stingers did change how the Russians behaved which made them a lot less effective.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

1) stingers didn't bring down many helicopters. They're too finicky. But they did make the pilots change the way they acted, which helped the muj.

 

2) Boko haram, and AQIM, and all these benighted ****holes are part and parcel of an ideology that glories in this kind of thing. And while I'm sure very few board members agree with it, they spend so much time second guessing our own purity that in all the excitement they forget to protest the mundane obvious bad guys.

 

I believe fundamentally that machinery of politics can be as dirty as a coalmine full of Hustlers, it still doesn't quite compare to what has actually happened. And I tend to agree with Bruce that if this had happened to white schoolkids there would be a lot less apathy.

Hm, always thought the Stingers were the problem and the real nuisance. RPGs as an anti-gunship weapon are pretty pants though, the amount the Somalis had to throw up to hit the US choppers was impresive, from what I recall. Clever theory by the Somali commander too, saw the helicopters as a weak point.

 

Still not sure what the hell you're on with the second point, it's pretty obvious that selling girls into slavery and abducting them is bad. I guess we need to just say "______ is bad!" before any other point or comment.