http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/

Kano, Nigeria (CNN)Boko Haram militants opened fire on northern Nigerian villages, leaving bodies scattered everywhere and as many as 2,000 people feared dead.

"The attack on Baga and surrounding towns looks as if it could be Boko Haram's deadliest act," Amnesty International said in a statement.

Islamist militants sprayed bullets as they stormed in last weekend in trucks and armored vehicles, local authorities said Friday.

When they arrived, they unloaded motorcycles and pursued residents who fled into the bush, firing indiscriminately, said Baba Abba Hassan, a local district head.

Local officials reported death tolls ranging from hundreds to as many as 2,000 people.

"Dead bodies litter the bushes in the area and it is still no‎t safe to go and pick them (up) for burial," said Musa Bukar, the chairman of the local government where Baga is located.

"Some people who hid in their homes were burned alive."

I am a bit sad that today is the first I heard of this. Granted, what happened in Paris was horrible, but this... my god...

Yep, and two more young girl suicide bombers sent by Boko haram over the weekend. Disgusting.

Where not these guys the ones whe kidnapped 300 girls from a school

Dogma is horrible and dangerous. I avoid the news outside of Dakka, so this was new to me. Kind of a bummer.

I always felt, things like this don't make me afraid, but more xenophobic.
It's wrong but... well not everything I think is correct.

Dogma per the definition anyway. Our dogma is fine, I guess. Well, maybe a little horrible sometimes.

Nigeria is almost a failed state at this point.

Didn't we have some military "advisors" or some "boots" on the ground there after the time when Boko kidnapped all those girls?

EDIT: yep, we sent a few:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/world/africa/us-sends-troops-to-aid-hunt-for-nigerian-schoolgirls.html?_r=0

Yet more disgusting behaviour from cowards using religion as a shield..

This is truly horrible, I hope it won't lead to another Rwanda.

Um, US? Why not help?

Why should they?

 Matthew wrote:
Um, US? Why not help?

why isn't Sweden helping?
In all reality, what can we do?

The US could do a fething lot.

That's not the question.

 Matthew wrote:
Um, US? Why not help?

Why not Sweden?

As a member of the US Military, I have zero issue with going over there and curb stomping these people, but why are we the ones who always seem to have to lead the way*?

*Yes, I know there are other instances where we don't, but referring to general perception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The US could do a fething lot.

That's not the question.

We are doing a lot.

We just aren't putting a few divisions on the ground. Yet.

Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

Jeez. What a crappy friggin' situation. I hope we (the rest of the world) do something to support them.

Matthew, each of us should be looking to our own countries to be leaders on this and not expecting the hard choices to be made by others. With the criticism heaped on the US for their past military interventions, your comment is frankly provocative.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The US could do a fething lot.

That's not the question.

Just like we stopped all thelse terrorist in the middle east

 Matthew wrote:
Um, US? Why not help?

I'm curious as to why you think the US should shoulder the burden for solving this problem.

You didn't do anything.

The US did do a lot in the middle east. Whoever said that doing something only counts as doing something if it's got a good ending?

Da Boss wrote:Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

Jeez. What a crappy friggin' situation. I hope we (the rest of the world) do something to support them.

Matthew, each of us should be looking to our own countries to be leaders on this and not expecting the hard choices to be made by others. With the criticism heaped on the US for their past military interventions, your comment is frankly provocative.

MrDwhitey wrote:The US could do a fething lot.

That's not the question.

Matthew wrote:Um, US? Why not help?

Wait wait wait

What Kind of help do you want from the US?


We Helped when the 300 girls were captured

#bringbackourgirls

We should help agian

#Stopdoingthat

Or do you want actual help in the form of soldiers and not whinny teens on tweeter?

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm with djones on this one - Why should America make the first move?

Don't get me wrong, I understand why, if anybody, it would be the US to give the green-light to such an. After all they arguably (Going off Numbers and Technology) have the largest army in the world and the money to back that up, but the world at large needs to take more responsibility for these events. Speaking as a very patriotic British citizen, there was once a time when Great Britain was the worlds policeman, but despite still having one of (if not the, IMHO) the finest armies in the world, we still wait for the US to give us the signal. Why not take matters into our own hands?

Of course, there is always the argument of 'not another Afghanistan' and those on the forum who participated in that conflict (Or Iraq) can probably give us all some very good pointers why not to go back in, but a large part of me thinks it is our responsibility to help, to ensure others have the privileges and freedoms we enjoy. Speaking personally, I'm more than willing to give my life for that ideal, but I can appreciate why others, especially veterans of those conflicts or the bereaved families of the fallen, would disagree. IMO, I don't think the previous eastern wars were for nothing at all, but very little is going to change unless the people of the Middle East themselves want to end this - they need to take matters into their hands and defy their oppressors. Only when they do that will there be a real chance for things to change and for our help to have a lasting effect.

That's just my presonal opinion, I'm not saying it's 'right' for everyone or at all and I certainly am not pushing it on anyone.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

This is why some countries need to start solving their own problems. If an outside force gets involved then that force has a very thankless task, and will be blamed as driving more people to become extremists.

Stay out of it. At most sell arms, equipment, and training.

One of my few tips of my hat to France's foreign policy...

When an Al Qaeda off shoot threatened to overthrow Mali's government, and create a new terrorist state, France went balls out a took the fight straight to them.

We did help out with transportation, but in such a large battle, France nearly went at it alone. I would love to see some more of the "worlds leading countries" do stuff like that.

Aye. Though I think some targeted and thought out programs to help Nigeria improve economically and also improve it's institutions and infastructure could go a long way. Get them strong enough that they can offer attractive alternatives to extremism and deal with extremists themselves.

But that's a long road that doesn't help the next group of poor unlucky bastards these scumbag lunatics decide to kill. :( It's an extremely unhappy situation with no easy solution. I hate those ones.

Edit: djones520: France is pretty militaristic when it needs to be. Less so than the UK, but they will go for it and their armed forces are pretty decent from what I understand.

Germany has a very different view I guess to most big nations- distrust of the military is quite common here. I can't see them becoming proactive like that any time soon.

My home country of Ireland of course has a pretty embarassingly under equipped and under manned military. We hide behind our neutrality as an excuse not to spend on our own defense, cynically knowing the UK would not allow anything too bad to happen to us as it would be bad for their security. It's a stance I despise, but at least we send troops on peace keeping missions :(

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

This is why some countries need to start solving their own problems. If an outside force gets involved then that force has a very thankless task, and will be blamed as driving more people to become extremists.

Stay out of it. At most sell arms, equipment, and training.

Or, we can go young Vader and just conquer that region...

We can even use the same tactic that Putin did to annex Crimea. I'm sure the natives in Nigeria would prefer being citizens of the US of A.



I'm kidding of course.*

*or am I????

@Dreadclaw69 - The greatest weapon against terrorists and their ideals, at least in the long term, is to change the minds of the people who they base their support on. The sooner they lose any and all shred of credibility vis a vis their 'ideals' then their support will diminish. Hopefully, when that occurs they will find it harder and harder to replenish losses. Of course, Ideas don't ever truly die, but hopefully they can be relegated to such an obscure corner of history that they'll only ever crop up infrequently in future. Needless to say, that's all hypothetical currently... :(

 Da Boss wrote:
But that's a long road that doesn't help the next group of poor unlucky bastards these scumbag lunatics decide to kill. :( It's an extremely unhappy situation with no easy solution. I hate those ones.

Sadly in the real world there is rarely the good choice and the bad choice. There is usually the bad choice, and the worse choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Dreadclaw69 - The greatest weapon against terrorists and their ideals, at least in the long term, is to change the minds of the people who they base their support on. The sooner they lose any and all shred of credibility vis a vis their 'ideals' then their support will diminish. Hopefully, when that occurs they will find it harder and harder to replenish losses. Of course, Ideas don't ever truly die, but hopefully they can be relegated to such an obscure corner of history that they'll only ever crop up infrequently in future. Needless to say, that's all hypothetical currently... :(

And how do we achieve that with this group in particular? Bearing in mind the fact that this is group is at least in part driven by extremist religious dogma, which does not seem to be diminishing, and as seen elsewhere may attract foreign fighters to replenish the ranks.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

This is why some countries need to start solving their own problems. If an outside force gets involved then that force has a very thankless task, and will be blamed as driving more people to become extremists.

Stay out of it. At most sell arms, equipment, and training.

Or, we can go young Vader and just conquer that region...

We can even use the same tactic that Putin did to annex Crimea. I'm sure the natives in Nigeria would prefer being citizens of the US of A.



I'm kidding of course.*

*or am I????

While it wouldn't be prudent to take over the area permanently, there is something to be said for the US to no longer play nice.

No more stupid rules of engagement, if there is a target you take the shot and kill him dead.

Make everyone know that hiding behind human shields will not save them. It really sucks for the people they're hiding behind, but in the long run this would save lives. Unfortunately, most of our population are far too weak willed to do anything beyond allow the use of human shields to work as a legitimate tactic.

 Matthew wrote:
Um, US? Why not help?

I agree, but we need to modify our policy. There is a price.

We'll help but only if you sign this document that means you are now a Territory of the United States.

lol that post.

Sometimes I think you're the new Chongara.

(not at Frazz)

@Dreadclaw - Oh I never said it would be easy, nor even possible, but it stands to reason that if the dogma was taken away, the concept of going out an murdering 'random' civilians would be far less appealing. You are right of course, that it's a nigh on impossible task. The trouble is, the 'religion' is just a mask, the real motivater is a lust for wealth and power that they cannot obtain from a 'normal' course of life. Religion is simply a convenient excuse used by the leaders of ISIS/Al-Quaeda/The Taliban, to justify grabbing more land and controlling more people - ostensibly all to make themselves richer and damn the rest.

It's not easy, changing their societies. We've been trying to do it for 13 years in Afghanistan. There is a significant part of the population that still have no idea why we are even there...

So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

You just know Russia would veto any attempts simply to spite the West.

I would love to see more European leadership on stuff like this. Unfortunately I think we're a bit prone to navel gaze and pontificate instead of doing anything concrete. And I include myself in that.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Dreadclaw - Oh I never said it would be easy, nor even possible, but it stands to reason that if the dogma was taken away, the concept of going out an murdering 'random' civilians would be far less appealing. You are right of course, that it's a nigh on impossible task. The trouble is, the 'religion' is just a mask, the real motivater is a lust for wealth and power that they cannot obtain from a 'normal' course of life. Religion is simply a convenient excuse used by the leaders of ISIS/Al-Quaeda/The Taliban, to justify grabbing more land and controlling more people - ostensibly all to make themselves richer and damn the rest.

And as long as they have a cleric to justify their deeds their religious cover remains in place. That is not something that the West can force (especially when the name Boko Haram is explicitly anti-Western), it has to be a change that comes internally. When, or if that ever happens remains to be seen.

 Da Boss wrote:
I would love to see more European leadership on stuff like this. Unfortunately I think we're a bit prone to navel gaze and pontificate instead of doing anything concrete. And I include myself in that.

I think the European solution to this problem would be to point towards the general direction of Africa and say "keep that stuff over there m'kay".

It's not something a military solution will fix. If anybody tries they will simply be the next target.

I don't even mean a military solution. I'd actually be more in favour of targeted aid of different kinds, something complex and far reaching. It's not a fully fleshed out idea, but I feel like it could at least help.

I agree there, any solution will have to be a non-military one (or with very a minimal component). I think, or at least hope, that we are finally leaning that "just kill the bad guys" isn't any kind of long term solution and doesn't give any stability.

A military solution will be required, but it can't be the only one. There will have to be a lot more involved.

And I hope folks don't feel that what we did in Iraq, and what we're doing in Afghanistan, was purely military.

It would be stolen by the various rebel groups and entrepeneurs in the region (or the government). Graft and illegal siezure are raft there. Its really pretty in many areas with LOTS of different guerrilla groups.

Doing business in Nigeria almost automatically makes you a candidate for bribery investigations.


This is what happens when you are not steeped in the tradition of fine Tex Mex cuisine.

Reenlistment bonus for military drone pilots are in effect
Seriously

 Jihadin wrote:
Reenlistment bonus for military drone pilots are in effect
Seriously

I don't know if they let enlisted guys fly the drones that make things go boom. I know if the AF it's officers. Army's Shadows are enlisted flown, but they don't have things that go boom. Can't speak for Grey Eagles, we don't have any here yet.

 Jihadin wrote:
Reenlistment bonus for military drone pilots are in effect
Seriously

Just as long as you stay of Twitter and FB.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-cybersecurity-centcom-hack-idUSKBN0KL1UZ20150112

Their equipped with laser designator

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

I get ya... it's mostly a useless organization.

Are you, advocating to saddle up and go "Cowboy" mode?

Not that have any problems with it... except we'd need much clearer objectives than what we have in mideast.

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

I get ya... it's mostly a useless organization.

Are you, advocating to saddle up and go "Cowboy" mode?

Not that have any problems with it... except we'd need much clearer objectives than what we have in mideast.

I'm not advocating that we cowboy. Boko Haram is not a very large organization that has national backing like Al Qaeda did in Afghanistan. Military intervention would at best be small. Air strikes, SpecOps teams, etc... Having Nigeria's military lead the majority of the efforts is required.

As for the other aspects, it'll take a lot of work. Gotta figure out a way to make Nigeria economically viable...

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

That's how I look at it.

Obviously, it's an humanitarian issue now.

Shall we put it up for UN vote?

Sure, they did a bang up job with Rwan... oh...

I get ya... it's mostly a useless organization.

Are you, advocating to saddle up and go "Cowboy" mode?

Not that have any problems with it... except we'd need much clearer objectives than what we have in mideast.

I'm not advocating that we cowboy. Boko Haram is not a very large organization that has national backing like Al Qaeda did in Afghanistan. Military intervention would at best be small. Air strikes, SpecOps teams, etc... Having Nigeria's military lead the majority of the efforts is required.

As for the other aspects, it'll take a lot of work. Gotta figure out a way to make Nigeria economically viable...

I agree.

What we need is the same sort of industrializations that China experienced in the last 20/30 years. Nigeria (and rest of Africa for that matter) has a boat load of labor (cheaper than even China probably) and regional resources to support heavy manufacturing.

The trick will be, how do you ignite that?

I'd imagine a key concept in bringing that about would be some form of pride. For a large part, the west has been as successful as it has been in a large part due to patriotism. Initially in Europe each nation was galvinised by pride in their nation, their nations past successes and their nations future innovations. As such, the will of the people to succeed drives the nation forward. Take a look at the United States for example, and you'll see a superb example of how the people's belief in a manifest destiny brought about mass drives to succeed in the face of harsh physical and economic challenges (I'm talking about the 'Wild West' period more than any other). If Nigeria and other African countries are to succeed, it must be because they want to succeed. Currently they are divided into an every man for himself attitude, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they lack a sort of national pride that enables them to band together and further the nation as a whole. Of course, another challenge is that corruption is rife in countries like Nigeria - that is one of the main obstacles to Western aid right now as a large percentage of Western (Or even Global) aid fails to reach it's target. Whether it's siphoned off funding or physical aid being used as leverage, corruption really decreases the effectiveness of any Western, non-military, intervention.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
I'd imagine a key concept in bringing that about would be some form of pride. For a large part, the west has been as successful as it has been in a large part due to patriotism. Initially in Europe each nation was galvinised by pride in their nation, their nations past successes and their nations future innovations. As such, the will of the people to succeed drives the nation forward. Take a look at the United States for example, and you'll see a superb example of how the people's belief in a manifest destiny brought about mass drives to succeed in the face of harsh physical and economic challenges (I'm talking about the 'Wild West' period more than any other). If Nigeria and other African countries are to succeed, it must be because they want to succeed. Currently they are divided into an every man for himself attitude, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they lack a sort of national pride that enables them to band together and further the nation as a whole. Of course, another challenge is that corruption is rife in countries like Nigeria - that is one of the main obstacles to Western aid right now as a large percentage of Western (Or even Global) aid fails to reach it's target. Whether it's siphoned off funding or physical aid being used as leverage, corruption really decreases the effectiveness of any Western, non-military, intervention.

Fair point.

I believe people are forgetting a major point: The sovereign nation of Nigeria does not want our (military) help. Actually, their government does not want our military assistance. We have offered it before and they have turned it down.

It is really a sad situation.

Sometimes you have to fail on your own.

It's also a tricky situation politcally there. I believe one of the biggest reasons Boko Haram still exists is because they operate around several borders with neighbouring countries where whichever military is chasing them after another massacre can't follow, not because the Nigerian isn't strong enough to handle them. If memory serves Nigeria actually has one of the largest armies in West-Africa.

IIRC Nigeria and its neighbours are working to form a coalition that would allow them to actually catch these bastards when they skip across borders.

Just to add to another point made in this thread, the leaders of these organisations also know that hearts and minds (whether by sympathy or fear) are the way to keep power, or lose it. That's why schools, especially ones that teach girls are such favoured targets of these cowards.

From Nigeria's Wiki page:
"Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the African Union, OPEC, and the United Nations among other international organizations."

What are the UN doing about Boko Haram? Why should the US intervene when Nigeria is a member of these organisations?
Britain has a history of taking military action abroad, then having to deal with the horrible legacy of that action. The US has some too (Vietnam).
Humanitarian atrocities like those caused by Boko Haram are becoming all too common. Lots of it is regarded as being in the name of religion, and Boko Haram is all up for some of that.

The only way I can see any of the religious group to tone down is for the equivalent of excommunication, being kicked out of the queue for paradise. Does Islam (or at least the supposed branches they claim to adhere to), have a head/spokesperson or leadership? If the Pope spoke out against a Catholic-based group, I guess it would have some affect. Is there an Islamic version of the Pope? Would it matter what he/they said? Would Boko Haram care?

One thing I havent failed to notice is just how quickly this attack is becoming old news.

 Orlanth wrote:
One thing I havent failed to notice is just how quickly this attack is becoming old news.

#BlackLivesMatter


Insert Eye Roll Emoticon

Just look at how quickly bringbackourgirls spread then died.

 Skinnereal wrote:
The only way I can see any of the religious group to tone down is for the equivalent of excommunication, being kicked out of the queue for paradise. Does Islam (or at least the supposed branches they claim to adhere to), have a head/spokesperson or leadership? If the Pope spoke out against a Catholic-based group, I guess it would have some affect. Is there an Islamic version of the Pope? Would it matter what he/they said? Would Boko Haram care?

You can be declared outside the fold of Islam, and lose certain privileges, such as losing the standard muslim greeting, attendance to hajj, etc. The Ahmadiyya muslim community was declared outside the fold of Islam in the late 1800's, only a few years after it was founded and has faced heavy persecution in the countries its adherents live. Its worth noting that they espouse non-violence as one of their core values and also have a caliph. Sorta the non-violent ISIS. They are regarded as worse than non-muslims, because they left mainstream Islam, according to their detractors.

A muslim scholar would be hard pressed to declare these groups as outside the fold of Islam because they are doing exactly what their book and hadiths tell them to do. The only thing that can be said about them is that they are interpreting the book wrong and practicing the readings wrong. They'll reply that they are doing exactly what they're supposed to and that's its the moderates that are wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/13/cameroon-govt-says-143-boko-haram-militants-killed-after-attack-near-border/?intcmp=latestnews

Good news. Camaroon offs 143 Boko Haram fighters.

 nels1031 wrote:
[The Ahmadiyya muslim community was declared outside the fold of Islam in the late 1800's, only a few years after it was founded and has faced heavy persecution in the countries its adherents live. Its worth noting that they espouse non-violence as one of their core values and also have a caliph. Sorta the non-violent ISIS. They are regarded as worse than non-muslims, because they left mainstream Islam, according to their detractors.

Is this for real? If so, it speaks volumes now doesn't it? Religion of peace my left foot...

...

Although after actually thinking for two seconds it occurs to me that non-violence might not be the reason they were declared outside of Islam. More information is required.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
. Speaking as a very patriotic British citizen, there was once a time when Great Britain was the worlds policeman, .

Speaking as a very Patriotic Irish citizen:They sucked at it.

@Bran Its slightly more complicated, they do add just a bit to the Muslim faith that mainstream Islam doesn't and that's where the differences lie.

ok, so excommunicated for reasons other than nonviolence. Thanks for clearing that up.

Bran Dawri wrote:
ok, so excommunicated for reasons other than nonviolence. Thanks for clearing that up.

Muslims don't generally get excommunicated for non-violence as far as I know.

Yeah, that thought occurred to me after about two seconds as well. The first post about the Ahmadiyya msulims was a bit misleading that way, hence the call for more information ;-) .

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
. Speaking as a very patriotic British citizen, there was once a time when Great Britain was the worlds policeman, .

Speaking as a very Patriotic Irish citizen:They sucked at it.

Everyone sucks at it, everyone wants a bigger piece of pie and will do what is necessary to get it. This is still happening now and will never change so long as humans are on this planet. The trick is to suck less than the other guys, usually by giving something in return for hegemony. In this the Empire was genuinely successful.

As for your perspective, the most patriotic Irish guys can seldom move on from the 17th century and are unstable witness to world events.

Police generally dont walk into a stadium and fire on an innocent crowd.And by 17th I assume you mean 20th century.

Perhaps your conversation would be better as a PM exchange rather than dragging this thread further off topic.

Jeepers!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913338/Boko-Haram-fanatics-abducted-500-women-children-brutal-town-attack-says-eyewitness.html

-Survivor tells of horror in Baga after assault by Islamist terror group
-More than '500 women and children' kidnapped by militants
-Some have been released, but younger women remain captive
-Comes after satellite images showed destruction of towns by terror group
-Showed that 3,700 buildings including homes and schools were destroyed
-One witness says terrorists shot and killed a woman who was in labour
-Nigerian President makes surprise visit to Boko Haram heartland
-Goodluck Jonathan promised to tackle reign of terror
-Told people displaced by attack they would be able to return home

Has Nigeria really asked for help yet from the UN or the African Union?

 Matthew wrote:
Um, US? Why not help?

Because then we'd have to listen to swedes bitch about how we always have our noses in others buisness.

400 US troops are getting sent to Syria now to conduct training

 djones520 wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/

Kano, Nigeria (CNN)Boko Haram militants opened fire on northern Nigerian villages, leaving bodies scattered everywhere and as many as 2,000 people feared dead.

"The attack on Baga and surrounding towns looks as if it could be Boko Haram's deadliest act," Amnesty International said in a statement.

Islamist militants sprayed bullets as they stormed in last weekend in trucks and armored vehicles, local authorities said Friday.

When they arrived, they unloaded motorcycles and pursued residents who fled into the bush, firing indiscriminately, said Baba Abba Hassan, a local district head.

Local officials reported death tolls ranging from hundreds to as many as 2,000 people.

"Dead bodies litter the bushes in the area and it is still no‎t safe to go and pick them (up) for burial," said Musa Bukar, the chairman of the local government where Baga is located.

"Some people who hid in their homes were burned alive."

I am a bit sad that today is the first I heard of this. Granted, what happened in Paris was horrible, but this... my god...

That's why I mentioned it in the Paris thread. Everyone on the news is up in arms about the magazine massacre, but never really talked about this nearly as much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

Jeez. What a crappy friggin' situation. I hope we (the rest of the world) do something to support them.

Matthew, each of us should be looking to our own countries to be leaders on this and not expecting the hard choices to be made by others. With the criticism heaped on the US for their past military interventions, your comment is frankly provocative.

We went into Somalia and what did that get us?

Somalia was a political failure, not a military.

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993? What were the military objectives?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993?

Dogma, go eff yourself.

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

 djones520 wrote:

Dogma, go eff yourself.

I am a proponent of digital rights, so there is no need to draw my attention to anything in that regard.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Dogma, go eff yourself.

I am a proponent of digital rights, so there is no need to draw my attention to anything in that regard.

You're a proponent of being a digital dick. You're succeeding.

 djones520 wrote:

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I am merely trying to understand your position.

What were the objectives that were achieved in Mogadishu?

 Jihadin wrote:
400 US troops are getting sent to Syria now to conduct training

Unfortunately this is the kind of response that isn't going to produce much more than a show of goodwill. There's a school of national security thought developing right now that goes something like this in regards to the Middle East (obviously paraphrasing):

"Get out completely, or Balls Deep."

By Balls Deep, i mean an even more forceful reaction than Desert Storm, or the Iraq / Afghan conflict. Million plus combat troops on the ground, not a couple hundred thousand.

I'm hearing the middle east being referred to as post WWII Germany scenario. Either commit for the indefinite long term, or gtfo ... any other strategy isn't going to work.

Some, not all, but some security analysts are starting to realize the controlled response method can never work in that region.


... i'm honestly not sure which one i support at this point. Because it's not contained, can't be contained, to just the middle east.

(note, this is just in reference to the point on advisors to Syria).

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I am merely trying to understand your position.

What were the objectives that were achieved in Mogadishu?

Then why didn't you ask that before, instead of making some snarky comment twisting my wording?

 dogma wrote:
I am a proponent of digital rights, so there is no need to draw my attention to anything in that regard.

Oh, you.

 djones520 wrote:

Then why didn't you ask that before, instead of making some snarky comment twisting my wording?

I asked the questions which would illustrate your position in my initial response.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Then why didn't you ask that before, instead of making some snarky comment twisting my wording?

I asked the questions which would illustrate your position in my initial response.

BS yourself if you want to, but you're not kidding anyone else.

 djones520 wrote:

BS yourself if you want to, but you're not kidding anyone else.

Sure...

 dogma wrote:

You were a member of the US military in 1993? What were the military objectives?

 djones520 wrote:
Somalia was a political failure, not a military.

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

In the end, it was a failure. There was an extremely good PBS documentary on it years ago where members of the military and politicians were interviewed. The military that were there and some politicians in the loop damned the Clinton administration,and Madeline Albright in particular, about the failed mission to get Aidid.
It was part of "The American Experience" series, I believe.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

Yeah it's really strange, I've heard people saying the US needs to get out of the middle east and then right away say they need to help those rebels in Syria...
All under some weird nonsense about stopping terrorism.
I'm not afraid of terrorists, better chance getting food poisoning from McDonalds or hit by a car...
I mean sure, there's a huge chunk of the world I will never go near and another religion I am weary of, but that's to be expected I suppose (I'm weary of a lot of religions).

Its interesting that this atrocity is buried under the headlines about muslim terrorist cells in Europe. I mean I get it....the whole Charlie Hedbo thing is literally, specifically, and pointedly an attack on the concept of free speech because it dishonored a particular religion. Western minds see that as a special kind of awful.

Still, important to remember that the folks who suffer the most from muslim (and to a larger degree Abrahamic) terrorism are invariably the poor & powerless in underdeveloped regions.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Its interesting that this atrocity is buried under the headlines about muslim terrorist cells in Europe. I mean I get it....the whole Charlie Hedbo thing is literally, specifically, and pointedly an attack on the concept of free speech because it dishonored a particular religion. Western minds see that as a special kind of awful.

Still, important to remember that the folks who suffer the most from muslim (and to a larger degree Abrahamic) terrorism are invariably the poor & powerless in underdeveloped regions.

Actually, it's more so the case that;
1. The vast majority of people killed by Islamist extremists are other Muslims.
2. The vast majority of the atrocities are carried out 'over there' and/or in countries that hold little worth for Western governments, as well as also being notoriously corrupt and tyrannical themselves.
3. The Liberal left & their bleeding heart socialist cheerleaders are too concerned with discussing BS like 'root causes' or else feel good Twitter whining campaigns, rather than taking the very much required action to stamp out this rapidly growing problem.

Nothing will change until a truly catastrophic attack or series of attacks is carried out on our shores. Until then, it's hand-wringing and avoiding the issue as normal for our weakling political leadership.

dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993? What were the military objectives?

djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993?

Dogma, go eff yourself.

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I seriously hope you two are not basing your knowledge from a movie and a book? Seriously hope not. There is more to what is generally known to the public.....I'm not going to get between you two in your little pissing match but your both acting dumber then a box of rocks. So if there's some "confusion" over the span of time the Marines hit the beach up to when we pulled out let me know. I point you in the direction to help clarify US Military involvement in Mogadishu. Which lead up to US Service members refusing to serve under UN command and control.....I digress..It was an interesting time to be in the US Military during the 90's

dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I am merely trying to understand your position.

What were the objectives that were achieved in Mogadishu?

Edit

I cannot multi quote worth a damn it seems.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Its interesting that this atrocity is buried under the headlines about muslim terrorist cells in Europe. I mean I get it....the whole Charlie Hedbo thing is literally, specifically, and pointedly an attack on the concept of free speech because it dishonored a particular religion. Western minds see that as a special kind of awful.

Still, important to remember that the folks who suffer the most from muslim (and to a larger degree Abrahamic) terrorism are invariably the poor & powerless in underdeveloped regions.

Actually, it's more so the case that;
1. The vast majority of people killed by Islamist extremists are other Muslims.
2. The vast majority of the atrocities are carried out 'over there' and/or in countries that hold little worth for Western governments, as well as also being notoriously corrupt and tyrannical themselves.
3. The Liberal left & their bleeding heart socialist cheerleaders are too concerned with discussing BS like 'root causes' or else feel good Twitter whining campaigns, rather than taking the very much required action to stamp out this rapidly growing problem.

Nothing will change until a truly catastrophic attack or series of attacks is carried out on our shores. Until then, it's hand-wringing and avoiding the issue as normal for our weakling political leadership.

I thought hand-wringing and avoiding the issue was what happened after we decided to do something?

 Jihadin wrote:
So if there's some "confusion" over the span of time the Marines hit the beach up to when we pulled out let me know. I point you in the direction to help clarify US Military involvement in Mogadishu. Which lead up to US Service members refusing to serve under UN command and control.....I digress..It was an interesting time to be in the US Military during the 90's

I don't think there is any confusion about that, US military involvement began with UNITAF in late '92.

UNITAF was a success, so kudos to the military for doing a good job. But US military action under UNISOM II, specifically Gothic Serpent, left something to be desired.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Nothing will change until a truly catastrophic attack or series of attacks is carried out on our shores. Until then, it's hand-wringing and avoiding the issue as normal for our weakling political leadership.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring only to Canada. Because otherwise you would have to ignore 9/11 and the two wars the US, and its allies, waged in the aftermath.

Gothic Serpent phase happen after we been there for awhile. Did you know a certain Warlord son was in the USMC who's MEU hit the beach? Served as a Translator for Restore Hope?

Edit

Restore Hope was the name of the Humanitarian Operation when we went in.

 Jihadin wrote:
Gothic Serpent phase happen after we been there for awhile. Did you know a certain Warlord son was in the USMC who's MEU hit the beach? Served as a Translator for Restore Hope?

Yeah, Hussein Aidid. He has actually been a good friend to the US.

 Jihadin wrote:

Restore Hope was the name of the Humanitarian Operation when we went in.

That was the name for the US operation, but Unified Task Force (UNITAF) was the name of the UN operation under which Restore Hope was enacted.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Gothic Serpent phase happen after we been there for awhile. Did you know a certain Warlord son was in the USMC who's MEU hit the beach? Served as a Translator for Restore Hope?

Yeah, Hussein Aidid. He has actually been a good friend to the US.

 Jihadin wrote:

Restore Hope was the name of the Humanitarian Operation when we went in.

That was the name for the US operation, but Unified Task Force (UNITAF) was the name of the UN operation under which Restore Hope was enacted.

What happen to implement Gothic Serpent. What incidents took place that triggered Task Force Ranger. One Command (UNITAF) that had two Operations operating at the same time. Both US.

10th Mountain was there for in support of the UN
Task Force Ranger was there to conduct combat operation

 djones520 wrote:
Somalia was a political failure, not a military.

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

bs.
We slaughtered a militia but achieved absolutely nothing. Adid was not captured. The killing never stopped.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Somalia was a political failure, not a military.

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

bs.
We slaughtered a militia but achieved absolutely nothing. Adid was not captured. The killing never stopped.

There was still a good chance given additional time that Task Force Ranger could have gotten Adid. That last raid did yield high value prisoners, who could've been broken for information.
However, with the new incoming administration wanting to essentially end all these 'overseas adventures', they used the casualties from the Battle of Mogadishu as a convenient scapegoat to basically chicken out and call it quits.

Granted, it's doubtful that the killing will ever stop across most of Africa sadly... Too much religious BS and deep seated tribal hatreds that encourage people to act like a bunch of 7th century savages.

Could have...nah. Regardless, they didn't and their mission had moved from feeding starving people to taking out a clan so they could then theoretically feed starving people.

Its interesting that AQ was actually there already. I guess that whole "trying to feed thousands of your own starving people" is irrelevant to whatever their goal was at the time.

Clinton was already in office when he authorized Task Force Ranger to capture the Warlords.

You have to remember that 10th Mountain was still in country to provide Humanitarian Relief under UNITAF (as Dogman pointed out) "Restore Hope"

Task Force Ranger was under the command of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Center) "Gothic Serpent" that was created from a UN Request(?)


Two operations ongoing in a UN command structure
So when the Rangers/SOAR/Delta became participants of "Shoot an American Day" in Mog. 10th Mountain could not roll out the gate to assist along with Pakistan APC contingent due to UN Command saying "No". Being the units assigned to the UN were Humanitarian in nature.

That started the ball rolling on US service members refusing to serve under UN command.

 Jihadin wrote:

Task Force Ranger was under the command of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Center) "Gothic Serpent" that was created from a UN Request(?)

Gothic Serpent followed from the elder Bush's pledge to offer assistance to the UN mission in Somalia, it wasn't a request so much as a mutual agreement. Task Force Ranger was Clinton's response to Aidid's attacks on US personnel.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Task Force Ranger was under the command of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Center) "Gothic Serpent" that was created from a UN Request(?)

Gothic Serpent followed from the elder Bush's pledge to offer assistance to the UN mission in Somalia, it wasn't a request so much as a mutual agreement. Task Force Ranger was Clinton's response to Aidid's attacks on US personnel.

Pakistani troops got opted out. Like a platoon size element if I remember correctly.
Someone from 10th Mountain killed a kid when the kid reached into the HUMVEE to snatch someone Oakly's off.
In retaliation someone (a Somalia) set off a IED on US troops

The Pakistani platoon was the trigger for Gothic Serpent

 Jihadin wrote:

The Pakistani platoon was the trigger for Gothic Serpent

Oh, most assuredly. But it was still Clinton carrying on Bush's commitment. I'm not trying to lay blame on Bush, that's just what happened.

When that happen this happen in the same time frame
10th Mountain C&C Hawks failed their JAYCE inspections for having cracks where they were seriously not to suppose to have them. Since 10th Mountain fell under 18th ABN Corp and the 82nd was near Lejuene We did a swap out four for four.. We turned over our C&C birds for theirs. Was a ten day process total. Navy eat damn good. So I turned my bird over 10th Mountain and I got his busted bird in return.