Extremists kidnap 40 males in northern Nigeria

[Steely Dan]

By way of some context of the violence in Nigeria, remember the Nigerian Civil War back in the late 1960s led to approx one million deaths.

I have read that both the Nigerian Christians and Muslims hold a strong distrust of their military that must be quite a negative for the future. Have to agree on the economic disenfranchment of so many in Nigeria. The Muslim North has for years been under invested and ignored by the highly corrupt central government and State politicians. I assume the usual ethnic and tribal divisions contribute to the mess. Some quotes by Nigerians in Wikipedia...

Chris Kwaja, a Nigerian university lecturer and researcher, asserts that "religious dimensions of the conflict have been misconstrued as the primary driver of violence when, in fact, disenfranchisement and inequality are the root causes". Nigeria, he points out, has laws giving regional political leaders the power to qualify people as 'indigenes' (original inhabitants) or not. It determines whether citizens can participate in politics, own land, obtain a job, or attend school. The system is abused widely to ensure political support and to exclude others. Muslims have been denied indigene-ship certificates disproportionately often.^[73] Nigerian opposition leader Buba Galadima says: "What is really a group engaged in class warfare is being portrayed in government propaganda as terrorists in order to win counter-terrorism assistance from the West."^[74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_insurgency_in_Nigeria

It's a bit old but a Pew Research article talks to some aspects of the Christian / Muslim divide at:

http://www.pewforum.org/2007/03/21/nigerias-presidential-election-the-christian-muslim-divide/

You aren't really trying to sell us the argument that Boko Haram (translates to Western education is forbidden) are really concerned with class war?! I see how suicide bomb attacks on churches and schools are really targeting the southern elite. Of course as with IS the violence, as ever, has nothing to do with Islam.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368706/kerrys-poor-jihadist-myth-michelle-malkin

Edited January 6, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Morch]

Could be wrong (not much of a Nigeria expert), but relative to other countries which fell apart or are in the process of being declared total loss, seems like Nigeria is not quite there yet. Things are obviously not well, but as far as I understand, not as bad as in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Assuming that there is an interest, economic or otherwise, in preventing a similar breakdown (let us, for a moment, put aside notions regarding the current situation and worse being a design by foreign powers) - how could Boko Haram be effectively countered?

Guess what I'm really after is more general in nature, but through using the current situation - namely, what viable options exist when considering involvement in such cases. Some options seem to have outlived their usefulness (equipping and training local armed forces, lengthy massive presence of foreign "boots on the ground", leaving sides to sort things out by themselves). At present, the choice made is usually a mixture of minimal troop presence mixed with air strikes - which is yet to prove itself effective strategy.

Morch

For a start, the Countries that you list are predominantly Muslim. The main difference with Nigeria is that it is almost 50 / 50 Christian and Muslim.

How can Boko Haram be effectively countered. there is only one way that they can be effectively countered. However the previous encounters in the Countries that you have mentioned dictates that Western Governments will be loath to get involved again. There are various reasons for that, which is not for this thread.

It has been shown time and time again, that the vast amounts of money that is spent by the West on ( training ) foreign armies is nothing more than a waste of money in most cases. Minimal troops with airstrikes is also another pointless exercise. Nothing more than " Look we are doing something "

That leaves us with " Letting them sort it out themselves " Considering that Boko Harams stated aim is to establish a caliphate in Nigeria, there is only one way that option is going to end.

Where does that leave us ?

I believe that it leaves us with an option that no one ( Governments ) wants to talk about, does not want to consider and does not want to get involved in.

It would not surprise me to find that media reporting in the West, under instruction, gets less and less until it is non existent, just as it did with Iraq and will do with Afghanistan.

Nigeria not being 100% Muslim might make it (or parts of it) a better candidate for a working solution, relative to the countries mentioned.

Not quite sure which "only one way that they can be effectively countered" was referred to, as none of the above is anything resembling a success story in terms of countering armed Muslim militants.

[Morch]

On the unlikely off-chance this topic will not further deteriorate into the run of the mill "Islam is bad"/"USA is controlled by x" variety...

Could be wrong (not much of a Nigeria expert), but relative to other countries which fell apart or are in the process of being declared total loss, seems like Nigeria is not quite there yet. Things are obviously not well, but as far as I understand, not as bad as in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Assuming that there is an interest, economic or otherwise, in preventing a similar breakdown (let us, for a moment, put aside notions regarding the current situation and worse being a design by foreign powers) - how could Boko Haram be effectively countered?

Guess what I'm really after is more general in nature, but through using the current situation - namely, what viable options exist when considering involvement in such cases. Some options seem to have outlived their usefulness (equipping and training local armed forces, lengthy massive presence of foreign "boots on the ground", leaving sides to sort things out by themselves). At present, the choice made is usually a mixture of minimal troop presence mixed with air strikes - which is yet to prove itself effective strategy.

When the frequency of related topics tend to digress to same names actors and agents and malfeience this is a vital glue to the widespread perception that the events we wish to disusss narrowly in threads simply cannot have context without the underlying foundation addressed. As this comes up so often, often enough to be called "run of the mill," it should hardly be overlooked; at least noted. BTW, "islam is bad" is an unfair simplification. jihad is bad, Islam, as practiced within the moral constructs agreed by most of the world is fine and well regarded. It is jihad that is repugnant.

Nigeria is, IMO, in an awkward position of near equal christian and muslim segments of society but being closer to the heart beat of regional jihad how they play their counter insurgency card could backfire. Indeed, I am even unsure they treat this as insurgency, but that is what it is, regardless of the religious imperative that binds the insurgents. The glue that is needed for a national resolve is similar as in all places, like the US- the willingness to define and describe the threat free of political correctness. When considering insurgency operations a key component is the undergound. What are the numbers that give shelter and support to the insurgents? When dealing with islamic jihad and shar'ia it can be fairly said that significant numbers exist which are either supportive or at least passive, but would in no way work against the jihadis- IMO. This makes for an enormous threat. As so many insurgencies and coups are actually executed by minorities have such numbers sympathetic IMO makes for an uphill struggle to counter such an insurgency. Therefore nothing less than full scare recognition of an existential threat, the means by which it is bound- religion, the means by which is spread, funded, etc. Also, it would be pretty damn smart to finally address some of the true disparities that exist between those sucking the oil life out of nigeria without giving anything back the starving peoples that enable this oil theft. The exploitation is legendary. A good place to start counter insurgency would be to take back some of the core issues the opposition employs to bend the populace to their will.

I have no current thoughts on actual military engagement right now; i would need more data, But dealing with this from a psyops, public relations, social policy point of view, they need to equalize the distribution of oil wealth instead of topical money spreading to buy votes or local compliance. Really have some reform to change the nature of peoples lives. When peoples lives are improved they rarely seek to upset that status quo for the unknown. IMO

Well, its a standing argument we go into every now and then - my position is that certain connections made and widespread perceptions held are not necessarily indicative of actual nefarious plans being successful, or even in motion.

While "Islam is bad" is a simplification, it is a simplification often presented, one way or another, on related topics.

My aim was just to try and see if the Nigeria/Boko Haram topic could be discussed without overly tying it to all other instances of possibly related issues.

Thanks for your thoughts on the Nigeria situation. From what I know and have read, much of the above fits in. The issues, as ever, seem to be made even more complex by the lack of visionary leadership willing to make the necessary changes, the futility of having the needed changes applied by a foreign power, and re-occurring difficulties related to national identity exhibited in many post-colonial countries.

While in agreement with the broad measures mentioned, these things take time to implement and longer time to take root (even if the will to carry them out was present). The here-and-now violence could overtake such slow processes and render then futile, if left unchecked.

[arjunadawn]

On the unlikely off-chance this topic will not further deteriorate into the run of the mill "Islam is bad"/"USA is controlled by x" variety...

Could be wrong (not much of a Nigeria expert), but relative to other countries which fell apart or are in the process of being declared total loss, seems like Nigeria is not quite there yet. Things are obviously not well, but as far as I understand, not as bad as in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Assuming that there is an interest, economic or otherwise, in preventing a similar breakdown (let us, for a moment, put aside notions regarding the current situation and worse being a design by foreign powers) - how could Boko Haram be effectively countered?

Guess what I'm really after is more general in nature, but through using the current situation - namely, what viable options exist when considering involvement in such cases. Some options seem to have outlived their usefulness (equipping and training local armed forces, lengthy massive presence of foreign "boots on the ground", leaving sides to sort things out by themselves). At present, the choice made is usually a mixture of minimal troop presence mixed with air strikes - which is yet to prove itself effective strategy.

When the frequency of related topics tend to digress to same names actors and agents and malfeience this is a vital glue to the widespread perception that the events we wish to disusss narrowly in threads simply cannot have context without the underlying foundation addressed. As this comes up so often, often enough to be called "run of the mill," it should hardly be overlooked; at least noted. BTW, "islam is bad" is an unfair simplification. jihad is bad, Islam, as practiced within the moral constructs agreed by most of the world is fine and well regarded. It is jihad that is repugnant.

Nigeria is, IMO, in an awkward position of near equal christian and muslim segments of society but being closer to the heart beat of regional jihad how they play their counter insurgency card could backfire. Indeed, I am even unsure they treat this as insurgency, but that is what it is, regardless of the religious imperative that binds the insurgents. The glue that is needed for a national resolve is similar as in all places, like the US- the willingness to define and describe the threat free of political correctness. When considering insurgency operations a key component is the undergound. What are the numbers that give shelter and support to the insurgents? When dealing with islamic jihad and shar'ia it can be fairly said that significant numbers exist which are either supportive or at least passive, but would in no way work against the jihadis- IMO. This makes for an enormous threat. As so many insurgencies and coups are actually executed by minorities have such numbers sympathetic IMO makes for an uphill struggle to counter such an insurgency. Therefore nothing less than full scare recognition of an existential threat, the means by which it is bound- religion, the means by which is spread, funded, etc. Also, it would be pretty damn smart to finally address some of the true disparities that exist between those sucking the oil life out of nigeria without giving anything back the starving peoples that enable this oil theft. The exploitation is legendary. A good place to start counter insurgency would be to take back some of the core issues the opposition employs to bend the populace to their will.

I have no current thoughts on actual military engagement right now; i would need more data, But dealing with this from a psyops, public relations, social policy point of view, they need to equalize the distribution of oil wealth instead of topical money spreading to buy votes or local compliance. Really have some reform to change the nature of peoples lives. When peoples lives are improved they rarely seek to upset that status quo for the unknown. IMO

Well, its a standing argument we go into every now and then - my position is that certain connections made and widespread perceptions held are not necessarily indicative of actual nefarious plans being successful, or even in motion.

While "Islam is bad" is a simplification, it is a simplification often presented, one way or another, on related topics.

My aim was just to try and see if the Nigeria/Boko Haram topic could be discussed without overly tying it to all other instances of possibly related issues.

Thanks for your thoughts on the Nigeria situation. From what I know and have read, much of the above fits in. The issues, as ever, seem to be made even more complex by the lack of visionary leadership willing to make the necessary changes, the futility of having the needed changes applied by a foreign power, and re-occurring difficulties related to national identity exhibited in many post-colonial countries.

While in agreement with the broad measures mentioned, these things take time to implement and longer time to take root (even if the will to carry them out was present). The here-and-now violence could overtake such slow processes and render then futile, if left unchecked.

Whenever people need to grasp an issue, understand a threat, etc., they must look to cause. Understanding that viruses cause sickness will not help you treat the ill, I agree, but it will help you understand the issue and how best to globally deal with the infections. Likewise, if it is true, and the likelihood is overwhelming, that the west actually facilitates the very things we then respond to as symptoms (islamic jihad), then this too is worthy of discourse or at least background context when discussing a particular illness, such as Nigeria now. If it is simply ridiculous then people like me will just be labled clowns and the rest move on.

It simply asks to much of the human mind to believe that the entire meddling policies of the West over past decade are not designed to achieve the very ends the west daily complains about (lip Service to terrorism, islamic jihad). There is no way islamic jihadists could have ever achieved all they have was the West not opposed to the very thing they seek. Indeed, had the West done nothing at all the jihadists would be no where as far along toward a caliphate as they are. Of course the west is promoting this, just consider the flipside with regard to immigration. IMO its postively diabolical as people's lives are in the balance.

[Morch]

On the unlikely off-chance this topic will not further deteriorate into the run of the mill "Islam is bad"/"USA is controlled by x" variety...

Could be wrong (not much of a Nigeria expert), but relative to other countries which fell apart or are in the process of being declared total loss, seems like Nigeria is not quite there yet. Things are obviously not well, but as far as I understand, not as bad as in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Assuming that there is an interest, economic or otherwise, in preventing a similar breakdown (let us, for a moment, put aside notions regarding the current situation and worse being a design by foreign powers) - how could Boko Haram be effectively countered?

Guess what I'm really after is more general in nature, but through using the current situation - namely, what viable options exist when considering involvement in such cases. Some options seem to have outlived their usefulness (equipping and training local armed forces, lengthy massive presence of foreign "boots on the ground", leaving sides to sort things out by themselves). At present, the choice made is usually a mixture of minimal troop presence mixed with air strikes - which is yet to prove itself effective strategy.

When the frequency of related topics tend to digress to same names actors and agents and malfeience this is a vital glue to the widespread perception that the events we wish to disusss narrowly in threads simply cannot have context without the underlying foundation addressed. As this comes up so often, often enough to be called "run of the mill," it should hardly be overlooked; at least noted. BTW, "islam is bad" is an unfair simplification. jihad is bad, Islam, as practiced within the moral constructs agreed by most of the world is fine and well regarded. It is jihad that is repugnant.

Nigeria is, IMO, in an awkward position of near equal christian and muslim segments of society but being closer to the heart beat of regional jihad how they play their counter insurgency card could backfire. Indeed, I am even unsure they treat this as insurgency, but that is what it is, regardless of the religious imperative that binds the insurgents. The glue that is needed for a national resolve is similar as in all places, like the US- the willingness to define and describe the threat free of political correctness. When considering insurgency operations a key component is the undergound. What are the numbers that give shelter and support to the insurgents? When dealing with islamic jihad and shar'ia it can be fairly said that significant numbers exist which are either supportive or at least passive, but would in no way work against the jihadis- IMO. This makes for an enormous threat. As so many insurgencies and coups are actually executed by minorities have such numbers sympathetic IMO makes for an uphill struggle to counter such an insurgency. Therefore nothing less than full scare recognition of an existential threat, the means by which it is bound- religion, the means by which is spread, funded, etc. Also, it would be pretty damn smart to finally address some of the true disparities that exist between those sucking the oil life out of nigeria without giving anything back the starving peoples that enable this oil theft. The exploitation is legendary. A good place to start counter insurgency would be to take back some of the core issues the opposition employs to bend the populace to their will.

I have no current thoughts on actual military engagement right now; i would need more data, But dealing with this from a psyops, public relations, social policy point of view, they need to equalize the distribution of oil wealth instead of topical money spreading to buy votes or local compliance. Really have some reform to change the nature of peoples lives. When peoples lives are improved they rarely seek to upset that status quo for the unknown. IMO

Well, its a standing argument we go into every now and then - my position is that certain connections made and widespread perceptions held are not necessarily indicative of actual nefarious plans being successful, or even in motion.

While "Islam is bad" is a simplification, it is a simplification often presented, one way or another, on related topics.

My aim was just to try and see if the Nigeria/Boko Haram topic could be discussed without overly tying it to all other instances of possibly related issues.

Thanks for your thoughts on the Nigeria situation. From what I know and have read, much of the above fits in. The issues, as ever, seem to be made even more complex by the lack of visionary leadership willing to make the necessary changes, the futility of having the needed changes applied by a foreign power, and re-occurring difficulties related to national identity exhibited in many post-colonial countries.

While in agreement with the broad measures mentioned, these things take time to implement and longer time to take root (even if the will to carry them out was present). The here-and-now violence could overtake such slow processes and render then futile, if left unchecked.

Whenever people need to grasp an issue, understand a threat, etc., they must look to cause. Understanding that viruses cause sickness will not help you treat the ill, I agree, but it will help you understand the issue and how best to globally deal with the infections. Likewise, if it is true, and the likelihood is overwhelming, that the west actually facilitates the very things we then respond to as symptoms (islamic jihad), then this too is worthy of discourse or at least background context when discussing a particular illness, such as Nigeria now. If it is simply ridiculous then people like me will just be labled clowns and the rest move on.

It simply asks to much of the human mind to believe that the entire meddling policies of the West over past decade are not designed to achieve the very ends the west daily complains about (lip Service to terrorism, islamic jihad). There is no way islamic jihadists could have ever achieved all they have was the West not opposed to the very thing they seek. Indeed, had the West done nothing at all the jihadists would be no where as far along toward a caliphate as they are. Of course the west is promoting this, just consider the flipside with regard to immigration. IMO its postively diabolical as people's lives are in the balance.

Well, it was a fair attempt to avoid this, anyway...

My beef with these sort of discussions is that they are often all over the place that it gets impossible to keep focus on any concrete issue. The other thing is that they lend themselves to conspiracy theory thinking, which on open forums usually means that even when discussing a conceivable (or even likely) conspiracy theory (not saying they are all fictional) often deteriorated to nonsense,

Stupidly, greed, short-sightedness, miscalculation are usually better explanations for many of the events and processes involved. The cases where long term nefarious plans are actually implemented with ongoing success is something which I shall remain skeptic about. Not for lack of trying, mind. In all probability there are plans being put into motion all the time, my take is more with them achieving their desired goals on a regular basis.

With that, I will retire from further expanding on the issue. Not in for a public theological debate ..

[JockPieandBeans]

Boko Haram at it again

Bodies lay strewn on the streets of a key north-eastern Nigerian town following an assault by militant Islamists, officials have told the BBC.

The Boko Haram group attacked Baga town on Wednesday, after over-running a military base there on Saturday, they said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30728158

With all these Muslim atrocities worldwide, here is something a little different.

A MAN allegedly had sex with a goat - admitting to police that he has been with animals at least 10 times before.

The NahUsabi news website reports Kamisu apparently admitted to officials that he preferred bestiality to sex with women, because the animals satisfied his sexual desires.

In fact, he had never made love to any woman in his area. Police said he told them that he regretted his action saying he knew it was an offence to a society and against Islamic injunctions.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/man-arrested-having-sex-goat-4927802

I wonder if he had a preference for male or female goats.

[zydeco]

What type "extremists" kidnapped the boys? Extremist birdwatchers? Extremist craft beer distributors? Maybe extremist cosplay addicts?

[Steely Dan]

What type "extremists" kidnapped the boys? Extremist birdwatchers? Extremist craft beer distributors? Maybe extremist cosplay addicts?

I've always suspected the Jains after reading their book of fighting ships.