UN condemns 'barbaric' Boko Haram violence in Nigeria

[webfact]

UN condemns 'barbaric' Boko Haram violence in Nigeria

NEW YORK: -- The United Nations has accused the Islamist extremist group Boko Haram of "almost unimaginable" violence and brutality in Nigeria.

Stephen O'Brien, the UN humanitarian coordinator, said the militant group's actions had forced thousands to flee and left unprecedented numbers in need.

The UN estimates that more than nine million people in the region need humanitarian assistance.

Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to the so-called Islamic State.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36910948


-- BBC 2016-07-28

[NovaBlue05]

This should bring them back in line

[rethaier]

The UN does a lot of condemning and changes nothing. It should be shut down.

[Junkyarddog]

What really scares terriost and dictators is when the UN condemns them in THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS. That really puts the fear of God into them.

The UN is only there for the politicians and beurocrats that work there. It should be shut down or reduced in size by ninety per cent.

[Rod Gold]

Certainly Boko Haram will lay down their arms and surrender to the authorities for prosecution now that they have been condemned as 'barbaric' by the UN.

Boko Haram has only been doing their barbaric violence for several years now, duh!

A UN condemnation has no teeth and everyone knows it. Their own troops commit atrocities!

Time to quit talking and do what you were originally designed to do, or become an UN-relative relic of the past.

[arjunadawn]

The UN is a clearing house of BS. I read from some on these forums some of the things the UN does that I do not appreciate; like Scott's telling us meaningful stories about the refugee programs, but for the most part it is laughable. The UN, like other Western stewards, effectively condone these barbarities by their inaction and refusal to even define the nature of the threat. Boko Haram is a symptom, not the disease. Have the balls to name the disease and you may save the patient.

[JetsetBkk]

Wasn't there a time when the good guys - UK, US, France and a few others - would just go and sort out these armed thugs, permanently?

Am I mis-remembering history? A few battalions of foot soldiers, backed up by attack helicopters and jets. What ever happened to that?

Oh, I forgot! "Bring our boys back home!" "No boots on the ground!" etc, etc, etc.

[Scott]

The UN is a clearing house of BS. I read from some on these forums some of the things the UN does that I do not appreciate; like Scott's telling us meaningful stories about the refugee programs, but for the most part it is laughable. The UN, like other Western stewards, effectively condone these barbarities by their inaction and refusal to even define the nature of the threat. Boko Haram is a symptom, not the disease. Have the balls to name the disease and you may save the patient.

The UN has no standing army and no military capabilities. It has peace keepers contributed by various countries, who are generally unarmed.

The UN is hugely expensive and extremely bureaucratic, but it does have to listen to and deal with the wishes of it's 150+ members in trying to negotiate very difficult situations.

Apparently you are one of the people who are comfortable not knowing about the suffering of people in various parts of the world. Naming a disease does not insure a cure. Are you willing to have your country go in and eliminate the disease? Do you believe it's OK to also kill the patient as well?

[arjunadawn]

The UN is a clearing house of BS. I read from some on these forums some of the things the UN does that I do not appreciate; like Scott's telling us meaningful stories about the refugee programs, but for the most part it is laughable. The UN, like other Western stewards, effectively condone these barbarities by their inaction and refusal to even define the nature of the threat. Boko Haram is a symptom, not the disease. Have the balls to name the disease and you may save the patient.

The UN has no standing army and no military capabilities. It has peace keepers contributed by various countries, who are generally unarmed.

The UN is hugely expensive and extremely bureaucratic, but it does have to listen to and deal with the wishes of it's 150+ members in trying to negotiate very difficult situations.

Apparently you are one of the people who are comfortable not knowing about the suffering of people in various parts of the world. Naming a disease does not insure a cure. Are you willing to have your country go in and eliminate the disease? Do you believe it's OK to also kill the patient as well?

Perhaps I should re word something above. "Scott has shared a number of meaningful stories that I was not previously aware of." My choice of words sucked there. It reads like I still don't give a crap. I do. On more then one occasion something you wrote send to reading and seeing a different perspective.

But I then add I find the UN laughable, referring to my frustration at other issues when it seems incapable of resolving. I get that they are impotent in many ways, their power deriving from the members. But then I see abhorrent members on essential human rights panels, etc., and the UN then invites my criticism. It's unfair to assert when the UN fails at something, critique should be directed to its members alone. Both deserve it. The UN is a rightful target for their failures.

I have worked all over the word and have seen and lived in dire environments, with the poor, the hungry, the fleeing. I get it. I have seen numerous places that were it not for the UN ppl wirkd have nothing. AND, I still indict the UN for its failures. Your use of the disease patient metaphor is familiar to me. You would know that. I use it often. So, does it apply when you turn it around?

Scott, your not incorrect. However, naming a thing does begin the problem solving. It's unnecessary to question my personal compassion for others because I indict the UN broadly as a compromised, bloated forum for global redistribution-laughable. It's quite possible people who have my views also care, applaud what food is done, wish there were more, but indict for failures. One positive should not make immune critique.

Again, my wording sucked. No wonder it translated into arrogance. I am daily heartbroken at the ceaseless horror and loss of this world. I find that behind much of this is greed, bankers, exploitation, and false compassion from international governments who simply exploit further with a smile, or a band aid charity. Nigeria is one of numerous that come to mind. My posts don't reflect this because it's rarely an op, but the terrible things I know out there make me grateful for every single meal and nights rest. I do get it.

I just reach different conclusions.

[WishWashMan]

Say Obama condems a muslim terrorist....lol. What happens-the terrorist goes on being a terrorist....as opposed to Obama dropping a nuke on their heads?

I dont get this condem non-sense. What happens literally?

[Scott]

The UN is a clearing house of BS. I read from some on these forums some of the things the UN does that I do not appreciate; like Scott's telling us meaningful stories about the refugee programs, but for the most part it is laughable. The UN, like other Western stewards, effectively condone these barbarities by their inaction and refusal to even define the nature of the threat. Boko Haram is a symptom, not the disease. Have the balls to name the disease and you may save the patient.

The UN has no standing army and no military capabilities. It has peace keepers contributed by various countries, who are generally unarmed.

The UN is hugely expensive and extremely bureaucratic, but it does have to listen to and deal with the wishes of it's 150+ members in trying to negotiate very difficult situations.

Apparently you are one of the people who are comfortable not knowing about the suffering of people in various parts of the world. Naming a disease does not insure a cure. Are you willing to have your country go in and eliminate the disease? Do you believe it's OK to also kill the patient as well?

Perhaps I should re word something above. "Scott has shared a number of meaningful stories that I was not previously aware of." My choice of words sucked there. It reads like I still don't give a crap. I do. On more then one occasion something you wrote send to reading and seeing a different perspective.

But I then add I find the UN laughable, referring to my frustration at other issues when it seems incapable of resolving. I get that they are impotent in many ways, their power deriving from the members. But then I see abhorrent members on essential human rights panels, etc., and the UN then invites my criticism. It's unfair to assert when the UN fails at something, critique should be directed to its members alone. Both deserve it. The UN is a rightful target for their failures.

I have worked all over the word and have seen and lived in dire environments, with the poor, the hungry, the fleeing. I get it. I have seen numerous places that were it not for the UN ppl wirkd have nothing. AND, I still indict the UN for its failures. Your use of the disease patient metaphor is familiar to me. You would know that. I use it often. So, does it apply when you turn it around?

Scott, your not incorrect. However, naming a thing does begin the problem solving. It's unnecessary to question my personal compassion for others because I indict the UN broadly as a compromised, bloated forum for global redistribution-laughable. It's quite possible people who have my views also care, applaud what food is done, wish there were more, but indict for failures. One positive should not make immune critique.

Again, my wording sucked. No wonder it translated into arrogance. I am daily heartbroken at the ceaseless horror and loss of this world. I find that behind much of this is greed, bankers, exploitation, and false compassion from international governments who simply exploit further with a smile, or a band aid charity. Nigeria is one of numerous that come to mind. My posts don't reflect this because it's rarely an op, but the terrible things I know out there make me grateful for every single meal and nights rest. I do get it.

I just reach different conclusions.

Thanks for the clarification. Much of the condemnation of the UN is well deserved, it's just hard to come up with a viable alternative.

[Junkyarddog]

Is it true that the UN has to use oversized business cards to accomadate their really long important and lofty sounding titles.

[simple1]

Is it true that the UN has to use oversized business cards to accomadate their really long important and lofty sounding titles.

Extremely easy to be a smartarse, but very challenging to come up with positive solutions which the UN has done on many occasions in a very complex decision making environment; admittedly with some failures over the years. When taking an overall view, UN agencies have done more good for the world than damage. Getting back to the actual topic try reading the link in the OP to comprehend the challenges identified by the UN in Nigeria, which to date, the most powerful countries in the world have failed to resolve.

Edited July 29, 2016 by simple1

[MajarTheLion]

This should bring them back in line

Not to worry. If it continues, I'm sure the UN will strongly condemn this. That will do it for sure.

[Rod Gold]

The UN is a clearing house of BS. I read from some on these forums some of the things the UN does that I do not appreciate; like Scott's telling us meaningful stories about the refugee programs, but for the most part it is laughable. The UN, like other Western stewards, effectively condone these barbarities by their inaction and refusal to even define the nature of the threat. Boko Haram is a symptom, not the disease. Have the balls to name the disease and you may save the patient.

The UN has no standing army and no military capabilities. It has peace keepers contributed by various countries, who are generally unarmed.

The UN is hugely expensive and extremely bureaucratic, but it does have to listen to and deal with the wishes of it's 150+ members in trying to negotiate very difficult situations.

Apparently you are one of the people who are comfortable not knowing about the suffering of people in various parts of the world. Naming a disease does not insure a cure. Are you willing to have your country go in and eliminate the disease? Do you believe it's OK to also kill the patient as well?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pictures+of+un+peacekeepers&id=575C1D32D44A559C3CC2EF05757F804291A2A4B8&FORM=IQFRBA

[Scott]

Peace Keepers are not an army and they do not engage in fighting unless attacked. In many of the countries I have worked, the peace keepers were not even allowed to be armed, even though the postings were in quite dangerous areas. In some areas, if they weren't armed, they would be the only people who weren't.

As a general rule, the Peace Keepers come from different countries.

I don't know that Boko Haram would care much where they are from or who they represent or what they are trying to do. A target is a target and when the purpose is to create mayhem and chaos the UN is as good a target as anyone else.

[boomerangutang]

I dont get this condem non-sense. What happens literally?

Maybe nothing happens/ensues. I admit the UN announcement is years late. Those of us following Int'l news have known about BH's atrocities for many moons. Look at it this way: it's a 'finding'. It gives added impetus to any forces working to eradicate BH. Similarly, the conclusion by the tribunal in Europe which found China's territory grab in the SCS was illegal. That too is a 'finding'. One thing can lead to another. It's not easy getting consensus among the world's UN reps. Anything which contributes to the destruction of Boko Haram is good.

One reason Nigeria has not been dynamic in trying to eradicate BH is that its members are Nigerian men, and Nigeria has a problem with killing scores of its own men, even if the men are obviously criminals. Another reason is Nigeria/Lagos doesn't want to inflame the Muslim majority who inhabit the northern regions. In other words, nearly all Nigerian Muslims want BH destroyed, but none of them want their dear sons killed.

In olden days, US and European special forces would go in there with guns blazing and eradicate BH. There are several reasons why that can't happen nowadays:

>>> Nigerian officials don't want foreign forces coming in to fix their problems \

>>> It could be protracted problem, like a mini-Vietnam.

>>> It would give Muslim radicals ww added reason to hate the US

>>> Some of the outside forces would get killed and maimed

>>> It would be expensive.

>>> It could inflame northern Nigeria

>>> It could trigger added terrorist problems in Europe and the US.

The alternative is to let Nigerians (and to a lesser extent Malians and other Africans) try to eradicate BH. They're gaining some headway, but still a long way to go. It's a gnarly problem. In sum, the Nigerian government doesn't have the testicular fortitude to deal with the problem dynamically, so the problem will continue to fester.

Edited July 30, 2016 by boomerangutang