• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kidnapped Nigerian Girls

Yes we do. The group responsible for this kidnapping. They are the bad guys. That's quite clear.

Not according to the New York Times and the State Department, if you read the article..With that sort of disinformation how can anyone know what's going on in places like Nigeria?
 

Yes, we really do. The only excuse that the author of this article could possibly have for the positions taken was that it was authored in January of 2012, and the last two years have not only been the deadliest and most effective for Boko Haram, but have been those in which his arguments were most thoroughly devastated.

BH has been able to organize combined assaults against defended positions of an entire division of Nigerian troops, involving the massing of hundreds of BH troops, delineated actions on the objective, and then effectively conducted pre-coordinated dispersion plans. that speaks to an impressive level of centralized command and control that does not forestall decentralized operations.


Boko Haram is a capable, well-equipped, terrorist entity with a discernable C2 architecture capable of making and enforcing decisions and pursuing tactical and operational goals (strategic? we will see). Yeah, they are the bad guys.
 
Not according to the New York Times and the State Department, if you read the article..

The one that was written over two years ago, and has since been discredited? Don't let opposing a deployment of military force push you into taking a foolish position simply because it also would oppose that.

With that sort of disinformation how can anyone know what's going on in places like Nigeria?

We actually have pretty good information on what's going on in Nigeria, and in the tri-border region. I was impressed with the speed and multi-source verification available through open source venues.
 
:lol: they are going to write Boko Haram a letter telling them how angry they are. And if Boko Haram doesn't change their ways, they are going to write them another letter. That will perhaps even include exclamation points!
I hope it is sharply worded with a lot of exclamation points!!
 
Yes, but we know the dangers of ignoring a potential threat. Terrorists like to spread their crazy ideologies. Obviously the Nigerian government is corrupt and incompetent. They are JUST as guilty for these atrocities because they ALLOW them to happen and turn a blind eye. The ONLY reason why they are paying attention to this is because they are getting international pressure, and I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

Boko Haram formed amid Nigerian government corruption - World - CBC News

As to the bolded above, no we obviously do not. Even after finding UBL "hidden" in Pakistan we pay that corrupt gov't billions to pretend to be our friend. We pretend that women have basic human rights in Saudi Arabia and that Christian's rights are respected in Egypt - just to keep them from wiping out Israel. If the people of Nigeria tolerate this nonsense, and they appear to do just that, then they are a state sponsor of terrorism, not a nation that we should "help". I am sick and tired of hearing about the vast majority of "good Muslims" when they willingly accept this nonsense.
 
As to the bolded above, no we obviously do not. Even after finding UBL "hidden" in Pakistan we pay that corrupt gov't billions to pretend to be our friend. We pretend that women have basic human rights in Saudi Arabia that Christian's rights are respected in Egypt - just to keep them from wiping out Israel. If the people of Nigeria tolerate this nonsense, and they appear to do just that, then they are a state sponsor of terrorism, not a nation that we should "help". I am sick and tired of hearing about the vast majority of "good Muslims" when they willingly accept this nonsense.

I don't think "the people" have much in the way of choices. These extremist groups wheel and deal with the government, and the government is a willing player in the game, and it's "the people" who suffer because of it IMO.
 
Yes, we really do. The only excuse that the author of this article could possibly have for the positions taken was that it was authored in January of 2012, and the last two years have not only been the deadliest and most effective for Boko Haram, but have been those in which his arguments were most thoroughly devastated.

BH has been able to organize combined assaults against defended positions of an entire division of Nigerian troops, involving the massing of hundreds of BH troops, delineated actions on the objective, and then effectively conducted pre-coordinated dispersion plans. that speaks to an impressive level of centralized command and control that does not forestall decentralized operations.


Boko Haram is a capable, well-equipped, terrorist entity with a discernable C2 architecture capable of making and enforcing decisions and pursuing tactical and operational goals (strategic? we will see). Yeah, they are the bad guys.

On the other hand ChrisL is a a reasonably well informed poster who never heard of the 29 schoolboys burned alive last month and he is not alone. Had these young women not been kidnapped, which certainly draws attention to this group, the NYTimes editorial would possibly have been the last word on the subject.

Until this recent mass kidnapping little was known or discussed about of this terrorist group. No mention I can see on this forum, but it should have been a subject of interest.
 
On the other hand ChrisL is a a reasonably well informed poster who never heard of the 29 schoolboys burned alive last month and he is not alone. Had these young women not been kidnapped, which certainly draws attention to this group, the NYTimes editorial would possibly have been the last word on the subject.

Unlikely. Boko Haram demonstrated itself during the last year to be an incredibly effective terror group, capable of murdering thousands and taking on standard Nigerian army echelons and winning. The prison raid alone would have discredited the article.

Until this recent mass kidnapping little was known or discussed about of this terrorist group. No mention I can see on this forum, but it should have been a subject of interest.

:shrug: for the populace, no, it wasn't. Which is why I maintain that the reason that we are actually there is because there was nothing else on the news. That being said, there is and was plenty known about them. It's simply that most folks weren't interested.
 
Do you bother to read your sources? Your second source discredits your first, and then claims that Obama and BH are in some kind of weird alliance. That's tin hat territory, right there.

Yes, of course I read it and where do you find the conflict? I realize that the 'tin hat' theory is possible but where do you find the actual inconsistencies?
 
On the other hand ChrisL is a a reasonably well informed poster who never heard of the 29 schoolboys burned alive last month and he is not alone. Had these young women not been kidnapped, which certainly draws attention to this group, the NYTimes editorial would possibly have been the last word on the subject.

Until this recent mass kidnapping little was known or discussed about of this terrorist group. No mention I can see on this forum, but it should have been a subject of interest.

I was thinking that, as terrible as that massacre with the 29 boys being killed was, those people were already dead. These girls, as far as we know, are still alive, and that might be one reason for the focus. Maybe SOME of them could be rescued, or at least that's what people would hope.
 
Unlikely. Boko Haram demonstrated itself during the last year to be an incredibly effective terror group, capable of murdering thousands and taking on standard Nigerian army echelons and winning. The prison raid alone would have discredited the article.



:shrug: for the populace, no, it wasn't. Which is why I maintain that the reason that we are actually there is because there was nothing else on the news. That being said, there is and was plenty known about them. It's simply that most folks weren't interested.

That's not the fault of people, that's the media. They choose which stories to cover and give the most attention to.
 
Yes, of course I read it and where do you find the conflict?

Your second source claims that the first was engaging in helping the administration conduct a cover-up of Boko Haram atrocities by deliberately downplaying the threat.

I realize that the 'tin hat' theory is possible but where do you find the actual inconsistencies?

yeah. An argument that Abu Bakr Shekau is in regular or irregular communication with Obama and that they have decided to replace the Nigerian government because it's just too gosh-darn effective at tamping down on Islamism is ridiculous tin-hat of the Jews-riding-in-UFO's-Actually-Pulled-Off-9/11 variety. The Nigerian government is about as effective at tamping down on Islamism as the Obama administration is at reducing the size and scope of government.
 
That's not the fault of people, that's the media. They choose which stories to cover and give the most attention to.

Ah. And the media pick stories because..... :)


The information was out there the day of. If it had been "trending" it would have gotten immediate attention on the networks.
 
Unlikely. Boko Haram demonstrated itself during the last year to be an incredibly effective terror group, capable of murdering thousands and taking on standard Nigerian army echelons and winning.
Yes, it has proven to be effective at mass murder but it has been going on for more than a year and only very recently has it been getting broad publicity.

:shrug: for the populace, no, it wasn't. Which is why I maintain that the reason that we are actually there is because there was nothing else on the news. That being said, there is and was plenty known about them. It's simply that most folks weren't interested.
How can people be interested if it's not in the news? Now it's in the news and people are interested to the point where the first lady is even having herself tweeted saying "Bring back our girls". Why didn't she say earlier, "Don't set fire to our boys"? Maybe the news didn't reach her either.
 
Ah. And the media pick stories because..... :)


The information was out there the day of. If it had been "trending" it would have gotten immediate attention on the networks.

Because they THINK they know what people want to hear about. Sometimes, they are WRONG. :mrgreen:
 
Because they THINK they know what people want to hear about. Sometimes, they are WRONG. :mrgreen:

They make lots of money by usually being right. How many people are willing to change channels in order to listen to the latest atrocities out of Syria?
 
I don't think "the people" have much in the way of choices. These extremist groups wheel and deal with the government, and the government is a willing player in the game, and it's "the people" who suffer because of it IMO.

Nothing will change if the US plays policeman for this single event even if it is claimed to be a success. The Boko Haram thugs will simply grab more hostages and get their proper ransom from the gov't next time.
 
They make lots of money by usually being right. How many people are willing to change channels in order to listen to the latest atrocities out of Syria?

They all report the same news for the most part, and it's all news that they pick and choose. Believe me, there are MANY times when I'm asking myself how can they even consider some things to be news and isn't there something more important to report going on in the world?
 
Yes, it has proven to be effective at mass murder but it has been going on for more than a year and only very recently has it been getting broad publicity

Yup. Thereby demonstrating the articles' arguments to be incorrect. Shekau has demonstrated that he was, in fact, exercising central authority after Yusuf's death.

How can people be interested if it's not in the news?

It was in the news - I've been following them for some time. It simply wasn't headline news or a major story because *yawn* all that foreign policy stuff, is like, so George Bush era, you know, and, like, if you want to cover it, why don't you just do a 30 second bit on Ukraine? Didn't you hear that GM is alive and al-qaeda is on the run? The war on terrorism is boring, man....

Now it's in the news and people are interested to the point where the first lady is even having herself tweeted saying "Bring back our girls". Why didn't she say earlier, "Don't set fire to our boys"? Maybe the news didn't reach her either.

:shrug: you'll get no excuses for the administration from me on this.
 
Nothing will change if the US plays policeman for this single event even if it is claimed to be a success. The Boko Haram thugs will simply grab more hostages and get their proper ransom from the gov't next time.

Sure, understandably we have to pick our battles, but I would think these poor innocent girls and their grieving families are a good motivating factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom