• 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!

Nigeria school attack: why US hasn't sent Special Forces to rescue girls

Sending troops into Africa would end up with our forces there for a decade chasing the various terrorists. Since our troops would blend in so well with the locals you can also forsee a high number of casualities suffered by us.

It might even be cheaper than sending troops just to send cash and buy the girls?
 
vesper said:
Good morning Perotista,
According to the person that requested the help on behalf of the Nigerian government, (a former U.S. general) his recent statement claims he has yet to get a response from our government. From what I have gathered, back in 2011 the CIA and FBI along with several members in Congress were urging then Sec. State Clinton to officially list Boko Haram on the U.S list as recognized terrorist group. Clinton for whatever her reasons refused to. Then later she listed 3 leaders of the group as terrorists in 2012. However, this really limited the scope and tied our hands in how to proceed. Finally after she left office and Kerry took over, it wasn't until November of 2013 that Kerry had the group officially listed and recognized as a terrorist group. Now it looks like these terrorists have got a real foothold in the region and hundreds of young girls have been kidnapped and God knows what their future holds. In light of what is happening today, whatever reasons this administration has for not aiding the Nigerians in fighting their own home grown terrorists and for delaying them being recognized as a terrorist group, has obviously been poor choices.
Click to expand...

Interesting, not helping with intel surprises me. I do wonder at times if during the last 5 and one half years if we haven't let political correctness interfere with the proper labeling of terrorist groups and not calling a spade a spade. Why is it this administration has a very hard time calling or naming extreme Islamic terrorist, extreme Islamic terrorist. It seems to me when it comes to the word Islam or Muslim used in conjunction with terrorists, those words do not exist in this administration's vocabulary. I may be wrong about that, but that is the way it seems to me.
 
Perotista said:
Interesting, not helping with intel surprises me. I do wonder at times if during the last 5 and one half years if we haven't let political correctness interfere with the proper labeling of terrorist groups and not calling a spade a spade. Why is it this administration has a very hard time calling or naming extreme Islamic terrorist, extreme Islamic terrorist. It seems to me when it comes to the word Islam or Muslim used in conjunction with terrorists, those words do not exist in this administration's vocabulary. I may be wrong about that, but that is the way it seems to me.
Click to expand...
Political Correctness may play some part but I think the real problem lies in how the leftists view terrorism. They base policy on a social theory......seeing terrorists as victims of their surroundings not evil. That is why they have been so political correct to not call a terrorist a terrorist. But lets face it, their counter-terrorism policies have been total failures from Iran, the Syrian rebels, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, Benghazi and now Boko Haram in Nigeria .

Here's an article written by a very smart woman on the topic that explains in detail this social theory the leftists in the Obama administration operate under. It isn't a long piece and worth the read.

Boko Haram and the Failure of Obama's Counter-Terrorism Strategy
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
Political Correctness may play some part but I think the real problem lies in how the leftists view terrorism. They base policy on a social theory......seeing terrorists as victims of their surroundings not evil. That is why they have been so political correct to not call a terrorist a terrorist. But lets face it, their counter-terrorism policies have been total failures from Iran, the Syrian rebels, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, Benghazi and now Boko Haram in Nigeria .

Here's an article written by a very smart woman on the topic that explains in detail this social theory the leftists in the Obama administration operate under. It isn't a long piece and worth the read.

Boko Haram and the Failure of Obama's Counter-Terrorism Strategy
Click to expand...

Very interesting, I never thought of it those terms. But the article does make sense. Today, way too often when someone does something wrong it is never the fault of the individual who did the wrong. It is always the environment he grew up in, or his child hood, his parents beat him, he was bulled as a kid. Everyone and everything gets the blame except the individual who did the wrong. Yep, the article make sense.
 
Perotista said:
Very interesting, I never thought of it those terms. But the article does make sense. Today, way too often when someone does something wrong it is never the fault of the individual who did the wrong. It is always the environment he grew up in, or his child hood, his parents beat him, he was bulled as a kid. Everyone and everything gets the blame except the individual who did the wrong. Yep, the article make sense.
Click to expand...

It's possible to condemn terrorism and a terrorist and still recognize socioeconomic factors. It's not an either-or situation. So spare us the false dichotomy, they're really not that interesting.
 
Crosscheck said:
Sending troops into Africa would end up with our forces there for a decade chasing the various terrorists. Since our troops would blend in so well with the locals you can also forsee a high number of casualities suffered by us.

It might even be cheaper than sending troops just to send cash and buy the girls?
Click to expand...



Heya Crosscheck. :2wave: We already have a Drone Base in Djibouti.....so its not like we can't get eyes in the Sky.

Not to mention the French has it Foreign Legion there.....with like 4k Troops.

They are involved in several others Business in Africa.....so why didn't they jump to help out First and Right away.
 
tecoyah said:
Please explain to me where you see an attack on anything in my comment....are you perhaps attempting to attack me?


If you are, you have failed.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, should have made my post more clear, I was knocking on From your post, about Ksu's one.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah using the horrific kidnapping of hundreds of girls to attack political opponents... Isn't American politics fantastic?


Speaking of which there is evidence to suggest Nigerian authorities knew there was a kidnapping threat and did nothing... Guess that's Hillary's fault as well...
Click to expand...

Speaking in Hillary Clinton's defense, What diffrence does it make ?

Oh crap,I take back what I said. I just saw this.

Hillary Clinton's Boko Haram problem



CNN) -->" Hillary Clinton's leadership as secretary of state regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram could become at least as serious an issue as her decisions surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Much of the attention Thursday was on the announcement that the House will create a select committee to investigate Benghazi, but the same day, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin revealed details about her time as secretary of state that raise significant questions about her broader record on issues of terrorism.

Rogin reported that from 2011 through early 2013, the Clinton State Department repeatedly rejected efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. In recent weeks, the group has exploded onto the world stage by kidnapping more than 250 girls at a Nigerian boarding school.

It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the State Department would have refused to designate it as such. A thorough investigation of the decision process that protected Boko Haram from 2011 until late 2013 could be devastating..."<

Gingrich: Hillary Clinton absent on Boko Haram terrorism designation? - CNN.com
 
Thrilla said:
it's not our playground, and it's they aren't our girls.

we have many many more go missing here right in our own playground... and you don't see celebs and folks going bananas over getting them back, do ya?

I wouldn't doubt the Nigerian government gets a kickback on the sales of humans...
Click to expand...
I agree, going in there is just going to make things worse.
 
Crosscheck said:
Sending troops into Africa would end up with our forces there for a decade chasing the various terrorists. Since our troops would blend in so well with the locals you can also forsee a high number of casualities suffered by us.

It might even be cheaper than sending troops just to send cash and buy the girls?
Click to expand...

You don't choose not to send troops because someone might get hurt.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No, we cannot protect the world. But, in extraordinary circumstances we must. Not because we are the world's protector, but because we can. Those that look evil in the face and turn a blind eye are worse than the evilitself.
Click to expand...
How is this extraordinary?
 
grip said:
Nigeria school attack: why US hasn't sent Special Forces to rescue girls




There's not much we can do by sending in troops to rescue the Nigerian school girls, because soon as they see soldiers they'll start slaughtering them. If the Boko Haram separate themselves from the girls holding area, we could theoretically drone attack them but we'd need a coordinated ground assault to eliminate all threats and take control of the rescue.

Now, Intelligence indicates that many of the girls may have been split up into small groups and moved to different locations, and these locations are remote and difficult to penetrate.

Instead of searching for one group of 250 girls, law enforcement and the military are likely looking for 25 groups of 10 girls or 50 groups of five girls. This poses an enormous challenge and diminishes the possibility of a dramatic rescue that will bring this crisis to a quick close.

The campaign to apply pressure by reaching out through social media, using the Twitter hashtag '#BringBackOurGirls,' protests have spread across the world calling for the Nigerian government to take stronger action and for the international community to help.

The point is, what can we do and should we be trying to help more?

I'm not sure this countries citizens (Hollywood), gov't and Media know when and what to fight.
Click to expand...

It's sad, but it's really not our problem. We don't need to get into another armed conflict on another continent, we already have 1 infinity war as is.
 
Nigeria school attack: why US hasn't sent Special Forces to rescue girls
Click to expand...
IMO it is none of the USA's business in the first place. There are thousands of girls here in the USA that need rescued first.
 
Ikari said:
It's sad, but it's really not our problem. We don't need to get into another armed conflict on another continent, we already have 1 infinity war as is.
Click to expand...

It's not like, if it were an easy enough fix, that we wouldn't try but supposedly they've broken up the girls into small groups and spread them all over. We'd have to really commit some serious resources, and even then would have minimal success. Sometimes, no matter how hard, we have to draw a line.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Did you even read the report? She only designated three people in the entire organization as terrorists. Not the organization itself.
Click to expand...

I most certainly did read it. Did you?

Because if you had read it, you'd know that the reason she declined to list the entire organization was because a coalition of African experts begged her not to, citing the fear that "But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants."

In fact, if you'd even read my entire post that you quoted you'd know that.
 
Ikari said:
It's sad, but it's really not our problem. We don't need to get into another armed conflict on another continent, we already have 1 infinity war as is.
Click to expand...

That's what we said about al Qaeda in the 90's. It became our problem.
 
apdst said:
That's what we said about al Qaeda in the 90's. It became our problem.
Click to expand...

They weren't a problem when they were helping us fight the Russians, now they're just an excuse for Infinity War. We don't need another Infinity War, one is good enough.
 
Ikari said:
They weren't a problem when they were helping us fight the Russians, now they're just an excuse for Infinity War. We don't need another Infinity War, one is good enough.
Click to expand...

al Qaeda didn't help us fight the Russians.
 
DiAnna said:
I most certainly did read it. Did you?

Because if you had read it, you'd know that the reason she declined to list the entire organization was because a coalition of African experts begged her not to, citing the fear that "But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants."

In fact, if you'd even read my entire post that you quoted you'd know that.
Click to expand...

Having multiple people be wrong with you, doesn't make you right. It is a statement of fact. Had the organization been put on the list when it was first suggested, we would have more intel on their operation than we do today. It is impossible to know what that intel would have done for us, but the safe bet is it would be more beneficial than not having it.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Having multiple people be wrong with you, doesn't make you right. It is a statement of fact. Had the organization been put on the list when it was first suggested, we would have more intel on their operation than we do today. It is impossible to know what that intel would have done for us, but the safe bet is it would be more beneficial than not having it.
Click to expand...

And would have given orginization international recognition.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And would have given orginization international recognition.
Click to expand...

So? Are we really going to ignore terrorism because people might actually see that there are terrorists out there?

Would you apply the same logic to domestic problems? Like...say...Cliven Bundy. Should the press not have covered his racist remarks because they brought attention to racism?

I want to know how to address a problem if we don't identify the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom