- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,411
- Reaction score
- 67,649
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I disagree. Syria was another thing completely. We STILL have to question who are the good guys and who are the bad guys over there. In this situation, we KNOW who the bad guys are.
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?
I hope it is sharply worded with a lot of exclamation points!!: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!
Some may have a problem with Pamela Geller but she may have a point here. Obama's Sanction of Boko Haram | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That's not the fault of people, that's the media. They choose which stories to cover and give the most attention to.
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.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.
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.: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.
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:
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?