Nigerian Taliban goes nuts kills scores.

[Viking]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8171482.stm

Are we now too jaded to even start a thread about his now?

The guy behind this attack considers "western" education evil. Math, English, Biology, Physics and PE are evil.

Fear and tension after Nigeria attack

Dozens of people have been killed in gun battles between police and Islamist insurgents in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri. The BBC's Bilkisu Babangida got to the scene shortly after the shooting ended.

At the police headquarters the situation was alarming.

There were about 100 corpses. Most of them had gunshot wounds.

They looked to be members of a religious sect, although it was difficult to tell.

Military personnel, police and other security officers were all around the police headquarters.

They were patrolling around shooting in the air.

They were all well-armed. Even the police commissioner and all the other senior officers were holding guns.

The people were panicking - they could hear gunshots and did not really know what the security situation was.

Roadblocks and curfews

The group had attacked the new prison complex, then the police offices, houses and vehicles.

They were fighting against the police and security forces.

After the attack, as heavily-armed police patrolled the streets, it was reported that they were going to come back to the headquarters to get revenge for the people who were killed.

But security forces seemed to keep control.

A dusk-to-dawn curfew has been put in place and security personnel are patrolling all over town - particularly outside government and police buildings.

They have also put roadblocks up all over town.

There is a lot of tension among the people - all the shops and banks have been closed all day. There has been no commercial activity whatsoever.

The police commissioner has asked people to move away from the areas where the attacks took place, and people have been moving their relatives and children to other places for safety.

'Not Muslim'

The attack was not a complete surprise. Over the past few weeks, rumours had been circulating of possible attacks just like this one.

Through text messages and mobile phone conversations people were saying these individuals were going to come out at about midnight and attack.

The rumours were right.

Now reports are saying this attack and the ones in other states could have been carried out by people loyal to a preacher called Mohammed Yusuf.

Three days ago, after 10 of his followers were apprehended by the police, journalists spoke to him by telephone and he said he would continue to struggle, against security officers and the country in general.

He belongs to an Islamic sect who does not believe in Western education - he says anybody who has Western education is not a Muslim.

[Valmy]

He belongs to an Islamic sect who does not believe in Western education - he says anybody who has Western education is not a Muslim.

Ironically all the western educated Muslims say this dude is not a Muslim either.

[Viking]

He belongs to an Islamic sect who does not believe in Western education - he says anybody who has Western education is not a Muslim.

Ironically all the western educated Muslims say this dude is not a Muslim either.

I'm always baffled by the assertion that "He is not a Muslim" when "he" does something evil. Especially when they also claim that repeating some claptrap about there only being one god and some 7th century clown being his prophet three times makes you a Muslim forever. Not exactly logical. But then again we are talking about religion so logic need not apply.

[Valmy]

I'm always baffled by the assertion that "He is not a Muslim" when "he" does something evil. Especially when they also claim that repeating some claptrap about there only being one god and some 7th century clown being his prophet three times makes you a Muslim forever. Not exactly logical. But then again we are talking about religion so logic need not apply.

All religions have this...except for the Jews who have no problem claiming every nutty person whose mother happens to be a Jew regardless of what he or she believes.

Christians are great because they will hang their hat on their enormous numbers when it suites them...and then insist every person not in their own sect (and often a few people IN their own sect ) is not a 'real Christian' when it doesn't.

[Grey Fox]

Jaded? It's Africa, Black Africa.

[Valmy]

Jaded? It's Africa, Black Africa.

And Nigeria at that which is rapidly becoming the Bangladesh of Africa.

[Viking]

Jaded? It's Africa, Black Africa.

And Nigeria at that which is rapidly becoming the Bangladesh of Africa.

Nigeria has oil, Bangladesh has silt.

[Valmy]

Nigeria has oil, Bangladesh has silt.

Ok it is rapidly becoming an overpopulated hellhole that also has oil.

[jimmy olsen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8171482.stm

Are we now too jaded to even start a thread about his now?

The guy behind this attack considers "western" education evil. Math, English, Biology, Physics and PE are evil.

People in the west won't care unless the fighting threatens the oil supply.

[Viking]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8171482.stm

Are we now too jaded to even start a thread about his now?

The guy behind this attack considers "western" education evil. Math, English, Biology, Physics and PE are evil.

People in the west won't care unless the fighting threatens the oil supply.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223448/

Jewey von Jewenstein makes a good point here.

The End of Interventionism The world has lost its appetite for confrontation, and rogue regimes have gotten smarter.
By Shmuel RosnerPosted Friday, July 24, 2009, at 9:58 AM ET

Only a fool would be surprised by the series of explosions that occurred July 14 on the outskirts of the village of Khirbet Slem in southern Lebanon. The sudden detonation of Hezbollah's arsenal was indeed unusual—but the incident drew attention to something that had almost been forgotten: The presence of international peacekeeping troops in southern Lebanon, mandated in U.N. Resolution 1701, has not achieved its goal of "disarming and disbanding Hizbollah," the Shiite Lebanese militia backed by Iran. It hasn't even come close. (The resolution that ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah also declared, "There will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State.") When U.N. troops approached the site of the blasts, they were stoned by local villagers attempting—successfully—to prevent the force from getting anywhere nearer to the ordnance.

For the last three years, the force deployed in Lebanon has managed to avoid trouble by maintaining "largely good" relations with Hezbollah—as the Associated Press put it. Of course, Resolution 1701 only "authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities." But that's a tricky definition. Capabilities as assessed by whom? Capabilities limited to what price in money and blood? With what consequences? Apparently, visiting a site where explosions have occurred is not within UNIFIL's "capabilities"—but at least it can maintain "largely good" relations with Hezbollah.

It's easy to mock the guardsmen in southern Lebanon, but Lebanon is just one example, and UNIFIL is just one unfit force. That's because, quietly and unceremoniously, the era of successful international intervention has passed. The achievements of Bosnia and Kosovo, the refusal to accept a coup in Haiti, the debatable achievements of Iraq and Afghanistan, even the remorseful self-flagellation over Rwanda—all marked the time of can-do interventionalism. Intervention wasn't always clean, it wasn't always forceful enough, but it was a goal to be aspired to. Not anymore.

Consider the failure in Darfur—which I have already written about here twice. Consider Zimbabwe, where dictator Robert Mugabe has made a mockery of international disapproval, demands, and even assistance. Consider Iran, a country where election fraud was condemned and people took to the streets, all to no avail. In these three cases—and many others—the international community has offered little more than soothing words and hollow statements. What's more, it has not even felt the need to mourn its inability to turn words into action. President Barack Obama was hailed for being opaque in the case of Iran, and his liberal supporters, who care intensely about Darfur, stayed mum when the new president made no detectable progress on this issue.

In this new world, caution is more important than intervention. What some have described as Obama's "cult of pragmatism" is really a nice way of saying that Americans no longer have a taste for intervention. And without American leadership, there will be none.

Intervention was always a dangerous path, and the more powerful the country involved, the less likely the world was to take a stand. (China and Tiananmen comes to mind, as does Russia's invasion of Georgia.) What has changed is the world's appetite for force, even against less daunting regimes. The default way to explain this growing reluctance is to blame George W. Bush. And of course, the bloodbath of Iraq has made intervention less appealing to the public. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, writing a year ago in the New York Times, argued that "the era of intervention is over." She continued, "The invasion of Iraq ... generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes."

But blaming Bush is an excuse rather than a reason. Cases like Sudan and Zimbabwe and Lebanon all show that American fatigue is not the only explanation. Also at play is the increasing ability of rogue leaders to deter the international community. To do this, they follow two simple rules learned from past interventions:

   1. Be sure there's a threat of violence should anyone attempt to intervene.
   2. Make the world believe that with just a little more negotiation, it might be possible to solve the problem diplomatically.

In Zimbabwe, this mix of menace and delay worked perfectly, as a recent Washington Post editorial convincingly argued:

[A]fter African nations brokered the formation of Zimbabwe's coalition government, strongman Robert Mugabe must be pleased with the results. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, whose victory in last year's presidential election was nullified by violence and fraud, is now charged with managing the economy; with help from foreign donors, he has managed to bring it back from the dead. World-record hyperinflation has been stopped; shops, schools and some hospitals have reopened; and a cholera epidemic has eased. Zimbabweans are finding it easier to obtain food and medical care and to send their children to school. At the same time, Mr. Mugabe's control over the state remains unbroken.

In Iran, Obama's desire to "engage" has made it difficult for him to support the opposition; meanwhile, the regime's threats are far from subtle. "The Iranian nation warns the leaders of those countries trying to take advantage of the situation, beware! The Iranian nation will react," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned. Of course, warnings aren't enough—as Saddam Hussein learned—and negotiation alone, with no persuasive threat of violence, can bring down a regime or an organization. But combining the two is a formula perfectly tailored to current international sensibilities. It has worked well for Sudan and for belligerent North Korea.

Americans often search for explanations by looking inward to apportion blame—by pointing a finger at Bush or Obama, expressing an urgent need to prioritize the economy, or rehashing the vices of liberalism and the sins of conservatism. While all these factors no doubt contribute to the current mood, looking inward is not enough—indeed, it's just another sign of Western narcissism. The end of interventionalism is not just a sign of the mellowing of the West; it is also an indication that the enemy is getting stronger—and smarter.

[Valmy]

People in the west won't care unless the fighting threatens the oil supply.

Even if we did care a great deal there is nothing really that can be done.  That is the main reason we try to avoid caring too much.

The End of Interventionism The world has lost its appetite for confrontation, and rogue regimes have gotten smarter.

End of interventionism?  When exactly were people running around taking down rogue regimes left and right?  He way overstates his case.

[Viking]

People in the west won't care unless the fighting threatens the oil supply.

Even if we did care a great deal there is nothing really that can be done.  That is the main reason we try to avoid caring too much.

The End of Interventionism The world has lost its appetite for confrontation, and rogue regimes have gotten smarter.

End of interventionism?  When exactly were people running around taking down rogue regimes left and right?  He way overstates his case.

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Panama, Sierra Leone and Haiti. 

[Valmy]

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Panama, Sierra Leone and Haiti. 

Afghanistan and Iraq were wars to defeat our enemies not humanitarian missions to bring peace and love or we would have invaded Iraq in the 80s and Afghanistan in the 90s so counting those as interventions is absurd.

Serbia, Kosovo, and Bosnia are in Euroland and you can bet if something happens in those areas again NATO will spring into action again.

The others were really simple and cheap compared to invading Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Nigeria, Lebanon...I mean please to even compare going into those sorts of places with Haiti is laughable.  I call BS on the entire premise.

[Viking]

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Panama, Sierra Leone and Haiti. 

Afghanistan and Iraq were wars to defeat our enemies not humanitarian missions to bring peace and love or we would have invaded Iraq in the 80s and Afghanistan in the 90s so counting those as interventions is absurd.

Serbia, Kosovo, and Bosnia are in Euroland and you can bet if something happens in those areas again NATO will spring into action again.

The others were really simple and cheap compared to invading Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Nigeria, Lebanon...I mean please to even compare going into those sorts of places with Haiti is laughable.  I call BS on the entire premise.

Between the end of the Cold War and the failure of the Iraq War there was a real organized attempt within the Progressive West (Tony Blair and Bill Clinton) to make Humanitarian Interventions where they were possible. Naturally the easy ones were easier to do.

[Valmy]

failure of the Iraq War

Saddam Hussein won?