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.
QuoteFear 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.
QuoteHe 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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 10:14:46 AM
QuoteHe 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.
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 10:27:00 AM
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 :P) is not a 'real Christian' when it doesn't.
Jaded? It's Africa, Black Africa.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 28, 2009, 10:34:28 AM
Jaded? It's Africa, Black Africa.
And Nigeria at that which is rapidly becoming the Bangladesh of Africa.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 10:38:00 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 28, 2009, 10:34:28 AM
Jaded? It's Africa, Black Africa.
And Nigeria at that which is rapidly becoming the Bangladesh of Africa.
Nigeria has oil, Bangladesh has silt.
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
Nigeria has oil, Bangladesh has silt.
Ok it is rapidly becoming an overpopulated hellhole that also has oil. :P
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 10:09:39 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2009, 10:50:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 10:09:39 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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:
Quote[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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2009, 10:50:28 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:00:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2009, 10:50:28 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:10:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:19:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:10:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:32:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:26:24 AM
failure of the Iraq War
Saddam Hussein won?
No. He lost. I consider the Iraq War a failure because it failed to achieve it's declared objectives and/or failed to live up to my expectations.
Failure /= Losing
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:37:27 AM
No. He lost. I consider the Iraq War a failure because it failed to achieve it's declared objectives and/or failed to live up to my expectations.
It remains to be seen if it failed to achieve it's declared objectives (which you must admit were rather vague to begin with) but I can certainly see how it failed to live up to expectations.
The only way it could have ended interventionism seems to me because the US is busy in Iraq so therefore cannot do all the heavy lifting required...because with the Euros not wanting to put any money into their militaries any effective international intervention is really US intervention.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:37:27 AM
No. He lost. I consider the Iraq War a failure because it failed to achieve it's declared objectives and/or failed to live up to my expectations.
It remains to be seen if it failed to achieve it's declared objectives (which you must admit were rather vague to begin with) but I can certainly see how it failed to live up to expectations.
The only way it could have ended interventionism seems to me because the US is busy in Iraq so therefore cannot do all the heavy lifting required...because with the Euros not wanting to put any money into their militaries any effective international intervention is really US intervention.
September 2003 came and went and the US still hadn't left. But in terms of the article I quote the failure lies in the consensus in the West that nothing like this will be done again.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:00:44 AM
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.
I disagree. There is a lot that can be done. The West is unwilling to do it. We have adopted a
stick our heads in the sand and the danger will eventually go away attitude.
Quote from: Strix on July 28, 2009, 12:57:04 PM
I disagree. There is a lot that can be done. The West is unwilling to do it. We have adopted a stick our heads in the sand and the danger will eventually go away attitude.
Such as?
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:47:27 AM
September 2003 came and went and the US still hadn't left. But in terms of the article I quote the failure lies in the consensus in the West that nothing like this will be done again.
Well considering how damaging to western solidarity the whole lead up to the invasion was I doubt we could survive too many more things like that even if it had gone swimingly (but come now almost everybody predicted total disaster when we went in and it has so far only been a minor disaster).
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 12:58:01 PM
Quote from: Strix on July 28, 2009, 12:57:04 PM
I disagree. There is a lot that can be done. The West is unwilling to do it. We have adopted a stick our heads in the sand and the danger will eventually go away attitude.
Such as?
There is no point to listing the various options as the West is unable and unwilling to engage the enemy on their own terms. There is a great fear of losing the "moral" high ground to the terrorists and corrupt regimes around the world. Holding the "moral" high ground has resulted in ZERO accomplishment for the West.
Quote
There were about 100 corpses. Most of them had gunshot wounds.
m-m-m--MONSTER KILL
Quote from: Strix on July 28, 2009, 01:03:43 PM
There is no point to listing the various options as the West is unable and unwilling to engage the enemy on their own terms. There is a great fear of losing the "moral" high ground to the terrorists and corrupt regimes around the world. Holding the "moral" high ground has resulted in ZERO accomplishment for the West.
Ok so my point stands. As of right now there is nothing that can be done.
We can hope that somehow these issues in the Third World sort themselves out. Anyway I am not so much worried about the danger to ourselves, because we can and have retaliated to that sort of thing, I am more concerned with them blowing the hell out of each other.
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:37:27 AM
No. He lost. I consider the Iraq War a failure because it failed to achieve it's declared objectives and/or failed to live up to my expectations.
Failure /= Losing
I consider WW2 a failure because Patton wasn't allowed to roll to Moscow.
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:47:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:37:27 AM
No. He lost. I consider the Iraq War a failure because it failed to achieve it's declared objectives and/or failed to live up to my expectations.
It remains to be seen if it failed to achieve it's declared objectives (which you must admit were rather vague to begin with) but I can certainly see how it failed to live up to expectations.
The only way it could have ended interventionism seems to me because the US is busy in Iraq so therefore cannot do all the heavy lifting required...because with the Euros not wanting to put any money into their militaries any effective international intervention is really US intervention.
September 2003 came and went and the US still hadn't left. But in terms of the article I quote the failure lies in the consensus in the West that nothing like this will be done again.
Never again, really? A blanket statement like that just isn't credible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:47:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 28, 2009, 11:37:27 AM
No. He lost. I consider the Iraq War a failure because it failed to achieve it's declared objectives and/or failed to live up to my expectations.
It remains to be seen if it failed to achieve it's declared objectives (which you must admit were rather vague to begin with) but I can certainly see how it failed to live up to expectations.
The only way it could have ended interventionism seems to me because the US is busy in Iraq so therefore cannot do all the heavy lifting required...because with the Euros not wanting to put any money into their militaries any effective international intervention is really US intervention.
September 2003 came and went and the US still hadn't left. But in terms of the article I quote the failure lies in the consensus in the West that nothing like this will be done again.
Never again, really? A blanket statement like that just isn't credible.
"consensus in the West that..." not "that nothing like this will be done again." Any Western leaders suggesting any interventions?
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: Strix on July 28, 2009, 01:03:43 PM
There is no point to listing the various options as the West is unable and unwilling to engage the enemy on their own terms. There is a great fear of losing the "moral" high ground to the terrorists and corrupt regimes around the world. Holding the "moral" high ground has resulted in ZERO accomplishment for the West.
Ok so my point stands. As of right now there is nothing that can be done.
No, there is something that *can* be done, but there is nothing that anyone is willing to do. The failure is one of will, not one of capability.
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 02:53:19 PM
No, there is something that *can* be done, but there is nothing that anyone is willing to do. The failure is one of will, not one of capability.
Frankly I do not even see that going in and engaging the Talibans of the world in a worldwide bloody Jihad will really solve the problem much, presuming that is the sort of thing Strix has in mind. If we were so inclined it would lead to us having to occupy and police even more territory and I don't see how it is a long term solution.
So yes something can be done, but is there something effective that can be done?
That is half the problem though - people who exaggerate the problem way out of scale in order to conclude that it is hopeless and we cannot possibly do anything, so why bother?
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 03:02:06 PM
That is half the problem though - people who exaggerate the problem way out of scale in order to conclude that it is hopeless and we cannot possibly do anything, so why bother?
Perhaps we are talking past each other. How are we supposed to solve the problem of a few insane people popping up at random places in the world and shooting a few dozen people in the name of Islam? We can not even solve that problem in Baltimore, well except the Islam part...though that probably happens in Detroit.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 03:02:06 PM
That is half the problem though - people who exaggerate the problem way out of scale in order to conclude that it is hopeless and we cannot possibly do anything, so why bother?
Perhaps we are talking past each other. How are we supposed to solve the problem of a few insane people popping up at random places in the world and shooting a few dozen people in the name of Islam? We can not even solve that problem in Baltimore, well except the Islam part...though that probably happens in Detroit.
I don't think that is the problem the author is talking about.
He is talking about intervening in places like Darfur or Nigeria or even Georgia. Hell, even Iraq is a great example - that has actually turned out relatively well, and look how certain everyone was that it was utterly hopeless.
Most people a few years ago were saying that not only was Iraq managed amazingly badly, even if it had been managed well it was still utterly hopeless. Funny, even with the horrendously bad execution, it has still turned out much better than most thought even possible.
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 03:10:44 PM
Hell, even Iraq is a great example - that has actually turned out relatively well, and look how certain everyone was that it was utterly hopeless.
Most people a few years ago were saying that not only was Iraq managed amazingly badly, even if it had been managed well it was still utterly hopeless. Funny, even with the horrendously bad execution, it has still turned out much better than most thought even possible.
I think the Jury is still out on that one Berkut. There are reasons for optimism but we still have yet to see if the thing can hold together once we leave.
What I mostly heard from people is that the place will eventually come under control of another strong man...and that certainly could happen yet. Obviously the people saying the war would start the next global Jihad were simply nutters.
But how is it a great example? The costs in blood and treasure and political capital have been very high. Further it split the Western alliance badly. It seems to suggest that an enormous commitment is required for something not to go the way of Somalia. It does not strike me as something easily repeatable.
Of course every operation is different and nothing we do in the future will look anything like Iraq, and further it was not even an intervention in the traditional sense. The sort of intervention the second article was talking about is not going in and overthrowing governments and so forth like the Iraq operation consisted of.
QuoteI don't think that is the problem the author is talking about.
Alrighty there are two articles being discussed in this thread. Strix was responding to me talking to Tim about the first article about the business in Nigeria. That did not strike me as something worth invading over. We were not talking about the second article which was about the end of interventionism which is what you are talking about.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2009, 03:06:50 PM
Perhaps we are talking past each other. How are we supposed to solve the problem of a few insane people popping up at random places in the world and shooting a few dozen people in the name of Islam? We can not even solve that problem in Baltimore, well except the Islam part...though that probably happens in Detroit.
Like we would need to import killers from overseas. :rolleyes: Our domestic industry works just fine.
That is just it - the cost in blood and treasure in Iraq was not that high, compared to the resources of the West. It was pretty expensive for the US to bear, but could have been very easily handled if the West had worked together.
And it splitting the Western Alliance is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The reason it split the alliance is that the West has lost its balls to do anything, and would rather just sit back and whine and bitch rather than act, and even if someone DOES act, they make it as expensive and painful as possible. But these are consequences of the disease, not consequences of the action itself.
What exactly is the problem (non-rhetorical)? As long as the economy doesn't go to hell (and I'm not talking about normal cycles) and we do not suffer major attacks on our homelands what more do we need?
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2009, 03:32:19 PM
What exactly is the problem (non-rhetorical)? As long as the economy doesn't go to hell (and I'm not talking about normal cycles) and we do not suffer major attacks on our homelands what more do we need?
Not a thing. Isolationism has a long and successful track record throughout Western history.
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 03:35:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2009, 03:32:19 PM
What exactly is the problem (non-rhetorical)? As long as the economy doesn't go to hell (and I'm not talking about normal cycles) and we do not suffer major attacks on our homelands what more do we need?
Not a thing. Isolationism has a long and successful track record throughout Western history.
Indeed. We scrambled out of Africa for a reason.