That proverb, wow...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/20/opinion/nigeria-violence-victor-ehikhamenor/index.html?hpt=hp_mid
Quote(CNN) -- The corpse of another man's mother always looks like firewood from afar, so says an African proverb. Until recently, terrorism, war and the accompanying human carnage in far-away countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and many other troubled countries meant just more news of the crazy world out there. Not because of my lack of empathy, but distance can be a ready-made palliative for pain.
Now, that distant and macabre dance of death that once seemed so far away on TV has come upon my country, Nigeria, with a big bang.
Suicide bombing, towns and villages getting blown up, allegations of extra-judicial killings by the police and the military, kidnappings, terrorist attacks on government establishments -- total confusion and a lack of solutions to the violence is no longer just news, but a terrifying daily reality show.
In the current wave of violence, especially in the northern and middle belt of the country, which has culminated in President Goodluck Jonathan declaring a state of emergency in the three states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe, one is at a loss as to where the country is headed in its near future.
What has happened in Borno, a state in the northern part of Nigeria, in the past weeks is like full-scale war. A local official said recent attacks there, in the border town of Baga, left more than 185 inhabitants dead in unclear circumstances involving the military Joint Task Force (JTF), the peace-keeping government outfit that has been effectively inefficient in all the troubled zones. The army, however, said no more than 36 people were killed.
The burning embers of the Baga massacre had hardly cooled off when another attack was carried out in Bama, another town in the same state. According to the army, 55 people were killed by Boko Haram; casualties including women and children were burnt alive.
Following these deaths came yet another wanton killing of policemen and soldiers in another state. The dead, as usual, are a mixture of innocent civilians, military personnel, policemen and members of Boko Haram, the Islamic militant group that has been carrying out attacks since 2009.
The total break down of law and order and daily carnage made the governor of Borno, Alhaji Kashim Shettima, put the blame squarely on the doorsteps of his fellow politicians and the Nigerian government as the primary cause of the country's state of insecurity.
According to the governor, "Underneath the mayhem of Boko Haram lies the underlying cause which is extreme poverty and destitution ... until we address some of these issues the future is very bleak for all of us as the current crisis is just an appetizer of things to come. Very soon the youth of this country will be chasing us away."
The governor also gave his view of the current mindset of Nigeria's political ruling class: "The most important thing in Nigeria is about the last election and the next election, the only thing that is agitating our minds is how we can perpetuate ourselves in power. How much we can steal, how many mansions we can buy in Florida, Dubai and London, this is what agitates the minds of the elites of this country."
To hear this kind of finger-pointing and chilling words from one of those the rest of the country expects to resolve the conflict and bloodletting is quite enervating.
A previously proposed panacea to the madness was the proffering of amnesty to Boko Haram members by the federal government, which it has so far refused.
The whole amnesty idea to many observers bordered on the line of insanity and inanity. Two things -- the amnesty program that was first introduced to curb violence and pacify militants in the Niger Delta by the late President Umaru Yar'Adua and continued by Jonathan, cannot be said to be successful, as insurgency is still very much a clear and present danger in the Niger Delta. Secondly, it looks like crime pays in Nigeria when criminals and murderers are getting rewarded in the name of "amnesty" every time they put a gun or bomb to the government and people's temples.
Wealthy Nigerians and multinational expatriates have become prisoners in a supposedly free country, constantly moving with heavily armed guards. For most, this has not proven effective as some of their armed guards have been outgunned by terrorists and criminals who mean business.
Politicians are sometimes the worse off, and one cannot help but reason that the poverty planted by the rich and the ruling class over decades of misrule has yielded thorns in the flesh of our country.
Despite the declared state of emergency (which has received a mixed reception), people are losing hope faster than a nailed tire.
The insecurity is spreading to other parts of the country. Lagos is now taking on a new look of security consciousness. Many churches in the city have fully armed policemen holding AK47s guarding entrances during Sunday services. And it is no longer odd to walk into a cafe or restaurant and find armed policemen guarding diners, with guns resting among cutlery.
The government seems to have keeled over and resorted to a full-blown military offensive, both land and air, against Boko Haram and its allies. It is too early to determine if this latest solution will abate the madness but it is horrifying for people to live with this kind of killing and uncertainty every day.
When we now appear in foreign news segments we are right there with Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq ... places that are in full blown war and used to seem so far away. And the question trembling in most people's lips now is -- are we also at war in Nigeria?
So according to Alfred's rules, should we pull our ambassador?
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 11:08:09 PM
So according to Alfred's rules, should we pull our ambassador?
I think we should pull out all of our ambassadors. They can skype our foreign policy abroad from an indisclosed secure bunker.
So we have terrorists (Islamic-separatists maybe? What are they terrorizing about?) and criminal gangs throwing the country into chaos. But why is it a civil war? Who are the factions involved? The article focuses on the north but what about the south?
That article does not really give me a clear picture.
We need to support the Nigerian Christians.
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 11:15:15 PM
So we have terrorists (Islamic-separatists maybe? What are they terrorizing about?) and criminal gangs throwing the country into chaos. But why is it a civil war? Who are the factions involved? The article focuses on the north but what about the south?
That article does not really give me a clear picture.
Islam dominates the north, Christians the south. IIRC, the islamists are fighting to install sharia law on the North and the South.
There are links embedded in that article that answer some of your questions. Hit the link and follow them.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 11:22:51 PM
We need to support the Nigerian Christians.
Those are the guys spamming our inboxes with scam letters.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 11:22:51 PM
We need to support the Nigerian Christians.
Meh. They're doomed. I'd like it if we could help the Christians in Eqypt, but we ain't gonna do shit to help them there, either.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 11:35:18 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 11:22:51 PM
We need to support the Nigerian Christians.
Meh. They're doomed. I'd like it if we could help the Christians in Eqypt, but we ain't gonna do shit to help them there, either.
Completely different situation from Egypt. They're they're 10% of the population and are not geographically concentrated. In Nigeria they've gone from like 5% of the population in 1900 to 45% of the population today and dominate the southern half of the country. At worst the country will split in two. The Copts on the other hand could all be massacred if the government wanted to.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 11:35:18 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2013, 11:22:51 PM
We need to support the Nigerian Christians.
Meh. They're doomed. I'd like it if we could help the Christians in Eqypt, but we ain't gonna do shit to help them there, either.
Nigeria is half Christian. The good half.
Actually, Wikipedia says that Christians are now the majority. I'm going off a book from the mid-90s that I almost memorized as a kid that had them at 45%
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2013, 12:48:46 AM
Nigeria is half Christian. The good half.
There's a good half?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2013, 12:48:46 AM
Nigeria is half Christian. The good half.
I am aware of that. The other half is muslim, and increasingly militant.
The Christians aren't just gonna sit back and take it.
Christians have money, sea access and are better educated and organized. Boko Haram means Western Education is Forbidden. Doesn't matter how militant they are if they're fucking retarded.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2013, 08:43:43 AM
Christians have money, sea access and are better educated and organized. Boko Haram means Western Education is Forbidden. Doesn't matter how militant they are if they're fucking retarded.
Try telling the Interahamwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interahamwe) that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2013, 08:36:33 AM
The Christians aren't just gonna sit back and take it.
Hopefully not, but Christian populations tend to be the victims more often than not in similar sectarian conflicts around the third world.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 08:58:34 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2013, 08:36:33 AM
The Christians aren't just gonna sit back and take it.
Hopefully not, but Christian populations tend to be the victims more often than not in similar sectarian conflicts around the third world.
Christians tend to fetishize being killed for their faith rather than killing others for their faith, so yeah, they tend to be victims. In most places where muslims are not involved, like India, even when there is radical anti-christian agitation it usually stops short of murder as long as it remains non-political.
Doesn't sound much different than it was in the mid 90s when a guy I knew was there.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 11:08:09 PM
So according to Alfred's rules, should we pull our ambassador?
No--it appears we have Marine guards there.
http://www.msg-history.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2115&g2_page=2
You keep coming up with places and asking whether we should pull our ambassador, and a quick google on most of these places indicates there are marine guards there or we already evacuated most of our personnel.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 09:24:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 11:08:09 PM
So according to Alfred's rules, should we pull our ambassador?
No--it appears we have Marine guards there.
http://www.msg-history.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2115&g2_page=2
You keep coming up with places and asking whether we should pull our ambassador, and a quick google on most of these places indicates there are marine guards there or we already evacuated most of our personnel.
How many marines are sufficient? I'm not sure why you'd use casual pictures of marines partying as proof that the respective ambassadors are safe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2013, 08:36:33 AM
The Christians aren't just gonna sit back and take it.
:yes: It would be shocking if they just turned the other cheek rather than retaliating violently.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 09:55:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 09:24:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 11:08:09 PM
So according to Alfred's rules, should we pull our ambassador?
No--it appears we have Marine guards there.
http://www.msg-history.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2115&g2_page=2
You keep coming up with places and asking whether we should pull our ambassador, and a quick google on most of these places indicates there are marine guards there or we already evacuated most of our personnel.
How many marines are sufficient? I'm not sure why you'd use casual pictures of marines partying as proof that the respective ambassadors are safe.
Well if you ask the Jarheads, one or two would do it. :P
Quote from: Kleves on May 21, 2013, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2013, 08:36:33 AM
The Christians aren't just gonna sit back and take it.
:yes: It would be shocking if they just turned the other cheek rather than retaliating violently.
They don't, though they pretend to do so. Like on Sulawesi where church burnings by muslims have happened quite a lot the nigerian christians are burning mosques as well.
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2013, 10:15:35 AM
They don't, though they pretend to do so. Like on Sulawesi where church burnings by muslims have happened quite a lot the nigerian christians are burning mosques as well.
Nigerian Christians are burning mosques in Indonesia? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 09:55:54 AM
How many marines are sufficient? I'm not sure why you'd use casual pictures of marines partying as proof that the respective ambassadors are safe.
I don't know.
What I do know is that when I comment that ambassadors shouldn't be in dangerous locations without security such as marines, you really don't make me look foolish by wondering whether I would want to pull ambassadors out of countries x, y, and z when either marines are there or we already pulled out.
I bet Christian Okoye would not turn the other cheeck. He would run right over Boko Haram.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2013, 10:22:58 AM
I bet Christian Okoye would not turn the other cheeck. He would run right over Boko Haram.
What is Hakeem's position on all this?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 09:55:54 AM
How many marines are sufficient? I'm not sure why you'd use casual pictures of marines partying as proof that the respective ambassadors are safe.
I don't know.
What I do know is that when I comment that ambassadors shouldn't be in dangerous locations without security such as marines, you really don't make me look foolish by wondering whether I would want to pull ambassadors out of countries x, y, and z when either marines are there or we already pulled out.
Which countries did we pull out? I'd quickly looked and I believe we have ambassadors for the 3 countries I mentioned. Oh and really, so a picture of 3 marines partying is sufficient to count for sending ambassadors to a dangerous location with adequate security?
Not to mention that a few marines would probably not have changed Benghazi. :(
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:24:59 AM
Which countries did we pull out? I'd quickly looked and I believe we have ambassadors for the 3 countries I mentioned. Oh and really, so a picture of 3 marines partying is sufficient to count for sending ambassadors to a dangerous location with adequate security?
Sudan.
Here is a speech referencing a US marine detachment at the consulate in Lagos.
http://nigeria.usembassy.gov/sp_11112006a.html
So it isn't just 3 guys partying.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:24:59 AM
Which countries did we pull out? I'd quickly looked and I believe we have ambassadors for the 3 countries I mentioned. Oh and really, so a picture of 3 marines partying is sufficient to count for sending ambassadors to a dangerous location with adequate security?
Sudan.
Here is a speech referencing a US marine detachment at the consulate in Lagos.
http://nigeria.usembassy.gov/sp_11112006a.html
So it isn't just 3 guys partying.
Odd because we list us having an ambassador in South Sudan.
http://southsudan.usembassy.gov/amb-designate.html
Hmm, between your article (with 149 per 1200 embassies) and this blog - it doesn't seem that much more.
http://davetolagos.blogspot.com/2008/11/marine-corps-birthday-ball.html (approx 8 in both sources)
So is your assertion that if we'd had 8 marines in Libya that we'd then consider that adequate security?
And I don't mean anything personal by all this - just sort of seemed in that other thread that you were talking out of your ass regarding marine protection. Particularly vs. the size force that attacked our embassy in Benghazi.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2013, 10:22:58 AM
I bet Christian Okoye would not turn the other cheeck. He would run right over Boko Haram.
And promptly fumble inside the 5 yard line. Twice.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
And I don't mean anything personal by all this - just sort of seemed in that other thread that you were talking out of your ass regarding marine protection. Particularly vs. the size force that attacked our embassy in Benghazi.
I think you've made it clear that it is not wise for one to cross your St. Hillary tripwire.
Boko could hire Steve Atwater as security, that would stop okoye in his tracks.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:38:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:24:59 AM
Which countries did we pull out? I'd quickly looked and I believe we have ambassadors for the 3 countries I mentioned. Oh and really, so a picture of 3 marines partying is sufficient to count for sending ambassadors to a dangerous location with adequate security?
Sudan.
Here is a speech referencing a US marine detachment at the consulate in Lagos.
http://nigeria.usembassy.gov/sp_11112006a.html
So it isn't just 3 guys partying.
Odd because we list us having an ambassador in South Sudan.
http://southsudan.usembassy.gov/amb-designate.html
Hmm, between your article (with 149 per 1200 embassies) and this blog - it doesn't seem that much more.
http://davetolagos.blogspot.com/2008/11/marine-corps-birthday-ball.html (approx 8 in both sources)
So is your assertion that if we'd had 8 marines in Libya that we'd then consider that adequate security?
South Sudan is a different country than Sudan.
I don't know how many marines it would take to have stabilized things in Libya. I wouldn't be suprised if 8 could have done it though (they weren't exactly up against a highly trained first world force). But anyway, the fact that there are 8 marines at some country other than Libya doesn't mean that only 8 are needed in Libya.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
And I don't mean anything personal by all this - just sort of seemed in that other thread that you were talking out of your ass regarding marine protection. Particularly vs. the size force that attacked our embassy in Benghazi.
Who could imagine that traveling to post revolutionary Libya without significant protection isn't safe? Especially if you are a high ranking US official.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 11:21:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
And I don't mean anything personal by all this - just sort of seemed in that other thread that you were talking out of your ass regarding marine protection. Particularly vs. the size force that attacked our embassy in Benghazi.
I think you've made it clear that it is not wise for one to cross your St. Hillary tripwire.
No kidding. I don't even blame Hillary at all--I doubt the secretary of state has much to do with arranging security around the world. But he wants to put himself in a corner arguing that there was adequate security for the first ambassador killed probably in garbon's lifetime when traveling in a highly unstable post revolutionary country with local guards.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 11:21:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
And I don't mean anything personal by all this - just sort of seemed in that other thread that you were talking out of your ass regarding marine protection. Particularly vs. the size force that attacked our embassy in Benghazi.
I think you've made it clear that it is not wise for one to cross your St. Hillary tripwire.
My comments have nothing to do with Hillary and her role in this.
It has to do with AR acting as though he know what should constitute adequate security in Benghazi with the implicit assumption that the US should put whatever size force is necessary to keep everyone safe which would mean a massive amount of troops given the number of attackers!
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
South Sudan is a different country than Sudan.
Golly, gee. Perhaps we should revisit what I'd said:
QuoteQuote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
Should we remove our ambassadors from Mali and South Sudan given their general state of disarray?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
I don't know how many marines it would take to have stabilized things in Libya. I wouldn't be suprised if 8 could have done it though (they weren't exactly up against a highly trained first world force). But anyway, the fact that there are 8 marines at some country other than Libya doesn't mean that only 8 are needed in Libya.
Ah gotcha. Well I don't think we have much to talk about if you think that 8 Marines at the embassy would have averted the issue.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
South Sudan is a different country than Sudan.
Golly, gee. Perhaps we should revisit what I'd said:
QuoteQuote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
Should we remove our ambassadors from Mali and South Sudan given their general state of disarray?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
I don't know how many marines it would take to have stabilized things in Libya. I wouldn't be suprised if 8 could have done it though (they weren't exactly up against a highly trained first world force). But anyway, the fact that there are 8 marines at some country other than Libya doesn't mean that only 8 are needed in Libya.
Ah gotcha. Well I don't think we have much to talk about if you think that 8 Marines at the embassy would have averted the issue.
Strange, I didnt take his statement as such.
Some of you guys keep acting as if the attackers were a brigade-sized force. It was roughly a company-sized force of irregulars. A platoon of Marines would have been perfectly adequate to defend the ambassador (or even prevent the attack). Hell, a squad would have made a difference-- they could've held out long enough for relief to arrive.
Garbon, I responded with Sudan because a quick google didn't turn up a description of embassy security in South Sudan. It is a new country and embassy which apparently hasn't had parties among its security detachment and posted them on the internet (or I wasn't able to find it).
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2013, 11:42:41 AM
My comments have nothing to do with Hillary and her role in this.
It has to do with AR acting as though he know what should constitute adequate security in Benghazi
I've never intended to act as though I know what constitutes adequate security for an ambassador. However, I think there is plenty of evidence that what was in Benghazi was inadequate.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2013, 12:51:53 AM
Actually, Wikipedia says that Christians are now the majority. I'm going off a book from the mid-90s that I almost memorized as a kid that had them at 45%
lots of converts from islam there, as crazy as it sounds. And a decent amount of animists still left to be christianised too.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 21, 2013, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2013, 12:51:53 AM
Actually, Wikipedia says that Christians are now the majority. I'm going off a book from the mid-90s that I almost memorized as a kid that had them at 45%
lots of converts from islam there, as crazy as it sounds. And a decent amount of animists still left to be christianised too.
Wiki seems to indicate it's roughly 50/50 Christian to Muslim. Probably difficult to get a very precise count.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 12:42:44 PM
Wiki seems to indicate it's roughly 50/50 Christian to Muslim. Probably difficult to get a very precise count.
Back in the 90s I recall it being pretty close to 1/3 each for christian, muslim and animist, with muslims being slightly more and animists being slightly fewer. That's a pretty quick swing
Quote from: Maximus on May 21, 2013, 12:57:55 PMBack in the 90s I recall it being pretty close to 1/3 each for christian, muslim and animist, with muslims being slightly more and animists being slightly fewer. That's a pretty quick swing
It could be that it's just a classification swing rather than a practice swing, as it were.