- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
Ehhh. The US has a pathetic track record when it comes to humanitarian military intervention.
That's hardly a conspiracy theory.
No thread regarding #Bringourgirlsback?
Ehhh. The US has a pathetic track record when it comes to humanitarian military intervention.
That's hardly a conspiracy theory.
- 32,757
- 11,883
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
You should know the country you're speaking on before just casting that out there as a wide general truth though.
The U.S. doesn't need to run up in Nigeria. Nigeria is corrupt as ****. They're giving it up willingly. If anything it's why there isn't any (non-humanitarian) incentive for the U.S. to go over there.
- 74,614
- 24,037
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
I always viewed this incident as a distraction. Always shady when celebrities start hash tagging this stuff on their social media accounts.
- 68,213
- 103,523
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
There are real , major issues everyday, anything can be seen as a distraction. You're not really saying anything when you say that.
- 74,614
- 24,037
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
9/10 stuff on tv and in the media is a distraction.
- 68,213
- 103,523
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Yes, that is its purpose.
- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
The country in question is entirely irrelevant. I'm not suggesting the US wants to get involved for ulterior motives.
When the US intervenes for "humanitarian" reasons, we do more harm than good. How many civilians did Clinton kill to "liberate" Serbia? How many civilians killed in Libya, Korea, Vietnam?
But calling it the Orwellian 'collateral damage' makes it OK.
We never learn the rule of unintended consequences.
Last edited:
- 74,614
- 24,037
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
humanitarian reasons are always a veil for the true purpose.
- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
But even if we go in with the purest of intentions, we destroy generations.
- 74,614
- 24,037
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
honestly, i don't think there ever are pure intentions. how can you purely help others by delivering force and destruction? end of the day it's a game to acquire resources and distribute debt.
- 32,757
- 11,883
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
But the topic of conversation was the US trying to subvert Nigeria and it's government to exploit their resources, grow drugs, and bleed the region dry.
The country in question is of the upmost relevance.
And the "more harm than good" argument is shaky when you consider that the Nigerian government's stance thus far has literally been "do nothing and maybe they'll get tired of all of this and stop on their own accord."
There's literally no more harm that can be done in that region than what is currently occurring.
Northern Nigerians WANT foreign intervention. More well off southern Nigerians and people who have never set foot in Africa do not.
It's easy to make the "more harm than good" argument from the relative safety of your couch, reliable internet connection, and stable central government.
Last edited:
- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
That's not my argument, though. Whether or not we go to exploit resources is, again, irrelevant.
And here I am thinking this was a civil conversation.
When are you going over there to assist the investigation?
Last edited:
- 32,757
- 11,883
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
To your first point I hink the misunderstanding is that you chimed in in the middle of an already on going argument so it was assumed you were joining in in that.
And when did it get uncivil? I didn't hurl a single insult. I apologize if you took it that way.
But people, not just you -- the media is guilty of this mostly, like to say "Things will only get worse with foreign intervention."
But the reality for people there is they're dying every day right now and their own government refuses help. If your options are "die with no help" or "have a chance to survive but die anyway regardless of foreign help" you're going to pick the latter.
It's very easy for people, myself included, to look from the outside and judge a situation and say "well they're better off without us intervening" because we're not the ones desperate to live.
And for the record, I was born in Nigeria and my family heads back every other year with as much money, medicine, and supplies as we can muster. My dad and uncles built a church (blah) and school just last year. So miss me with that "when are you going over there" stuff.
And when did it get uncivil? I didn't hurl a single insult. I apologize if you took it that way.
But people, not just you -- the media is guilty of this mostly, like to say "Things will only get worse with foreign intervention."
But the reality for people there is they're dying every day right now and their own government refuses help. If your options are "die with no help" or "have a chance to survive but die anyway regardless of foreign help" you're going to pick the latter.
It's very easy for people, myself included, to look from the outside and judge a situation and say "well they're better off without us intervening" because we're not the ones desperate to live.
And for the record, I was born in Nigeria and my family heads back every other year with as much money, medicine, and supplies as we can muster. My dad and uncles built a church (blah) and school just last year. So miss me with that "when are you going over there" stuff.
Last edited:
- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
To your first point, I strongly disagree that the media is against foreign intervention. The media has a proud and storied history of beating the warm drums, regardless of the administration. Violence sells papers.
To your second point, that's great. But we're not talking about private, voluntary, charitable action. We're talking about sending American soldiers to fight kidnappers. So until you pick up a gun, you're sitting on the sidelines like everybody else.
- 1,944
- 1,343
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
I read that post...not sure what you want me to glean from it. Black people get killed everyday, wholesale, around the world including in the US. And I'm supposed to believe the US govt. is so supremely concerned about these random ones in Africa? Please.
I urge people in this thread to read a book called Confessions of An Economic Hitman, or at the very least search for it on YouTube. It talks about how we move into other countries under the guise of helping them with something when the goal is to establish control/siphon resources by way of subversion. The author talks about how we always say 'well their leaders are corrupt...' well who corrupted them? They didn't corrupt themselves. Then we say 'tribal warfare.' Who fanned the flames of tribal warfare? Who armed these guys, and funded both sides? Quid Bono (who benefits?)
Almost always, the answer is the West.
Last edited:
- 32,757
- 11,883
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
The point I was making wasn't "well I don't see you doing anything." The point was it's easy to critique aid (be it American or from wherever) as making matters worse when you're not the one in desperate need of it.
Makes matters worse for who? American citizens? Then yes, maybe. Worse in the sense that it goes from being inconsequential and something they have zero interest or stake in, to something that directly involves their children.
But if we're talking about from the perspective of the country imperiled and seeking that aid, then things can't get any worse.
Typically, when people say things like "it only makes it worse" it's them looking from the outside at a country like Iraq and saying "well we should have never gone there, it just made matters worse. Look at them now." And I'm saying that perspective lacks the consideration of the people actually living through the before and after.
Last edited:
- 1,577
- 1,119
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- 32,757
- 11,883
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
^ Look, there's no doubt that in the past the CIA has profited from African destabilization and turmoil.
But that is now this is. This isn't a huge CIA conspiracy. It's a lot simpler than that. Boko Haram started because of the global recession and people in a poor area losing the few jobs they had. Situations like that foster anger and radicalization like fertilizer.
Toss in a few Northerners willing to fund those angry men and encouraging them to unsettle the area under the guise of Islam and a government and military more concerned with their own personal safety and completely apathetic to the region affected, and you have the rise of Boko Haram.
That article up there is just propaganda to make it look like the Nigerian government's not to blame. "It's the West's fault. Always."
But that is now this is. This isn't a huge CIA conspiracy. It's a lot simpler than that. Boko Haram started because of the global recession and people in a poor area losing the few jobs they had. Situations like that foster anger and radicalization like fertilizer.
Toss in a few Northerners willing to fund those angry men and encouraging them to unsettle the area under the guise of Islam and a government and military more concerned with their own personal safety and completely apathetic to the region affected, and you have the rise of Boko Haram.
That article up there is just propaganda to make it look like the Nigerian government's not to blame. "It's the West's fault. Always."
Last edited:
- 6,237
- 2,674
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
any updates?
- 8,837
- 4,739
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Boko Haram Attack in Nigeria Killed 400, Officials Say
By Gbenga Akingbule and Ibrahim Abdul’Aziz Jun 5, 2014 4:33 PM ET
Attacks by suspected militants from the Boko Haram Islamist group left hundreds of people dead in villages in northeasternNigeria, according to local officials.
Attackers, some disguised in military uniforms, raided three villages on June 3 using “sophisticated weapons” and “started killing from house to house,” Abba Aji Khalil, chairman of a local vigilante group set up to combat the militants, said by phone late yesterday. At least 400 people are suspected to have died in those attacks. he said. There was another raid last night on two more villages, and 47 bodies have been found so far, Khalil said today.
Yuguda Ndurvua, a local clergyman, said villages in the area “are being attacked almost on a daily basis.” The June 3 attacks may have been a reprisal for an ambush in those villages carried out by a local Christian militia on June 1, in which 37 Islamist militants were killed, according to Peter Biye, a lawmaker representing the area in the House of Representatives.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-04/boko-haram-attack-in-nigeria-killed-400-official-says.html
no idea if this is accurate but if true, wow that is a lot
By Gbenga Akingbule and Ibrahim Abdul’Aziz Jun 5, 2014 4:33 PM ET
Attacks by suspected militants from the Boko Haram Islamist group left hundreds of people dead in villages in northeasternNigeria, according to local officials.
Attackers, some disguised in military uniforms, raided three villages on June 3 using “sophisticated weapons” and “started killing from house to house,” Abba Aji Khalil, chairman of a local vigilante group set up to combat the militants, said by phone late yesterday. At least 400 people are suspected to have died in those attacks. he said. There was another raid last night on two more villages, and 47 bodies have been found so far, Khalil said today.
Yuguda Ndurvua, a local clergyman, said villages in the area “are being attacked almost on a daily basis.” The June 3 attacks may have been a reprisal for an ambush in those villages carried out by a local Christian militia on June 1, in which 37 Islamist militants were killed, according to Peter Biye, a lawmaker representing the area in the House of Representatives.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-04/boko-haram-attack-in-nigeria-killed-400-official-says.html
no idea if this is accurate but if true, wow that is a lot
Last edited:
- 6,237
- 2,674
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
jesus ....
what in the world
what in the world
- 6,237
- 2,674
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- 32,757
- 11,883
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
As expected... Business people up there are the one's benefiting from all of this.