Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
Not so paranoid when you consider that there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Shell was complicit in the murder of prominent Niger Delta activists, but paranoid all the same.
There are obvious reasons why an oil company would want to dispose of activists seeking greater local control of oil production. What reason would anyone in the west have to support a radical Islamic group with AQ links. The typical Western reaction to those is knee-jerk horror.

Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
The default position for most Western diplomats and academics is to absolve Islam / Muslims of blame. This is usually dismissed to "liberal brain washing" in the States, but in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society like Nigeria it is seen as the latest evidence that the West favours Northern Muslims over the rest of the nation.
First off, the US or "The West" have no business assigning blame or taking sides in an internal Nigerian conflict.

The idea that the US or "The West" is somehow pro-Muslim is a bit startling, and you'd certainly have a hard time convincing any Muslims that this is the case. There's a bit of neutralist academic/diplomatic blather, but that's not much more than a tepid and generally ineffective attempt to counter the prevailing belief that the US is violently and absolutely anti-Muslim.

Even beyond the reality that the US has no business assigning blame in other people's conflicts, it would be silly to lay blame for BH (or AQ, or anyone else) on "Islam" or "Muslims" generically. Focus on the target, no use in dissipating resources fighting those you don't have to fight.

A reasonable desire to avoid any involvement in a conflict that is manifestly none of our business should not be interpreted as support for any side.