Could I be the youngest person posting here?I was speaking of Africa and not nearly as far back as 1947. That was a year before I saw the light of day. I respect your experience and understanding from that time in Asia.
Could I be the youngest person posting here?I was speaking of Africa and not nearly as far back as 1947. That was a year before I saw the light of day. I respect your experience and understanding from that time in Asia.
Gallup poll on Nigeria
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152780/No...oko-Haram.aspxWASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup surveys suggest Nigerians do not embrace the anti-Western rhetoric of Boko Haram, the militant movement behind a series of deadly attacks in the country. About 6 in 10 Nigerians believe greater interaction with the West is more of a benefit than a threat. In Boko Haram's Northeast home base, nearly 7 in 10 say the same. Majorities of residents in other northern regions, which are home to many Muslims, also view such interaction positively.
A few points.
1. The South East views greater interaction between Muslim and Western Societies as more of a threat than a benefit. What that means is that any attempt by the US to show greater understanding of the Muslim pov will be regarded with extreme suspicion by the South East.
There is a historical basis for this, the general belief was that during the colonial era the British favoured the Muslim North over the Christian South East. This culminated in the Nigerian Civil War - the Northern-led Nigerian Army triumphed over the mainly Christian Biafrans (85% of the weapons of the Nigerian Army were supplied by the British). So the distrust of the British (and by extension the Americans) still lingers in that part of Nigeria.
2. A full third of the population of the North-East is opposed to Sharia being a source of legislation. This should correspond to the Christian population in those areas. The figures in the South range from 64% to 83%. In the Middle Belt, it stands at 57%. So, Sharia is extremely unpopular in many parts of Nigeria.
3. Approval ratings for Nigeria's leadership (Jonathan) are relatively high in the South and Middle Belt but low in the North. So Jonathan may not be as vulnerable as he seems. These views were reinforced by an informal survey I carried out on the streets of Lagos (talking to taxi drivers, market women etc). Southerners seem to be much more forgiving of Jonathan's failings than most people assume.
You're in the top tenOriginally Posted by KingJaja
Could I be the youngest person posting here?And... Our first and only (posting) Nigerian
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Eight Boko Haram’s suspects killed in Borno
A TIMELY intervention by the Joint Task Force (JTF) yesterday prevented suspected Boko Haram gunmen from unleashing large-scale violence on the Baga Market, Maiduguri, Borno State.
But the Boko Haram suspects, who attacked the market around 1.00 p.m., had shot at three traders before officials of the JTF rushed to the market and repelled them.
After fighting off the Boko Haram gunmen, the JTF defused three bombs that were allegedly planted by the group in the market.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Local news says up thirty bodies at morgue. Not sure whether Boko Haram suspects or innocent bystanders.
Terror Label for Boko Haram Debated
We get it, terrorists are only terrorists when they attack Americans or directly threaten American interests or when kinetic actions against them can be milked for political purposes.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...139892403.htmlWhile violence involving Boko Haram extremists occurs on an almost daily basis in northern Nigeria, a debate is taking place in the United States over whether the radicals should be labeled as a foreign terrorist organization.
The U.S. State Department currently designates 49 extremist groups as foreign terrorist organizations. Only one of those groups comes from sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia's al-Shabab extremists.
Peter Lewis is the director of the African Studies program at The Johns Hopkins University in Washington. He calls Boko Haram a violent insurgency, but says it would be a mistake for the State Department to add it to the list of terror groups. "We are short on facts other than the undisputed fact that Boko Haram has become a deadly insurgency, not just a security problem, or a challenge, but an organized, capable insurgency in northern Nigeria," he said.
Lewis says very little is known about the group's leadership structure or possible external ties. He says much more is understood about the context of poverty, corruption, poor governance and religious rivalries within which Boko Haram operates.
"Boko Haram, while it is a small movement, while it is essentially a sect that has a claim on the loyalties and ideas of only a tiny minority of northern Nigerians, nonetheless taps into a broader sense of resentment, of anger, a sense of marginality and a broader catchment and demographic of alienated, unemployed, poorly educated northern youth," he said.
Lewis says alleged Boko Haram spokespeople may even have ties to the Nigerian government and pretend they have links with regional terrorist groups to attract more attention and outside funding in the effort to stop the insurgency.
One analyst in favor of the terror label is former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, Howard Jeter. He disagreed with Lewis at a recent Washington conference. "It is really a terrorist group. And Peter said let us not designate it [as such]. I would like to hear your explanation as to why. It is a terrorist group. If you kill 28 innocent people worshipping in a church, it is a terrorist group," he said.
Jeter was referring to bombings during Christmas holiday church services last year on the outskirts of the capital, Abuja.
Other Boko Haram attacks have targeted security forces and Muslims. Leaders who have come forward in the media have said they want to impose Islamic Sharia law. The name Boko Haram, which means "Western education is a sin," was initially given by critics of the radicals as a way to make fun of them.
Jean Herskovits, a professor of history at the State University of New York, recently wrote about Boko Haram in an opinion article in The New York Times. Herskovits said that if the United States placed the group on the foreign terror list, it would make more Nigerians fear and distrust America. She also said such a decision could turn the U.S. government into an enemy of many of northern Nigeria's Muslims. Herskovits says pressure is growing from some lawmakers and U.S. government agencies to label Boko Haram as a terrorist group.
John Campbell, from the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, says U.S.-Nigerian ties are extremely important, and that these debates should not be taken lightly. "We face the challenge of developing a policy response to Nigerian developments that reconciles our strategic interests with our abiding goal of promoting democracy and sustainable development in the giant of Africa," he said.
Last year, U.S. lawmakers from the House Committee on Homeland Security also proposed that Boko Haram be added to the list of designated foreign terror groups, but so far officials from the State Department's Africa bureau have disagreed, and the northern Nigerian radicals have remained off the list.
On its website, the State Department says the designation plays a critical role in the U.S. fight against terrorism and is an effective means to curtail support for terrorist activities and for pressuring groups to get out of the terror business.
One thing is for sure, anti-Boko Haram sentiment is rising in Northern Nigeria (especially among the business community). We can assure the USG, that when Nigeria is called upon next to support US strategic interests, the long period of sitting on the fence will not be forgotten.
The internal dynamics/politics of the "terrorist" label does not interest us. We only see a nation sitting on the fence.
Going back to early posts I see this:
Now I see this:
What changed?
A US "terrorist" designation isn't meant to define who is or isn't a terrorist, it's meant to define which terrorists are of concern to the US.
What would a US "terrorist" designation on BH accomplish, beyond unnecessarily internationalizing a domestic conflict, accelerating expectations of AFRICOM charging over the hill, and giving BH street cred with the AQ crowd? Wouldn't it just be seen as paving the way for that US involvement that you've already said you don't want?
Why exactly would you want a US "terrorist" designation on BH?
Last edited by Dayuhan; 02-22-2012 at 09:14 PM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Designate it as a terrorist organisation because it is the right thing to do.
Canada joined Britain to fight Germany during the Second World War, not because Canada was directly threatened or because Canada would not suffer losses or because Canada's reputation would suffer in the eyes of Germans. She joined the War effort because it was the right thing to do.
No one is asking the US to commit troops to Nigeria or to fight BH for us. The US should state the bleeding obvious: BH is a terrorist organisation, because it is the right thing to do.
(Since I made that remark, BH has metastasized in to what can be clearly termed as a terrorist organisation.)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks