'Nigeria: the context for violence' (2006-2013)

[davidbfpo]

A few weeks ago there were posts on the escape of a Boko haram bombing suspect from his police escort; now reported by Reuters as being back in custody and one hopes he survives the experience:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8190OL20120210

[Chowing]

An article published today in Nigeria's Vanguard is an extensive opinion piece, yet filled with examples. It states very clearly that northern political, commercial and Muslim elites have successfully eliminated or run the opposition out of large areas of the north and radicalized the loyalists. The radicalization has taken place in the many Islamic schools that have popped up in the past decade and the militant rhetoric of the former BH leader Mohammed Yusuf and others.

Many analysts have attributed the disturbances to unemployment rather than religion. An American envoy recently attributed it to the rivalry between the south and north. Yet again, the Central Bank of Nigeria governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi attributed it to the revenue sharing formula. Yet another northern elder, Adamu Ciroma, a Yobe indigene and a former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria blamed bad leadership. Nothing could be more misleading.

It is true that Yobe state had its own share of problems emanating from the Nigerian state, nobody can deny the fact that the various governments of the state allowed religion to steal the peace of the people only for it to turn round to blame poverty and ‘disgruntled elements in the society’. Take for example, as poor as Yobe state is, it boasts of probably the largest Mosques in West Africa (or so it was thought when it was commissioned some few years back).

The mosque which was strategically located along Maiduguri-Potiskum road has Koranic schools and Islamic library all built at government expenses. No similar edifice was built for the Christians even though the state belongs to both Muslims and Christians alike.

But Boko Haram, Emeka Okereke, an Igbo resident of the state responded ‘The state gets its own share of oil allocation as at when due. If they decide to use their own share to promote religion rather than provide essentia, whose fault?”

The painful thing however is that all of us living here are paying the price of the attempt to Arabize the state at all cost.”

Then there are several Koranic schools where people were indoctrinated from childhood. It is on records that that the foot soldiers of Boko Haram were trained in the local Koranic school where the pupils are taught that their primary allegiance goes to Islam and not the state and that they have the duty as Muslims to work towards enthroning the ideal Islamic state in Nigeria during their lifetime.

So when Mohammed Yusuf came with his message of replacing the man made laws with the laws of God, thousands flocked to him in drove as the messiah they had been waiting for.

He lambasted western democracy which Nigeria has adopted as anti-Islam and attributed the spread of corruption and poverty to the system. He advocated the enthronement of the ideal Islamic state as the recipe to the Nigeria problem of poverty and corruption.

Non Muslims who could understand his sermons in Hausa shivered as the preaching were practically inciting Muslims against the non-Muslims in the state. Although Yusuf was regularly invited by the security agencies that put him under watch, nothing came out of it as his disciples always bailed him out. He was the beautiful bride courted by top government officials, judicial officers, politicians and students. He was very popular because he said the things people were trained from childhood to accept as gospel truth. Politicians went to him for counseling and for successes in their endeavors.

Business men went to him for prayers. Students approached him for success in their examinations. In return, they supported his ‘missionary endeavors’. At Kanama in Yobe in the early 200s, his group was called ‘The Talibans’. A popular member of the group then was the son of a former governor of the state.

The above is just the conclusion of the article, it is much longer.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/02/u...medium=twitter

[KingJaja]

Very interesting read. Read with a pinch of salt.

The Vanguard does have an agenda, it is a Southern paper with bias towards the Igbo ethnic group. To get a balanced view of Nigeria, read:

1. The Daily Trust - voice of the North: http://dailytrust.com.ng/
2. The Punch http://www.punchng.com/ and The Tribune - voice of the South West http://tribune.com.ng/sun/
3. The Sun http://www.sunnewsonline.com/and The Vanguard - voice of the South-East http://www.vanguardngr.com/
4. Thisday www.thisdaylive.com andGuardian http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/ - more balanced, but tend towards a Southern bias.

[KingJaja]

All said, this is a much better explanation than the tepid and useless "this has nothing to do with religion, it is politics and North-South rivalry" excuses offered by legions of Western diplomats, politicians and academics.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's article in The Newsweek offers an explanation of this wider trend than anything coming out from the mouths of so-called Western Experts.

Ali wrote about a Global War on Christians in the Muslim World. As a Christian from Nigeria, I sometimes believe that the West is ever to ready to excuse bad behaviour by Muslims against Christians.

And we know the reason - oil. The fact that Saudi Arabia is so critical to the economic future of the West makes the West extremely reluctant to speak the truth to power. Think about it, Women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia - yet the US apparently doesn't see anything wrong about it.

(Yes, I know a few noises are made from time to time, but the State Department isn't really serious about change in Saudi Arabia).

Remember, the lower part of Africa is rapidly Christianising and the Western habit of excusing away the actions of the worst Islamists (as long as they don't attack Westerners) will not be tolerated for long.

Think about it, there is an immense effort by Western academics to excuse away the implementation of Sharia law in an ostensibly secular nation (Nigeria). This is moral cowardice, especially when we remember that the leading nation in the West (the United States) was set up by those fleeing religious persecution in Europe.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...lim-world.html

[Bill Moore]

Posted by King Jaja

Ali wrote about a Global War on Christians in the Muslim World. As a Christian from Nigeria, I sometimes believe that the West is ever to ready to excuse bad behaviour by Muslims against Christians.

And we know the reason - oil.

I agree with the first part of your post, but disagree that oil is what drives this behavior. I think the West has a collective sense of guilt from its colonial past where it exploited people around the world. A past that is constantly re-lived in the minds of the politically correct, so much so that they assume any values that the West embraces must be evil and undesirable. It was this same mindset that enabled our academia and their brain numb students to embrace the the so called beauty of communism, while simultaneously the communists were murdering millions of their own people. It is the same mindset that makes many liberals in the West hesitant to criticize Muslims who conduct gross human rights violations against Christians and others, yet they will rapidly attack those in the West who suggest we shouldn't tolerate this behavior by accusing them of being intolerant.

I live in the West and can't make sense of toxic political correct thinking that pollutes our values, but I'm quite certain it has little to do with oil and more to do with a mythology the liberal political correct have created. In its own way it is a religion, and consequently it has the power of religion over those under its spell.

[Ken White]

I live in the West and can't make sense of toxic political correct thinking that pollutes our values, but I'm quite certain it has little to do with oil and more to do with a mythology the liberal political correct have created. In its own way it is a religion, and consequently it has the power of religion over those under its spell.

I agree...

[tequila]

Posted by King Jaja


I agree with the first part of your post, but disagree that oil is what drives this behavior. I think the West has a collective sense of guilt from its colonial past where it exploited people around the world. A past that is constantly re-lived in the minds of the politically correct, so much so that they assume any values that the West embraces must be evil and undesirable. It was this same mindset that enabled our academia and their brain numb students to embrace the the so called beauty of communism, while simultaneously the communists were murdering millions of their own people. It is the same mindset that makes many liberals in the West hesitant to criticize Muslims who conduct gross human rights violations against Christians and others, yet they will rapidly attack those in the West who suggest we shouldn't tolerate this behavior by accusing them of being intolerant.

I live in the West and can't make sense of toxic political correct thinking that pollutes our values, but I'm quite certain it has little to do with oil and more to do with a mythology the liberal political correct have created. In its own way it is a religion, and consequently it has the power of religion over those under its spell.

The remarkable power of this liberal guilt and forbearance towards Islam somehow did not prevent the U.S. from attacking several Muslim countries and killing thousands of Muslims in the past ten years or so. Perhaps it is this liberal guilt that only allows Pres. Obama to fire Hellfire missiles into the odd Waziri town rather than levelling it completely with a B-52 strike?

Perhaps American lack of concern for Christians in Islamic countries is because human rights in foreign countries has never been a guiding light of American foreign policy when it clashes with American interests? Jimmy Carter overlooked the Kwangju Massacre in South Korea. President Reagan aided and abetted scores of human rights violators around the world, including gems like Rios Montt and Saddam Hussein, while happily pumping billions into Pakistan while Zia gutted what was left of a secular Pakistan while brutally persecuting Ahmadis, Shia, and Christians. Has any President cared at all about the abuses towards Christians or Tibetans in China?

[KingJaja]

Perhaps American lack of concern for Christians in Islamic countries is because human rights in foreign countries has never been a guiding light of American foreign policy when it clashes with American interests? Jimmy Carter overlooked the Kwangju Massacre in South Korea. President Reagan aided and abetted scores of human rights violators around the world, including gems like Rios Montt and Saddam Hussein, while happily pumping billions into Pakistan while Zia gutted what was left of a secular Pakistan while brutally persecuting Ahmadis, Shia, and Christians. Has any President cared at all about the abuses towards Christians or Tibetans in China?

The level concern showed for the Tibetans is unparalleled, even if it is largely rhetorical and driven by Hollywood. The Dalai Lama has been deified in the West and a theatre of silly gestures has been built around his travel schedule.

That silliness was extended to the Dalai Lama's non visit to South Africa last year. There is no Christian leader accorded the same respect from starry eyed Hollywood dupes.

We all know that there is a deep gulf between what the US says and what the US does. But isn't it high time the US looks at the national security implications of its actions/inactions.

The fact is that the US has lost the Muslim World (most of it) for at least a generation. It is more beneficial for the US to firm up its relationships with parts of the World with a natural affinity to much of American culture (Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, India and East Asia).

In Nigeria, a nation divided between Christians and Muslims, the US is pushing for a consulate in Kano and wants to colaborate with Islamic scholars on the study of ancient Islamic texts. All these initiatives are well-intentioned but bone-headed. Situating a consulate in Kano (not too far from Abuja, anyway) tells the rest of the nation that the Muslim North is worthy of special attention from the US. Colaborating with Islamic scholars on the study of ancient Islamic texts pushes that message even further with the Christian population.

(No plans for a consulate in the Niger Delta).

All said, there is a growing perception among Christians (a rapidly growing segment of the population of the Sahel region) that the Americans, like the British before them, have a soft spot for Muslims and they will bend over backwards to accomodate any and every excuse (no matter how specious), given for Muslim misbehaviour.

For the love of God, please correct that perception.

[KingJaja]

The remarkable power of this liberal guilt and forbearance towards Islam somehow did not prevent the U.S. from attacking several Muslim countries and killing thousands of Muslims in the past ten years or so. Perhaps it is this liberal guilt that only allows Pres. Obama to fire Hellfire missiles into the odd Waziri town rather than levelling it completely with a B-52 strike?

Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever is going on in Somalia was/is to satisfy your blood lust. America went crazy after 9/11 and needed to kill alot of people to make a point.

On a normal day, even when the political costs are minimal the US is typically reluctant to say a word about Christian persecution, anywhere (Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt).

The British are even worse. They are fully aware of the garbage coming from the mouths of Saudi funded preachers. They not only tolerate them but allow them to thrive. The French on the other hand, are willing to set boundaries.

We think with justification, that the West is full of cowards. It is alright to insult every and any religious figure except Mohammed, why? It can't all be liberal guilt - there are Buddha jokes. It is something deeper, moral cowardice in the face of fatwas and the fear of losing Saudi support and oil.

Prove me wrong.

[Ken White]

The remarkable power of this liberal guilt and forbearance towards Islam somehow did not prevent the U.S. from attacking several Muslim countries and killing thousands of Muslims in the past ten years or so.,,

The US, broadly does not suffer from that guilt over Colonialism, we delude ourselves into believing we are not and never were really a Colonial power...

The forbearance toward Islam is political correctness to the tenth power and little more. It is observed by the literati but mostly ignored by all us Rednecks -- and the NCA.

Unless it suits, of course. As is true of the rest of your post which is generally correct. That set of attributes is unlikely to change...

[KingJaja]

The forbearance toward Islam is political correctness to the tenth power and little more. It is observed by the literati but mostly ignored by all us Rednecks -- and the NCA.

What the rednecks think about Islam is of little importance to me - it has zero impact on US foreign policy. (I've visited freerepublic, I know what they think).

The US State Department is the face of America I see. State is full of people who cannot bend over backwards enough to appease even the most fundamentalist Islamists.

PS: What did the rednecks do to stop the decimation of the Christian population of Iraq. (If I recall, you had more than 100,000 troops there - many of them rednecks).

[Dayuhan]

All said, there is a growing perception among Christians (a rapidly growing segment of the population of the Sahel region) that the Americans, like the British before them, have a soft spot for Muslims and they will bend over backwards to accomodate any and every excuse (no matter how specious), given for Muslim misbehaviour.

For the love of God, please correct that perception.

Are you suggesting that the US take the side of the Christians?

Typically these situations are not quite the simple victim/aggressor dynamics they are made out to be by the simplistic media. Is it not true that Christian-dominated governments in the south of Nigeria have for decades systematically neglected the Muslim north? Have you not spoken yourself of the illiteracy, the unemployment, the failure to invest in even the most basic infrastructure, even as oil billions are squandered to no effect? Is it not the case that the south is largely reaping what it has sowed? Shall we then support the Christians when they are faced with the consequences of their own government's choices... just because they are Christian?

Of course those who face the consequences aren't the ones who made the decisions, but that's always the case. I do not want the US taking sides in these fights.

Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever is going on in Somalia was/is to satisfy your blood lust. America went crazy after 9/11 and needed to kill alot of people to make a point.

Iraq, yes. Afghanistan to a lesser extent: there were real issues there, and the Taliban got what they had coming. Somalia, I don't see much going on there that involves US action.

What you seem to miss is that the blood lust (and a rather more legitimate desire to eliminate those who attacked us and those who protected them) and the various indulgences shown to Muslims are two sides of the same coin. 9/11 inspired both a desire for revenge and an intense round of "why do they hate us and how can we make them stop" hand-wringing. Being a contradictory lot (like most of the species), Americans are quite capable of acting simultaneously on both impulses. The idea (using the term loosely) seems to be to kill the bad Muslims who attack us and to be very very nice to those who are just angry and haven't attacked us yet. In practice, of course, this devolves into a confusing mass of contradictory statement and action.

On a normal day, even when the political costs are minimal the US is typically reluctant to say a word about Christian persecution, anywhere (Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt).

We've learned (or some of us have) to always question tales of persecution. Sectarian conflict in Indonesia and the southern Philippines is as much about land and migration as about religion, and it's in no way about Muslims persecuting Christians... plenty of blame to share on both sides there.

Is the Nigeria situation just about Muslims persecuting Christians, or is it a Muslim backlash against decades of neglect by southern governments... or a bit of both?

[tequila]

The level concern showed for the Tibetans is unparalleled, even if it is largely rhetorical and driven by Hollywood. The Dalai Lama has been deified in the West and a theatre of silly gestures has been built around his travel schedule.

That silliness was extended to the Dalai Lama's non visit to South Africa last year. There is no Christian leader accorded the same respect from starry eyed Hollywood dupes.

You seem to be confusing cultural cachet with U.S. government foreign policy.

We think with justification, that the West is full of cowards. It is alright to insult every and any religious figure except Mohammed, why? It can't all be liberal guilt - there are Buddha jokes. It is something deeper, moral cowardice in the face of fatwas and the fear of losing Saudi support and oil.

On the one hand, we are so terrified of Muslims that we dare not offend them - on the other we are so consumed with bloodlust that we don't mind killing tens of thousands of them. These two ideas of what America's attitude toward Islam is appears to be a bit schizophrenic, to say the least.

[Ken White]

What the rednecks think about Islam is of little importance to me - it has zero impact on US foreign policy. (I've visited freerepublic, I know what they think).

Do not confuse the squirrels at Free Republic with ordinary voters. Bad mistake, that...

The US State Department is the face of America I see. State is full of people who cannot bend over backwards enough to appease even the most fundamentalist Islamists.

The US State Department, indeed the entire US Foreign Policy establishment which encompasses far more people, is comprised of those literati I mentioned. It should come as no surprise they are politically correct. You may also be aware that, unfortunately, those Literati and that establishment share your view of Redneck thoughts -- which was the point I was making with the statemtent and which you obviously missed. .

PS: What did the rednecks do to stop the decimation of the Christian population of Iraq. (If I recall, you had more than 100,000 troops there - many of them rednecks).

Very Little. Most of them were in the Armed Forces of the US which frown on their people taking independent action. Said Forces did little to nothing because they were totally unprepared for sectarian violence and there was no policy on what to do. Thus if you want to blame the US for its failures in Iraq, go ahead but do realize that blaming individuals or groups of military people is sort of silly as they are not allowed to act on their consciences -- if they have one; some do, some don't.

You might also note that the Christians in Iraq were not the only persons or sect there the US did not protect.

[KingJaja]

Are you suggesting that the US take the side of the Christians?

Typically these situations are not quite the simple victim/aggressor dynamics they are made out to be by the simplistic media. Is it not true that Christian-dominated governments in the south of Nigeria have for decades systematically neglected the Muslim north? Have you not spoken yourself of the illiteracy, the unemployment, the failure to invest in even the most basic infrastructure, even as oil billions are squandered to no effect? Is it not the case that the south is largely reaping what it has sowed? Shall we then support the Christians when they are faced with the consequences of their own government's choices... just because they are Christian?

Of course those who face the consequences aren't the ones who made the decisions, but that's always the case. I do not want the US taking sides in these fights.

I probably didn't fill you in on all the details of Nigeria's history. I am sorry.

Below is a list of all Nigerian Heads of Government / Heads of State from 1960 to present.

1. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa (Northerner) 1960-66
2. General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi (Southerner) 1966. (In power for a few months was killed in the coup that triggered the Civil War).
3. General Yakubu Gowon (Northerner) 1966 - 75
4. General Murtala Mohammed (Northerner) 1975 - 76
5. General Olusegun Obasanjo (Southerner) 1976 - 79
6. Alhaji Shehu Aliyu Shagari (Northerner) 1979 - 83
7. General Muhammadu Buhari (Northerner) 1983 - 85
8. General Ibrahim Babangida (Northerner) 1985 - 93
9. General Sanni Abacha (Northerner) 1993 - 98
10. General Abdulsalami Abubakar (Northerner) 1998 - 99
11. Olusegun Obasanjo (Southerner) 1999- 2007
12. Alhaji Umaru Yar'adua (Northerner) 2007 - 2010
13. Dr. Goodluck Jonathan (Southerner) 2010 to present.

From the list it is clear that Nigeria has been ruled by Muslim dominated governments for most of its independence. Christians have been in charge of Nigeria for barely a decade.

I know that Western Media (with its penchant for laziness) repeats the line that Christian-dominated governments have systematically neglected the Muslim North. It is more accurate to say that Muslim-dominated governments have systematically neglected both the Muslim North and the Christian South. The only thing is that Southerners (both Christian and Muslim) are better at adapting to bad governance and more enterprising than Northerners.

Let me give you an example. In my hometown, we have electricity only because we contributed money to buy the required transformers, switch gear, wires and electricity poles to hook up to the national grid. An observer would notice better access to the national grid in Nigeria's South and come to the conclusion that the South is more favoured by the government, it is not true - many towns and villages in Nigeria's South have the basic neccessities of modern life because of communal effort.

Nigeria's North has never had a problem of access to government or funding relative to the rest of nation. It has a problem of leadership and misplaced priorities.

Kano State in Nigeria's North passed a budget of 210 billion naira this year, which is well above a billion dollars (colossal by African standards). This figure is more than twice the total amount of US military and development assistance to Nigeria, yet all the states in Nigeria's far North send less students to universities than a single state in Nigeria's South.

Before you suggest that quantum of funding is a recent development, I will tell you up front that Kano and other Northern states have always been better funded than most states in the South. (This goes way back to the early seventies).

Where does the money go?

I have a love for figures and facts (I once worked at KPMG). I came accross the details of the Kano State budget for 2004/05 and was shocked to discover that Kano State spends almost ten times as much on Hajj pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia as it does on Higher Education! These figures are readily available if you have access to Kano State records.

Take a trip to Maiduguri (the epicenter of Boko Haram) and observe the huge, beautiful Mosque built with government money. I challenge you to point to any state in Nigeria's South were government has so misplaced its priorities as to take construction of Churches more seriously than education of children. (This is not to say that Southern governors are not incompetent, but Northern governors take the cake).

It is too politically correct to talk about cultural and religious practices - so they are glossed over, but they have a huge impact on child nutrition, welfare and social development.

I spent almost a year as a consultant on a restructuring project in North Eastern Nigeria (this was 2002/03 before Boko Haram became a household name). We were assigned a cook and I got talking with him, his salary was very low yet he had 2 wives and 8 children. He was offered a voluntary release package of around $6,000 and he was open to the idea of marrying another wife.

Polygamy is rife in Northern Nigeria and that it is why it is extremely difficult to break the vicious cycle of poverty. In general, Christians from Northern Nigeria are better educated and more able to escape this vicious trap because they are less likely to have polygamous households.

Take a trip to Kano and observe ba sukan shiga (do not enter) written on the walls of some compounds. This is the surest sign that women are in purdah. The practice of not allowing the woman to leave the house and severely restricting the rights of women is more responsible for the abysymally low levels of female literacy in Nigeria's Muslim North (as low as 5%) than any perceived lack of funding.

Take a trip to Kano and observe millions of feral children (almajiris). No other culture in Nigeria (both Muslim and Christian) treats its children so irresponsibly. No Northern Christian would send his children to an itinerant teacher with the full knowledge that they would be largely sustained by begging.

In summary, the problem of Northern Nigeria is the problem of a proud ancient feudal culture (both the Hausa States and the Kanem-Bornu Empire are a thousand years old) that is still debating whether to join the modern World or set up an alternative Islamic civilisation. The flurry of declarations of Shari'a law in 1999 was merely one side staking its claim. The Northern progressive movement spear-headed by Aminu Kano in defence of the Talakawas (commoners) was attempt to move this feudal culture straight into the modern World. Sadly, Aminu Kano's movement seems to be dead.

Boko Haram is another side staking its claim and its arguments are quite persuasive. Think about it - would an organisation with a moniker "Western education is sacrilege" be popular among Muslims is education obsessed Malaysia? Or even India?

Now you know the facts. The worrying thing is that most Western analysts know these truths but deliberately push the line of a "marginalized North" and a "more prosperous" South without bothering to explain the context. Other misleading terms are "Muslim North and Christian South" - the truth is more complex than that.

[KingJaja]

On the one hand, we are so terrified of Muslims that we dare not offend them - on the other we are so consumed with bloodlust that we don't mind killing tens of thousands of them. These two ideas of what America's attitude toward Islam is appears to be a bit schizophrenic, to say the least.

Killing ragheads (as Americans are wont to call them) is different from taking a stand against bad Islamic practices. The Saudis are not going to bothered if America kills a million ragheads. They'll be bothered (and raise a stink) if the US/West is percieved to be insulting Islam or Wahabbism. This is why the US treads very softly on these issues - the Chevrons and Halliburtons of this World don't want any problems with the Saudis.

Cast your mind a few years back, an Afghan man converted to Christianity and we had the unfortunate spectacle of a nation under the protection of the American Military (America was formed by those who fled religious persecution in Europe) sentencing the man to death. The same gung-ho self confidence that characterises America was totally lacking in this case and it was the Italians who finally offered him asylum.

Killing ragheads has never been a problem, but taking a stand where it really counts, when it is even in America's interest (a lack of religious freedom in the Islamic World is sure to breed the next generation of terrorists etc) almost never happens.

It is easy to kill, it takes real courage to speak the truth to the religious and cultural powers that lead to terrorism in the first place. America lacks that courage (I am not saying my country has the courage either).

[KingJaja]

Tequila,

What accounts for US and Britain's loud activism in defense of gay rights in Sub-Saharan Africa and their apparent silence on the same topic in North Africa and the Middle East?

Does it have anything to do with the fact Sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian and North Africa and the Middle-East is largely Muslim?

You'll tell me that Sub-Saharan African nations depend heavily on the West for aid - but so do Egypt, Yemen and even Pakistan.

Why will Obama stick out his neck for Sub-Saharan African gays but remain silent when gays are executed in Saudi Arabia?

Killing people is neither a sign of strength nor is it a sign of bravery. Both the Nigerian government, the US government and Saddam have killed a lot of Muslims, that doesn't make any of them brave.

The brave speak the truth to power.

The contrast between Obama's activism on gay rights in Sub-Saharan Africa (everyone knows the name of that Ugandan legislator and he so-called evangelical sponsors) and his apparent silence on the treatment of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia (heck even women are not allowed to drive there!) is the best illustration of moral cowardice I've ever seen.

And don't give me that line on US interests, it doesn't wash.

[tequila]

And don't give me that line on US interests, it doesn't wash.

What doesn't wash about it? That U.S. interests abroad trump "moral courage" or human rights idealism?

Sorry, but that's the entirety of my argument. U.S. foreign policy will, generally speaking, always be about interests first and human rights/ideology second. I'm not sure why this should be otherwise.

What accounts for US and Britain's loud activism in defense of gay rights in Sub-Saharan Africa and their apparent silence on the same topic in North Africa and the Middle East?

Does it have anything to do with the fact Sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian and North Africa and the Middle-East is largely Muslim?

No, probably not. I'm unaware of any initiative to push gay rights in SSA other than the State Dept. objecting to the recent proposal in Uganda to subject homosexuals to the death penalty. The State Dept. also recently objected to Egyptian attempts to arrest foreign funding of civil society groups. Why did this occur? Probably because there was some action on the part of the Egyptian military to crush civil society groups that required a U.S. response.

Perhaps it is this you are talking about.

U.S. backs Gay Rights Abroad

In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here, the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them.

“Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct,” Mrs. Clinton said at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, “but in fact they are one and the same.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton specified how to give the initiative teeth.

Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council’s deputy spokeswoman, said the administration was “not cutting or tying” foreign aid to changes in other nation’s practices.

You'll tell me that Sub-Saharan African nations depend heavily on the West for aid - but so do Egypt, Yemen and even Pakistan.

Why will Obama stick out his neck for Sub-Saharan African gays but remain silent when gays are executed in Saudi Arabia?

If you think the above is "sticking his neck out", I would disagree.

Killing people is neither a sign of strength nor is it a sign of bravery. Both the Nigerian government, the US government and Saddam have killed a lot of Muslims, that doesn't make any of them brave.

Committing your own troops to invade and occupy other countries is, if nothing else, a significant commitment of political capital and national effort. War carries significant risks and guaranteed costs, certainly more than political grandstanding.

[Stan]

And don't give me that line on US interests, it doesn't wash.

Jaja,
Given your education and intellect, I never thought you would go for the jugular with one of the SWJ's best members.

This is unbecoming of you.

[Ken White]

The US political establishment and literati are determinedly and militantly pro Gay and anti religion -- particularly Christian -- but otherwise hew to politically correctness. Thus it's okay to their mind to berate Christians and particularly to berate Christians for picking on Gays. Conversely Muslims must be 'respected' as different, not Christian and can therefor get an unearned pass on many things.

It is notable for example that the rather aggressive Feminist movement here in the US is surprisingly and distressingly silent about the oppression of females by Islam...

You are quite correct that it is cowardice. It is indeed cowardice of a sort but it is not US national or even governmental cowardice. You are, I believe rather incorrect in assuming someone might claim it's due to 'US interests.' As Tequila writes, that will in the end trump many things but on this particular subject as you state it, the issue is not about US interests, it's far more about the small 'l' liberal mantras and flawed 'political correctness'. As Tequila also notes, there's been no sticking out of necks on the topic -- and sending one's Troops off to fight others 11,000 or more miles away for whatever reason is a bit different than just killing some of one's own people because they're annoying...