2,000 dead: Massacre deadliest in Nigerian history

[Lovelife090994]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/10/nigeria-boko-haram/21552437/

Natalie DiBlasio
As many as 2,000 people have been killed in Islamist extremist group Boko Haram's deadliest massacre yet in Nigeria, Amnesty International reported.

District head Baba Abba Hassan said most victims were children, women and elderly people who could not run fast enough when insurgents drove into the town of Baga, firing rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles on town residents.

"The human carnage perpetrated by Boko Haram terrorists in Baga was enormous," said Muhammad Abba Gava, a spokesman for poorly armed civilians in a defense group that fights Boko Haram.

Hundreds of bodies were strewn in the bush in Nigeria from the attack.

"If reports that the town was largely razed to the ground and that hundreds or even as many as 2,000 civilians were killed are true, this marks a disturbing and bloody escalation of Boko Haram's ongoing onslaught against the civilian population," said Daniel Eyre, Nigeria researcher for Amnesty International.

The U.S. State Department condemned the recent escalation of attacks, saying in a statement that Boko Haram "shows no regard for human life" and "all those responsible for these recurring terrorist attacks must be held accountable."

"Even in the face of these horrifying attacks, terrorist organizations like Boko Haram must not distract Nigeria from carrying out credible and peaceful elections that reflect the will of the Nigerian people," the statement reads.

Mike Omeri, the government spokesman on the insurgency, said fighting continued into Friday for Baga, a town on the border with Chad where insurgents seized a key military base on Jan. 3 and attacked again on Wednesday.

"Security forces have responded rapidly and have deployed significant military assets and conducted airstrikes against militant targets," Omeri said in a statement.

The previous bloodiest day in the uprising involved militants gunning down unarmed detainees freed in a March 14 attack on Giwa military barracks in Maiduguri city. Amnesty said then that satellite imagery indicated more than 600 people were killed that day.

More than 1 million people have been displaced inside Nigeria and hundreds of thousands have fled across its borders into Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria.

Contributing: The Associated Press


I had to find this story... It happened days ago but few major American news sources are saying much of anything on it! Some say 150-2000, whole villages wiped off the Earth... I don't care how many are dead, this is sickening. I can't even... Oh I can't... 2,000 lives dead and instead everyone is worried about fashion or a puppy... I don't even know what to see.

[Magus]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/10/nigeria-boko-haram/21552437/


I had to find this story... It happened days ago but few major American news sources are saying much of anything on it! Some say 150-2000, whole villages wiped off the Earth... I don't care how many are dead, this is sickening. I can't even... Oh I can't... 2,000 lives dead and instead everyone is worried about fashion or a puppy... I don't even know what to see.

May they find peace in their rest. Tragic, indeed.

[Lovelife090994]

May they find peace in their rest. Tragic, indeed.

Yes indeed. Things like this leave me speechless.

[SethfromMI]

I have seen some articles. it is so sad to see what is going on and you are right, this is not being covered enough

[dirtyboxer55]

Islamist extremist group

surprising

[Stronk Serb]

Can someone tell me what is the reason of the uprising of Boko Haram? I mean this stuff is horrible but why did they rise? Is it post-colonial tensions because the colonial powers divided the region with a ruler or something else?

[Magus]

Can someone tell me what is the reason of the uprising of Boko Haram? I mean this stuff is horrible but why did they rise? Is it post-colonial tensions because the colonial powers divided the region with a ruler or something else?

They are an offshoot of Al-Qaeda based in Western Africa. Al-Shabab, also an offshoot, currently controls Eastern Africa.

[Lovelife090994]

They are an offshoot of Al-Qaeda based in Western Africa. Al-Shabab, also an offshoot, currently controls Eastern Africa.

They control Eastern Africa now?

[Stronk Serb]

They are an offshoot of Al-Qaeda based in Western Africa. Al-Shabab, also an offshoot, currently controls Eastern Africa.

In my opinion, they should be hunted down and put down like the butchers they are. Unfortunately, the locals can't/won't do it and a foreign intervention is like adding gasoline to the fire. It's disgusting what the islamists are doing. Unfortunately it's Africa so none of the major powers care.

[Magus]

In my opinion, they should be hunted down and put down like the butchers they are. Unfortunately, the locals can't/won't do it and a foreign intervention is like adding gasoline to the fire. It's disgusting what the islamists are doing. Unfortunately it's Africa so none of the major powers care.

We need Stronk Kebab Removers (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hud_L3b85hA/hqdefault.jpg) in Africa, man.

[Stronk Serb]

We need Stronk Kebab Removers (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hud_L3b85hA/hqdefault.jpg) in Africa, man.


Kebab removal is in need, I agree.
I already classified the kebabs so we know which ones to remove. The picture is hilarious.

[Dennis98]

Can someone tell me what is the reason of the uprising of Boko Haram? I mean this stuff is horrible but why did they rise? Is it post-colonial tensions because the colonial powers divided the region with a ruler or something else?

Because of religious situation ... Nigeria has more thnan 170m of people , but , more than 51% are Muslims , and Christians with 40% and something , rest are animists ... In so heterogeneous country , peace is just elusive dream .. Plus both religious groups are prone to violence , and extremely fanatic , especially Muslims .. Other reasons are economic , so much people with one of lowest GDP's on the World , and with high corruption that isn't uncommon in lands of "third World" , basically , Nigerian economy "survives" thanks to even rare and small foreign capital investments , plus Nigeria had population growth more than 30m during 2006-2010 ! Anyway , lets back on demographic situation .. In case like this , peace is elusive dream as I said and plus all other problems .. Country that has more than 25% of one Religious , national community of better said minority , by the unwritten rule should have right for their own territory . In this case , richer North is Muslim , and poorer South is Christian , and that is main reason of conflict , money as always .. Other reason is because their president that was elected in 2010 , and he's CHRISTIAN , so that's also big reason ... Same would be , if Albanian would be president of Serbia , for example , in that case , country just couldn't function normal . About colonizers , all colonizers are same , they come , take , loot , kill , burn , expel .. And then when time came , they left Nigeria in total chaos , same it is now .

[Gamma Male]

Too bad Niger doesn't have any oil, the US military could be really effective at fighting Boko Haram.

[Capto]

Too bad Niger doesn't have any oil, the US military could be really effective at fighting Boko Haram.

Given that the article was about Nigeria, I'm rather confused by this statement.

Of course, given that Boko Haram does control some territory in Niger, I don't suppose this is too far out of left field, but I am still wondering.

Thought I suppose it's not as great a travesty as suggesting that Nigeria lacks petrol.

[Gamma Male]

Given that the article was about Nigeria, I'm rather confused by this statement.

Of course, given that Boko Haram does control some territory in Niger, I don't suppose this is too far out of left field, but I am still wondering.

Thought I suppose it's not as great a travesty as suggesting that Nigeria lacks petrol.

My bad, I confused the two countries.

And I wasn't really serious by the way, I was joking about American Imperialism. Because of oil. Y'know. It was a joke.

[Capto]

My bad, I confused the two countries.

And I wasn't really serious by the way, I was joking about American Imperialism. Because of oil. Y'know. It was a joke.

Naturally.

Though I think it might be nice to know that Nigeria is one of the major petrol-producing countries in the world today.

[Gamma Male]

Naturally.

Though I think it might be nice to know that Nigeria is one of the major petrol-producing countries in the world today.

And the second Boko Haram began to stop that or attempt to quell Nigeria's output of petrol into the global market the US military would make up some phony excuse to intervene.

[Capto]

And the second Boko Haram began to stop that or attempt to quell Nigeria's output of petrol into the global market the US military would make up some phony excuse to intervene.

Well then it's nice that that isn't, given their current geographic location, very possible.

[phuckphace]

I think Dennis98 has summed up the situation fairly well. multiculuralism never works but it hardcore doesn't work in sub-Saharan Africa. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide)

I personally wouldn't set foot in a place where the locals believe that raping infants will cure AIDS. but I guess if I were on the MIC payroll I'd dash right in.

[Kahn]

Rest in peace, all those innocent people who were inadvertently slain in yet another senseless act of violence.

[thatcountrykid]

In my opinion, they should be hunted down and put down like the butchers they are. Unfortunately, the locals can't/won't do it and a foreign intervention is like adding gasoline to the fire. It's disgusting what the islamists are doing. Unfortunately it's Africa so none of the major powers care.

Well we could make war on them or let them kill civilians. One or the other.

[Capto]

Well we could make war on them or let them kill civilians. One or the other.

It's expressly !not! one or the other.

There are totally all sorts of geopolitically circumstantially correct (if not sociopolitically correct, per se) solutions that would be plenty interesting to try out.

[Exocet]

I'm surprised that USA didn't send its troops yet.

[thatcountrykid]

It's expressly !not! one or the other.

There are totally all sorts of geopolitically circumstantially correct (if not sociopolitically correct, per se) solutions that would be plenty interesting to try out.

It's not about what's interesting. It's not an experiment. It's either let them die or kill the bastards doing it.

[Capto]

It's not about what's interesting. It's not an experiment. It's either let them die or kill the bastards doing it.

nope.avi

[thatcountrykid]

nope.avi

Well what's your diplomatic solution to a radical terror group?

[Lovelife090994]

Well what's your diplomatic solution to a radical terror group?

Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Exocet]

Elect me president and you will see a mushroom cloud over that shithole within a month !!

[Kahn]

Elect me president and you will see a mushroom cloud over that shithole within a month !!

"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." - M. Twain

To meet violence with violence is only like to result in more violence.

[thatcountrykid]

"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." - M. Twain

To meet violence with violence is only like to result in more violence.

Well what do you suggest? Appeasement?

[Kahn]

Well what do you suggest? Appeasement?

I suggest nothing, because who am I to weigh such a decision?

EDIT: So I don't leave you with nothing, I will leave you with my opinion, but as I said before my sentiments don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

We've slaughtered thousands, if not millions by now, in the name of Freedom (we've really put a stain on that word). All it does is feed the military industrial complex. So, what is the humane rationale for invasion, or the nuclear devestation Exocet seems so sure would do more good than bad?

What about the innocents that get caught in our crossfire? Is it still just we claim we're defending their people when we're a foreign power seperated by an ocean, we've invaded their soil, and there's still innocents being slaughtered? Are their deaths any more "necessary" since we have boots on the ground?

You condemn the men who perpetrated the slaughter, yet you yourself wish to meet it with like-minded violence, and ignorance.

I find it terrifying how keen you two are to plunge into war.

[Lovelife090994]

I suggest nothing, because who am I to weigh such a decision?

EDIT: So I don't leave you with nothing, I will leave you with my opinion, but as I said before my sentiments don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

We've slaughtered thousands, if not millions by now, in the name of Freedom (we've really put a stain on that word). All it does is feed the military industrial complex. So, what is the humane rationale for invasion, or the nuclear devestation Exocet seems so sure would do more good than bad?

What about the innocents that get caught in our crossfire? Is it still just we claim we're defending their people when we're a foreign power seperated by an ocean, we've invaded their soil, and there's still innocents being slaughtered? Are their deaths any more "necessary" since we have boots on the ground?

You condemn the men who perpetrated the slaughter, yet you yourself wish to meet it with like-minded violence, and ignorance.

I find it terrifying how keen you two are to plunge into war.

I admire your pacifism but terrorists are not diplomats. Diplomacy isn't enough. Sometimes fighting is necessary when fighting to liberate and protect. What about the innocents slain by terrorists? War has costs and we cannot let these enemies continue to fight because it is only getting worse and no one is fighting back.

[Kahn]

I admire your pacifism but terrorists are not diplomats. Diplomacy isn't enough. Sometimes fighting is necessary when fighting to liberate and protect. What about the innocents slain by terrorists? War has costs and we cannot let these enemies continue to fight because it is only getting worse and no one is fighting back.


First, allow me to state that the massacre is an atrocity, and that I agree protecting the innocents in danger is a top priority. But to propose we invade a 3rd world nation on the pretext that they're slaughtering their own citizens, so that we should be allowed to "justifiably" wage war on the perpetrators, I feel, is an act of bravado. Innocents will still die, violence will still occur and we will be seen by the domestics as an occupying force, not a liberation force.

Our bids for Freedom in the middle east have really panned out well, haven't they? Might as well throw another nation into the fray.

[Lovelife090994]

First, allow me to state that the massacre is an atrocity, and that I agree protecting the innocents in danger is a top priority. But to propose we invade a 3rd world nation on the pretext that they're slaughtering their own citizens, so that we should be allowed to "justifiably" wage war on the perpetrators, I feel, is an act of bravado. Innocents will still die, violence will still occur and we will be seen by the domestics as an occupying force, not a liberation force.

Our bids for Freedom in the middle east have really panned out well, haven't they? Might as well throw another nation into the fray.

If your haven't noticed, this terrorism is no longer isolated, and now more countries are involved than ever, really the entire world is feeling the blunt now. This is not about ego or bravado, this is about stopping terrorists from causing any more harm. These guys are fighters, it'll take more than smooth talk and appeasement. They want you to submit, we cannot do that. You must fight back because they will stop at nothing to continue fighting. You can protect the innocent but technically by not fighting back and letting innocents be slaughtered is just as bad as crossfire.

[Kahn]

If your haven't noticed, this terrorism is no longer isolated, and now more countries are involved than ever, really the entire world is feeling the blunt now. This is not about ego or bravado, this is about stopping terrorists from causing any more harm. These guys are fighters, it'll take more than smooth talk and appeasement. They want you to submit, we cannot do that. You must fight back because they will stop at nothing to continue fighting. You can protect the innocent but technically by not fighting back and letting innocents be slaughtered is just as bad as crossfire.

I am not as strict an isolationist as Jefferson was since I'm aware that we now live in a global community, but I share these sentiments with him.

"That we should wish to see the people of other countries free is as natural and at least as justifiable as that one King should wish to see the Kings of other countries maintained in their despotism." - Thomas Jefferson

"The presumption of dictating to an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal execrations against the other." - Thomas Jefferson

I can understand where you're coming from, in the interest of protecting innocents. Still, If I were the one making such a decision (thankfully I'm not) I wouldn't commit my country to a long term invasion of any sort, and I certainly wouldn't resort to nuclear force, because of the long term geopolitical context. I don't know what I would do in terms of coercive action because I simply feel as though it is not our place, as a people, to be determining what is best for another nation. I would sever all trade with the perpetrators of the slaughter and seek to help those freedom fighters through whatever none-military channels I could.

The slaughter of innocents is atrocious. Something must be done, I agree, but I have ceased my support of the American military industrial complex and cannot support another mobilization in retaliation of such an event in which no American citizens or interests were directly, or inadvertently, harmed. It's a seemingly endless cycle of microwar after microwar.

[Plane And Simple]

Just a quick friendly reminder to keep it civil, like you're all doing. It's a joy to read these topics, so keep it up. As it's turning into more of a debate than news,

VTDC :arrow2: ROTW

[Lovelife090994]

I am not as strict an isolationist as Jefferson was since I'm aware that we now live in a global community, but I share these sentiments with him.

"That we should wish to see the people of other countries free is as natural and at least as justifiable as that one King should wish to see the Kings of other countries maintained in their despotism." - Thomas Jefferson

"The presumption of dictating to an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal execrations against the other." - Thomas Jefferson

I can understand where you're coming from, in the interest of protecting innocents. Still, If I were the one making such a decision (thankfully I'm not) I wouldn't commit my country to a long term invasion of any sort, and I certainly wouldn't resort to nuclear force, because of the long term geopolitical context. I don't know what I would do in terms of coercive action because I simply feel as though it is not our place, as a people, to be determining what is best for another nation. I would sever all trade with the perpetrators of the slaughter and seek to help those freedom fighters through whatever none-military channels I could.

The slaughter of innocents is atrocious. Something must be done, I agree, but I have ceased my support of the American military industrial complex and cannot support another mobilization in retaliation of such an event in which no American citizens or interests were directly, or inadvertently, harmed. It's a seemingly endless cycle of microwar after microwar.

I may not like the military either but I will always support America's veterans. They fight for us. I understand not wanting to get involved, to let nations be... But by that logic this is why North Korea is so bad. No one wants to stand up and fight anymore. Twiddling our thumbs does nothing.

[Kahn]

I may not like the military either but I will always support America's veterans. They fight for us.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. American veterans aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand, as I was referring to the broader sense of the term 'military industrial complex.' By this I mean the policy and monetary relationships which exist between congress, the armed forces, and the defense industry that supports them. These relationships include monetary political contributions, congressional and executive approval for military spending, and federal oversight of the industry.

My father served in the Navy and his father served in the Navy before him. My mother's father served in the Marines, and my mother's mother's father was sent to the Pacific (I suspect Guadalcanal, as he was supposedly stuck on an island for a long period of time without support and he almost starved). I support the men and women who risk their lives believing they're defending our home. However, I don't see how they're defending our home in Nigeria.

I understand not wanting to get involved, to let nations be... But by that logic this is why North Korea is so bad. No one wants to stand up and fight anymore. Twiddling our thumbs does nothing.

I'm interested in what you would have us do with North Korea at the present moment, because any official notion of aggression towards the North Koreans would result in an immediate end to the cease fire, and North Korea's blatant disregard for the 38th parallel. A lot more lives would be at risk, the entire region would be destabilized, and if they do indeed possess nuclear weaponry I doubt they'd be as hesitant as we are to unleash it.

[Vlerchan]

The US already funds TSCTP (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_Counterterrorism_Initiative) in West Africa to combat groups like Boko-Haram.

I think helping states do the ground-work themselves and facilitating regional co-operation between states is that smartest route forward. I agree with Hubris that its shocking how quick people are to want to jump into some regional conflict on the basis of a single news article.

[Kahn]

The US already funds TSCTP (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_Counterterrorism_Initiative) in West Africa to combat groups like Boko-Haram.

I hadn't realized we had such an operation in Africa. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I think helping states do the ground-work themselves and facilitating regional co-operation between states is that smartest route forward.

This is the route I would take as well, I simply don't know how we could arbitrate such a violent and irrational region.

[Isabella_]

Must be all a mistake, it's a religion of peace, they wouldn't slaughter people for being different...

[Left Now]

Must be all a mistake, it's a religion of peace, they wouldn't slaughter people for being different...

Although I am not willing to trigger another debate here which is not related to this topic at all,but you are in a way taking it tooooooooooooo faaaaaaaar in blaming a whole cause for the wrong acts of some individuals who are so-called members of that cause.

[Lovelife090994]

Although I am not willing to trigger another debate here which is not related to this topic at all,but you are in a way taking it tooooooooooooo faaaaaaaar in blaming a whole cause for the wrong acts of some individuals who are so-called members of that cause.

No offense but she is right even if slighty dipping into dicto simpliciters. But the beliefs stand. Terrorists like these act under Fundamentalist Islamic ideas just as Westboro operates under Fundamentalist Christian ideas. It's your problem too.

[Isabella_]

Just like every Christian group should be condemning the extreme groups claiming to be Christian and doing wrong things in the name of God and bringing them back to good path or disbanding them Islam is responsible for letting the world know they oppose these groups and setting them straight.
There are no Christian groups committing mass atrocities like this and haven't been for how many centuries?
If you don't like all the bad press then do something about it
Most people assume all muslims support this behaviour because they never hear anything genuine disputing it

[Lovelife090994]

Just like every Christian group should be condemning the extreme groups claiming to be Christian and doing wrong things in the name of God and bringing them back to good path or disbanding them Islam is responsible for letting the world know they oppose these groups and setting them straight.
There are no Christian groups committing mass atrocities like this and haven't been for how many centuries?
If you don't like all the bad press then do something about it
Most people assume all muslims support this behaviour because they never hear anything genuine disputing it

Their silence is deafening.

[Isabella_]

That's why suicide bombing is so popular with islamic extremists: they don't like taking responsibility

[Vlerchan]

There are no Christian groups committing mass atrocities like this and haven't been for how many centuries?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

:)

Most people assume all muslims support this behaviour because they never hear anything genuine disputing it.
Please note how Muslim-dominated (Shia and Sunni) are at this moment engaging with Islamic extremism in the form of ISIL.

Note further that everyone from the International Union of Muslim Scholars to the French CFCM & UOIF and the militant Hamas condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I can produce transcripts as required.

I think people presume because people are prejudiced.

[Isabella_]

All talk no action with Charlie Hedbo etc.
They fight ISIL out of fear of them next
It's the not enough visibly being done to stamp out extremism
Because of the concept of jihad they can't - extremism is holy

[Lovelife090994]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

:)


Please note how Muslim-dominated (Shia and Sunni) are at this moment engaging with Islamic extremism in the form of ISIL.

Note further that everyone from the International Union of Muslim Scholars to the French CFCM & UOIF and the militant Hamas condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I can produce transcripts as required.

I think people presume because people are prejudiced.

There is Muslim violence daily and Muslims have had such violence and Islamic States since the start... Is there a Christian Haram or Christian Isis? Didn't think so. It's a part of their violence and beliefs. Even with just 6% of Muslims as extreme would be over 5 million!

[Vlerchan]

All talk no action with Charlie Hedbo etc.[/quo0te]
What do you expect them to do?

I also find this response hilarious considering the response offered when Muslims do something about extremism.

[quote=Isabella_]They fight ISIL out of fear of them next
As long as we can agree that Muslim-dominated countries are engaging with militant Islam to a much greater extent than any other countries in the world.

It's the not enough visibly being done to stamp out extremism
Except the fact that Muslim-dominated countries are literally bombing and shooting the hell out of out of militant Islamists as I type this.

Because of the concept of jihad they can't - extremism is holy
Lol.

---

Is there a Christian Haram or Christian Isis?
I linked to an example of a militant Christian group in the post you quoted.

I decided I wasn't going to address your assorted prejudices besides.

---

This is the route I would take as well, I simply don't know how we could arbitrate such a violent and irrational region.
I'm just a cynic in my motives.

I expect the countries facing an existential crisis to invest a much greater extent of their national interest in maintaining their existence than countries situated hundreds of miles from the violence, who without a doubt have ulterior motives in engaging in this war on terror.