So Boko Haram is out there wiping towns off the map?
Options
Comments
-
Let's also consider the Mongols who conquered and ruled more land then any other people in our known history accepted Islam under their own volition. There areFuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »What's crazy about this ? is that anybody who knows the history of Islam knows that the West owes Islam for a lot of their knowledge because it was the Islamic empire that preserved Greek and Roman texts and knowledge. On top of that, a lot of European knowledge was built off information either gathered or discovered by Muslims. Groups like this are basically ? all over Islam's legacy.
alot of that knowlegde came from india tho but came bacc to europe with muslims
Muslims ran India.
what are you talking about? hinduism is alot older than islam
That may be the case, but Muslims at one point ran India as well as parts of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_on_the_Indian_subcontinent
sure, but the numerals, the 0 in mathematics etc. came from india. muslims didnt invent them. muslims spread them over the middle east and northern parts of africa. and when they reached europe, europeans spread them worldwide.
Exactally muslims were conqueres just as much as europeans in their days, and they took from their conquests and claimed them as their own as they assimilated their new holdings. <sp> Commonplace and undeniable.
What Muslims?
I don't get how you all just dismiss that their is an ethnic group that must be attached.
Are you referring to Arabs?
Syrians?
Mongolians?
Malians?
The turks?
-
Let's also consider the Mongols who conquered and ruled more land then any other people in our known history accepted Islam under their own volition. There areFuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »What's crazy about this ? is that anybody who knows the history of Islam knows that the West owes Islam for a lot of their knowledge because it was the Islamic empire that preserved Greek and Roman texts and knowledge. On top of that, a lot of European knowledge was built off information either gathered or discovered by Muslims. Groups like this are basically ? all over Islam's legacy.
alot of that knowlegde came from india tho but came bacc to europe with muslims
Muslims ran India.
what are you talking about? hinduism is alot older than islam
That may be the case, but Muslims at one point ran India as well as parts of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_on_the_Indian_subcontinent
sure, but the numerals, the 0 in mathematics etc. came from india. muslims didnt invent them. muslims spread them over the middle east and northern parts of africa. and when they reached europe, europeans spread them worldwide.
Exactally muslims were conqueres just as much as europeans in their days, and they took from their conquests and claimed them as their own as they assimilated their new holdings. <sp> Commonplace and undeniable.
What Muslims?
I don't get how you all just dismiss that their is an ethnic group that must be attached.
Are you referring to Arabs?
Syrians?
Mongolians?
Malians?
The turks?
I'd be careful attaching an ethnicity and then talking about the empire. A lot of the Islamic empire was held together by the religion and wasn't necessarily ruled over by Arabs. For example, the kingdoms of West Africa were Islamic nations at one point and are usually counted in the empire, but the Arabs didn't rule those kingdoms. The African kings did. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Let's also consider the Mongols who conquered and ruled more land then any other people in our known history accepted Islam under their own volition. There areFuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »What's crazy about this ? is that anybody who knows the history of Islam knows that the West owes Islam for a lot of their knowledge because it was the Islamic empire that preserved Greek and Roman texts and knowledge. On top of that, a lot of European knowledge was built off information either gathered or discovered by Muslims. Groups like this are basically ? all over Islam's legacy.
alot of that knowlegde came from india tho but came bacc to europe with muslims
Muslims ran India.
what are you talking about? hinduism is alot older than islam
That may be the case, but Muslims at one point ran India as well as parts of europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_on_the_Indian_subcontinent
sure, but the numerals, the 0 in mathematics etc. came from india. muslims didnt invent them. muslims spread them over the middle east and northern parts of africa. and when they reached europe, europeans spread them worldwide.
Exactally muslims were conqueres just as much as europeans in their days, and they took from their conquests and claimed them as their own as they assimilated their new holdings. <sp> Commonplace and undeniable.
What Muslims?
I don't get how you all just dismiss that their is an ethnic group that must be attached.
Are you referring to Arabs?
Syrians?
Mongolians?
Malians?
The turks?
I'd be careful attaching an ethnicity and then talking about the empire. A lot of the Islamic empire was held together by the religion and wasn't necessarily ruled over by Arabs. For example, the kingdoms of West Africa were Islamic nations at one point and are usually counted in the empire, but the Arabs didn't rule those kingdoms. The African kings did.
I am well aware. Thus I find it important to specify who the conquerors were. Just saying Muslims is way to arbitrary.
-
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
Those are some good points but I think there should be a referendum in Nigeria on this question. Cuz this war is getting out of hand and with all the problems Nigeria has, it can't afford to spend more resources on this. I do feel sorry for the reasonable Muslims who just want to live their life free of ? religion but if their Muslim neighbors choose Boko Haram's version of Shariah, they will have to blame themselves for not fighting back like others are. Or at a minimum make better political decisions if possible. If Boko Haram can't be reasoned with then parts of Nigeria are ? -
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything. -
My dude, you must not know the UK's history with the IRA and terrorism. ? was basically like Israel and Palestine for a while.
-
Nigeria cannot be peacefully divided at this point peaceful separation makes no sense for boko haram. If they can run the ? army off then why talk peace
-
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
-
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
it's possible but i can't think of a reason why they would want to destabilize nigeria i don't see how america especially would benefit from a more ? up nigeria -
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
What does any country have to gain?
-
The only way to deal with any radical extremist is to be radical and extrem when dealing with them. If we attack, we attack and leave nothing in the wake, tell the muslim community not to harbor them as we cannot guarantee their saftey as "we will attack, you have been forwarned".
-
The Nigerian Muslim community isn't harboring Boko. In fact, they have asked the military for assistance which, has not come in any real form. Imams have asked their communities to defend themselves after Mosques and scores of innocent Muslims have been killed.
Any outside assistance should be joint operations not, just some gung ? killers laying waste.
-
The_Jackal wrote: »
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
What does any country have to gain?
It doesn't have to be a country. It could be rich people able to fund wars to become richer. What they have to gain is control or future investments in Africa's largest oil producer.
Also, Nigeria's military is unstable and oil pipelines have been subject to attacks. So, with Nigeria unable to secure it's own oil industry. Perhaps those in power would like outsiders who can secure the oil industry to come in and do the job.
-
I'm sure the Nigerian govenrment has the money to pay one of these private military organizations to come in and clear Boko out. I know that sounds like some Call of Duty ? , but it's not far from how things can really go down.
-
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
Western imperialists/capitalists are evil but they're driven purely by money. I don't see them ? up a country and destabilizing a region just for recreation -
Then again..........Nigeria has a decent amount of oil and other natural resourcse. Destabilize the region enough, weaken the influence of the government and maybe some of Nigeria's resources become up for grabs and easier to exploit on the world market
-
Then again..........Nigeria has a decent amount of oil and other natural resourcse. Destabilize the region enough, weaken the influence of the government and maybe some of Nigeria's resources become up for grabs and easier to exploit on the world market
Yeah I think Aggy has some good points, not saying I think this is all true but keeping it real, western governments have a very long history of destabilizing nations for their own gain. I have no idea if western govts nowadays are THAT evil to prop up a group like Boko Haram but then again, western govts have done worse historically. Much, much worse, so nothing would shock or surprise me. Some are in denial about this but the CIA and America are big reasons Al-Qaeda became so powerful in the 80s (CIA helped give ammo and weapons to the mujahadeen who later became Al-Qaeda)
-
The only way to deal with any radical extremist is to be radical and extrem when dealing with them. If we attack, we attack and leave nothing in the wake, tell the muslim community not to harbor them as we cannot guarantee their saftey as "we will attack, you have been forwarned".
Agreed. The middle East is strong but it can be conquered -
The_Jackal wrote: »The only way to deal with any radical extremist is to be radical and extrem when dealing with them. If we attack, we attack and leave nothing in the wake, tell the muslim community not to harbor them as we cannot guarantee their saftey as "we will attack, you have been forwarned".
Agreed. The middle East is strong but it can be conquered
we need to leave the middle east alone, why da ? would you want to conquer it?
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
it's possible but i can't think of a reason why they would want to destabilize nigeria i don't see how america especially would benefit from a more ? up nigeria
a stronger, unified Nigeria could start pushing American/European economic interests out of the region. Nigeria is already a top 25 economy in the world -
A stable,united effective government is never in the best interests of Western powers if the country has something that the Western powers want...that's why they loved propping up corrupt dictators(puppets) historically. These days they'll let an election happen because elections can be rigged/manipulated especially in an area where democracy is a new concept. They can use their networks to make sure that the guy they want gets in power.
That said, I wouldn't put anything past them. Horrible situation any way you cut it tho -
The_Jackal wrote: »The only way to deal with any radical extremist is to be radical and extrem when dealing with them. If we attack, we attack and leave nothing in the wake, tell the muslim community not to harbor them as we cannot guarantee their saftey as "we will attack, you have been forwarned".
Agreed. The middle East is strong but it can be conquered
we need to leave the middle east alone, why da ? would you want to conquer it?
this probably explains at least 80% of it right there.This what happens when you have truly ineffective and corrupt government.
Nigeria's problems are a LOT worse than Britain/France. and the UK can at least legitimately claim to have had real success dealing with terrorism.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I wouldn't go that far. It's not like most first world countries are equipped to deal with terrorism. Ask Britain and France.
alright, so we're not going to get a breakdown of HOW Boko Haram is a Western creation and the why remains, i guess, "thrawrt Nigeria from becoming a major world power." this is still comfortably in "crazy conspiracy" territory. you have to give us SOMETHING here.i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades.
yes, Europeans ? up a lot of things in Africa through colonialism and there's effects to this day. yes, France, like all countries, likes a sphere of influence. but your strongest arguments are written as "i wouldn't be surprised if" and "not in the interest of the West." okay then.
internal issues in the country are going to be the simplistic explanation 99% of the time. we shouldn't insist on looking for a shadowy conspiracy behind everything.
i don't think this is a crazy conspiracy. Western nations have been funding terrorist/anti-government groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia for decades. Africa is partially the way it is because of Europeans playing different groups off each other.
plus France has been very active in keeping its sphere of influence in Africa
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boko Haram had Western financers because a strong Nigeria is not in the interest of the West
Problem with this is that Nigeria is in no way shape or form a threat to western power structures. Less than 50% of the country even has electricity, their oil industry is damn near completely run by international corporations and none of that is change any time soon.
Boko Haram obviously has outside help just like the warlords in Somalia do. Somebody is giving them weapons, it's more than likely Arab terrorist groups.
Splitting the country sounds reasonable but you have to realize what you are creating then is a situation where millions will be trapped in the north with these animals and even fewer people will care.
so the thought of the US and Europe not wanting a strong black country sounds unfeasible to you guys?
LOL at giving these cacs the benefit of the doubt
aight you guys win i'm the crazy one. its completely impossible that a Western nation would help fund a terrorist group
it's possible but i can't think of a reason why they would want to destabilize nigeria i don't see how america especially would benefit from a more ? up nigeria
a stronger, unified Nigeria could start pushing American/European economic interests out of the region. Nigeria is already a top 25 economy in the world
In theory this is correct but the reality of the situation is that Nigeria is no where near being able to push American nor European interests out of anywhere. Destabilizing Nigeria simply makes no sense because the potential gain is lower than the risk. Nigeria is so corrupted that outside forces are already stealing and economically getting away with murder. Shaking the boat when you don't need to is not something I can see America doing in Nigeria. -
You can make more money doing business with stable governments, that was one of the reasons America helped install dictatorships in the past. If a government is made up of greedy corrupted weaklings who won't do what's best for their people (good luck Jonathan) but they keep the situation stable then that's even better.
-
What you guys are saying is why I think going the private military route for help would be best for them. The mercs just want money. After they get that, they're out. They aren't going to be trying to get their hands in the ? after the job is done like other countries will.
-
And we cannot just leave the middle east alone if we do the world will spin off into chaos. America tried this leave the world alone ? pre ww2. It does not work, war is inevitable . The ideology of radical Islam must be stamped out it's more dangerous than communism was. It is the stated goal of Islamist to ? or convert the world into Islam.
-
And we cannot just leave the middle east alone if we do the world will spin off into chaos. America tried this leave the world alone ? pre ww2. It does not work, war is inevitable . The ideology of radical Islam must be stamped out it's more dangerous than communism was. It is the stated goal of Islamist to ? or convert the world into Islam.
Get off the boogieman ? . Find a new act, yours is old.
