Boko Haram’s use of girl suicide bombers intensifies amid terror campaign

[KimberlyD]

Ok this is getting ridiculous already. What are our governments doing about all this. We got ISIS on one front, Boko Haram on the other and we are just sitting around gawking at them? You can not tell me with all our fancy gidgets and gadgets we can not put an end to both these loonies with the push of a button. We have the latest warfare tech (talking about the US & the UK) and we can't find and eliminate these idiots? Hell, I got an idea... get every gang member in the US and send them there, they would take care of the problem in less then a week. Hell you could send me and my boyfriend and we could take care of the issue. What is the hold up, why are they letting these things escalate?

 

[Scorpion]

How about we deal with much more worse than ISIS and Boko Haram. Israel and Syria.

Israel have killed 10 times more of innocents men, women, and children that ISIS and Boko have. Assad has killed 250k of innocents as well. Shouldn't we react to those two first?

 

[DeltaForce103]

What makes you think any of them wants to help? Geopolitics becomes a lot easier to digest once you've ridden yourself of the assumption that military interventions are for moral purposes, they rarely are.

 

[globulon]

Unfortunately, if there is no incentive to help, powerful countries won't raise a hand. Otherwise everyone should be responding to situations like North Korea where the humanitarian situation is catastrophic. If there is no threat to their regional interests, major powers won't act.

 

[stryker]

"Gawking"? It appears to me that most of the world is kowtowing and pandering instead. Oh, please don't insult them it only makes them worse. Yes! Yes! Give them whatever they want. Sharia is good. No! No! There is nothing wrong with destroying what is Christian or Jewish. Just don't do it anymore, please. We love you Islam, so please don't cut off any more heads or take our daughters and do disgusting things with them.
Vermin. Pure vermin and the world seems to think if it's nice enough to them they'll sit down and behave.

 

[JonMark]

Ok this is getting ridiculous already. What are our governments doing about all this. We got ISIS on one front, Boko Haram on the other and we are just sitting around gawking at them? You can not tell me with all our fancy gidgets and gadgets we can not put an end to both these loonies with the push of a button. We have the latest warfare tech (talking about the US & the UK) and we can't find and eliminate these idiots? Hell, I got an idea... get every gang member in the US and send them there, they would take care of the problem in less then a week. Hell you could send me and my boyfriend and we could take care of the issue. What is the hold up, why are they letting these things escalate?

This is because in order for all of us to be on the same page to do that, we would all have to agree that they need to be wiped out with the push of a button. By that standard, we should have set off a Hiroshima type bomb to every problem we've ever encountered ever since, despite the repercussions. Maybe you're right. Maybe every problem needs a hammer. We could have kept doing that and just freed up more land for us really because we'd essentially wipe out large masses of people with every bomb or every war. I think that we would expect some retaliation for that so why not encase the entire United States behind a fortified wall and perhaps even dome. We could put more security along the borders, and even up the intelligence to make sure we weren't attacked. Maybe go as far as to kill Snowdens to make sure our enemies didn't have the upper hand. I see what you mean, those things would probably work. Maybe you're right.

 

[JonMark]

How about we deal with much more worse than ISIS and Boko Haram. Israel and Syria.

Israel have killed 10 times more of innocents men, women, and children that ISIS and Boko have. Assad has killed 250k of innocents as well. Shouldn't we react to those two first?

I agree that we should. It boggles the mind just how much support Israel gets in the UN by the United States, although it shouldn't since the U.S. practically runs the place. I'm all for the suggestion that Israel isn't always right with what they do and other people should also consider the same possibility, but many in power don't and that's not realistic. Everything has been very one-sided for the longest time and it's really time to change things.

I mean, look at the hurdles put in place where no one wants to be called Antisemitic and it's thrown around at anyone who even questions Israel's self-proclaimed right to build settlements or bomb Gaza. Isn't it long time to be more pragmatic about these things and treat each case according to what it is?

 

[JonMark]

Unfortunately, if there is no incentive to help, powerful countries won't raise a hand. Otherwise everyone should be responding to situations like North Korea where the humanitarian situation is catastrophic. If there is no threat to their regional interests, major powers won't act.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that action driven by some moral line isn't realistic. There's consistent push and pull between what's true and what isn't. With the case of North Korea, we're constantly told that we really don't know what's going on over there and really caught between a difficult task of either supporting action against them or just focus on something else.

Also, we all know how the stewards of history constantly make comparisons of today's problems with the kind of action taken in the past. They might be the ones who constantly fire up the quote from Edmund Burke: "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it," to make their case. I've got this big thing right now about indoctrination, which is everywhere with everything from running water to politics to religion. It's because of it that we're faced with the decisions we have to make. Are we stepping in to help or are we causing more problems because of it? Not just the U.S., but as you said, powerful countries.

 

[JonMark]

I wrote a blog post a while back about how children are pawns for adults. Whether it's in a violent act like Boko Haram or anything else because it's easy to do. It's the way things have always been, use the vulnerable as a vehicle for the things you want to achieve despite the cost. In this case, there is no cost because all they've had to do is devalue the object to gain what they want.

In reality this is humanity for you. Look at some of the reports that happened to focus on the idea that last week's Baga massacre was pushed to the side because of the Paris attack. I was kind of surprised how not a story it was during that time. Because, not even the beltway media decided that it was worth putting on the front page. At least not yet. But this takes me into another thing altogether. Uhh boy!

 

[stryker]

I wrote a blog post a while back about how children are pawns for adults. Whether it's in a violent act like Boko Haram or anything else because it's easy to do. It's the way things have always been, use the vulnerable as a vehicle for the things you want to achieve despite the cost. In this case, there is no cost because all they've had to do is devalue the object to gain what they want.

In reality this is humanity for you. Look at some of the reports that happened to focus on the idea that last week's Baga massacre was pushed to the side because of the Paris attack. I was kind of surprised how not a story it was during that time. Because, not even the beltway media decided that it was worth putting on the front page. At least not yet. But this takes me into another thing altogether. Uhh boy!

You are very much correct about children being used as pawns by adults. In this particular situation with Boko Haram it is extremely visible and shockingly evident to anyone who might see it, as it was in the use of children by armed forces in Viet Nam and in probably every war throughout the ages.
Then there is the use of children as direct funnels for all of the propaganda being poured through government schools everywhere in the world.
And, of course, we can't forget the use of children by their own parents against one another in their efforts to gain control of one situation or another.
So I guess you are correct, too, in saying that it's just humanity.
I'm looking rather forward to seeing what your "other thing altogether" is. If I get the chance.

 

[Onionman]

These terrorists are simply inhumane. Why they feel that using young girls for such evil purposes is aligned with their religion, is beyond me. They need to be wiped out. Simple as that.

 

[KimberlyD]

This is because in order for all of us to be on the same page to do that, we would all have to agree that they need to be wiped out with the push of a button. By that standard, we should have set off a Hiroshima type bomb to every problem we've ever encountered ever since, despite the repercussions. Maybe you're right. Maybe every problem needs a hammer. We could have kept doing that and just freed up more land for us really because we'd essentially wipe out large masses of people with every bomb or every war. I think that we would expect some retaliation for that so why not encase the entire United States behind a fortified wall and perhaps even dome. We could put more security along the borders, and even up the intelligence to make sure we weren't attacked. Maybe go as far as to kill Snowdens to make sure our enemies didn't have the upper hand. I see what you mean, those things would probably work. Maybe you're right.

Two thoughts come to mind while I was reading your post “Great power involves great responsibility” (FDR) and "Just because we can doesn't mean we should and just because we should doesn't mean we can" (unknown). I guess it all boils down to damned if we do and damned if we don't. The cost (in destruction and innocent lives) is to high a price to attempt to eliminate them... but then again the cost could be even higher if we don't. What to do... what to do...

 

[KimberlyD]

What makes you think any of them wants to help? Geopolitics becomes a lot easier to digest once you've ridden yourself of the assumption that military interventions are for moral purposes, they rarely are.

That is a really huge issue to think about also. We can't interfere if they do not want us to because of the political implications. It is like a paramedic having to stand by and watch a person die when they have all the ability in the world to save them because they were told they did not want their help. It is madness I tell you... madness!

 

[JonMark]

Two thoughts come to mind while I was reading your post “Great power involves great responsibility” (FDR) and "Just because we can doesn't mean we should and just because we should doesn't mean we can" (unknown). I guess it all boils down to damned if we do and damned if we don't. The cost (in destruction and innocent lives) is to high a price to attempt to eliminate them... but then again the cost could be even higher if we don't. What to do... what to do...

Yes. It's all nuance and the what ifs. The more people agree with the risks determines that action. But we've operated like that for so long now that it's like the first joke ever told where, it's just not funny anymore and so we've got to write some new jokes! I'm at the point now where I can see when someone hasn't gone far enough with an article or some thought. I can tell when something isn't finished more than I ever have before and I now know what the hologram means in I AM ROBOT, when it say: "You're not asking the right questions."

So when we get to a point where we're more pragmatic about how we're to act against these guys -- and I don't doubt that anyone disagrees that we should -- then we've progressed past the point of even considering the thought of massive warfare for stuff like this. Wiping out the Middle East for a handful of chumps? The chumps are getting weeded out now and there are less of them now than there used to be. Last chump we got rid of was Cheney and hopefully the Obama presidency has been able to hold things up for enough time, during this era of 21st century thought and progression that it will be harder for chumps like that to have that kind of power again. I'm sticking to the point of having anyone in office who would even consider such a notion as to act impulsively.

 

[JonMark]

These terrorists are simply inhumane. Why they feel that using young girls for such evil purposes is aligned with their religion, is beyond me. They need to be wiped out. Simple as that.

It's because religion allows them to do that. Keep in mind that religion is like an out of control book club where everyone has some idea as to what it is and constantly has to come back to the source to see what is says or to take what it says for their own interpretation. It's enough to where there are more who agree with a fringe idea than the rest of the book club is comfortable with and it just takes at least one of those fanatics to do something that will draw more attention to that fringe idea.

So if some abnormal thought process that is outside of what we know is true, is enough to give someone the ability to use young girls for certain purposes, then that's all the leverage they need to do it, whether they believe it or not. I never tire of coming back to the Paris attacks to make the point that, while Muslims don't agree that people should be killed for drawing the prophet, they don't disagree with their belief that it's wrong. I heard the interpretation of this, recently be that to represent any prophet in any form is blasphemous because it's just like creating a false idol. Who came up with that crap? Someone who wanted to establish some made up principle out of the air to get their way somehow.

In this little "book club" I'm referring to, people need to constantly remind others that:
1. you can draw Salinger whenever you want,
2. he was just a fiction writer, not a prophet and
3. The characters in the story are made up.