Nigeria - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By Solastalgia
#14410194
What's really going in Nigeria? I've read reports citing Wikileaks saying that Boko Haram is funded by Libyan and Algerian AQ sponsored by the west. Is Boko Haram used to check China's influence in the region (Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon & Chad)? It would seem to be going straight to Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan of seeing Africa separated into smaller ethnic states (divide & conquer).
User avatar
By Lexington
#14410204
Boko Haram (which, after all, means something like Western education is sin") is not liked by the West. I don't think China likes it either. China and the West (even at the most cynical) have a mutual interest in a stable Nigeria that can produce oil.

The people sponsoring Boko Haram and the like in the region are the wealthy Islamist royals in the Middle East.

From Gordon Brown, that Western imperialist,

Project Syndicate wrote:What we ultimately learned was deeply disturbing: The school was losing pupils to a madrasa only a few miles away – a new, well-financed institution that offered free education financed by the same Middle East money that was supporting terrorism.
User avatar
By Solastalgia
#14410642
Lexington wrote:Boko Haram (which, after all, means something like Western education is sin") is not liked by the West.


Boko Haram is officially the "Al Qaeda of West Africa" according to the Paris summit. Al Qaeda is liked by the West in Syria and Libya (not to mention the rest of it's history). Al Qaeda's aversion to the west has never stopped the western establishment from supporting them. So I don't know about the subtle suggestion that it all makes sense that the west doesn't like them, because Boko Haram doesn't like the west. Who bears the real brunt of Boko Haram, anyways? The Nigerian people. Westerners are more likely to die by lightning, than by a terrorist.

Lexington wrote:I don't think China likes it either.


Probably not, considering that Boko Haram attacked a Chinese hydro-power engineering firm in Cameroon, capturing 10 Chinese nationals the other day.

Lexington wrote:China and the West (even at the most cynical) have a mutual interest in a stable Nigeria that can produce oil.


What do you mean by "the West (even at the most cynical)"? While the US, specifically, has had a need for Nigerian oil for half a century or more, it seems that things have changed. The western companies have seen their political power wane over the years, and their facilities attacked by MEND and other assorted oil pirates, all while the west continues it's goals of energy independence. Meanwhile China has been investing heavily in Nigeria over the recent years, and has interests in Nigeria's northern neighboring countries. The overwhelming majority of Boko Haram attacks are occurring in the north. Boko Haram threatens the interests of China, more than it does the west, it would seem.

Lexington wrote:The people sponsoring Boko Haram and the like in the region are the wealthy Islamist royals in the Middle East.


Is that not where the west has historically funneled funds and weapons for Al Qaeda? What about Boko Haram's sponsors in Northern Africa with Algeria and Libya? Who has historically sponsored these Al Qaeda legions? None other than the west...

Lexington wrote:From Gordon Brown, that Western imperialist:

"What we ultimately learned was deeply disturbing: The school was losing pupils to a madrasa only a few miles away – a new, well-financed institution that offered free education financed by the same Middle East money that was supporting terrorism."


I usually don't look to Western imperialist's like Gordon Brown for political analysis, but he brings up a good point about the madrassa's role in recruiting for Boko Haram. Obviously, madrassas have been used by the west since the start of Al Qaeda in the Soviet Afghan War, when the CIA set them up with Saudi Arabia in Pakistan to recruit for the war in neighboring Afghanistan.
User avatar
By Lexington
#14411604
Boko Haram is officially the "Al Qaeda of West Africa" according to the Paris summit. Al Qaeda is liked by the West in Syria and Libya (not to mention the rest of it's history). Al Qaeda's aversion to the west has never stopped the western establishment from supporting them. So I don't know about the subtle suggestion that it all makes sense that the west doesn't like them, because Boko Haram doesn't like the west. Who bears the real brunt of Boko Haram, anyways? The Nigerian people. Westerners are more likely to die by lightning, than by a terrorist.


I'm fairly certain we don't like Al Qaeda (as an American and a New Yorker). But we don't like Assad and we didn't like Gaddafi either. But because radical Islamists also don't/didn't like those guys, we happen in those situations to be oddly sided with radical Islamists. Particularly in the Syrian situation the west has been very cautious about providing aid for the very reason that we don't want the Syrian Taliban/Al-Qaeda types owning the country, hence the tepid response from the West there. But do not mistake that for meaning we like them.

What do you mean by "the West (even at the most cynical)"? While the US, specifically, has had a need for Nigerian oil for half a century or more, it seems that things have changed. The western companies have seen their political power wane over the years, and their facilities attacked by MEND and other assorted oil pirates, all while the west continues it's goals of energy independence. Meanwhile China has been investing heavily in Nigeria over the recent years, and has interests in Nigeria's northern neighboring countries. The overwhelming majority of Boko Haram attacks are occurring in the north. Boko Haram threatens the interests of China, more than it does the west, it would seem.


The interests of China and the West are aligned in Nigeria perfectly: we do not want Nigeria to be unstable. It's bad for business for everybody.

And that's what I mean by "even at the most cynical". Even if one believes that China and the West don't give a damn about the lives and welfare of Nigerians (which we do), the business interests of the West and China are aligned to support stability in that country. If you want someone to blame for Boko Haram, it's the oil sheikhs in the Middle East for funding it.

Is that not where the west has historically funneled funds and weapons for Al Qaeda? What about Boko Haram's sponsors in Northern Africa with Algeria and Libya? Who has historically sponsored these Al Qaeda legions? None other than the west...


To the best of my knowledge, this never happened. The West does not fund Al Qaeda.

I usually don't look to Western imperialist's like Gordon Brown for political analysis, but he brings up a good point about the madrassa's role in recruiting for Boko Haram. Obviously, madrassas have been used by the west since the start of Al Qaeda in the Soviet Afghan War, when the CIA set them up with Saudi Arabia in Pakistan to recruit for the war in neighboring Afghanistan.


But you will note that he points out that those madrasas are not funded by the west.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#14411716
Lexington wrote:But we don't like Assad and we didn't like Gaddafi either. But because radical Islamists also don't/didn't like those guys, we happen in those situations to be oddly sided with radical Islamists.


Then please explain why the former is a bigger chosen enemy of the Western ruling consensus than the latter, rather than the reverse. Was it Muammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad or radical Islamists who killed 3,000 Americans and blew up the tube in the middle of London?

Lexington wrote:Even if one believes that China and the West don't give a damn about the lives and welfare of Nigerians (which we do)


Absurd. If Nigerians truly believe that either Western governments or the PRC care about the lives and welfare of Nigerians then they deserve whatever befalls their country.
By Decky
#14411717
Absurd. If Nigerians truly believe that either Western governments or the PRC care about the lives and welfare of Nigerians then they deserve whatever befalls their country.


This, the world needs a hell of a lot more realpolitic. This modern idealistic age just leads to people allowing themselves to be fucked left right and centre.
User avatar
By Solastalgia
#14412118
Lexington wrote:I'm fairly certain we don't like Al Qaeda (as an American and a New Yorker).


I wasn't referring to the general public's opinion. I'm an American as well, and I don't like Al Qaeda either. I was referring to our intelligence community's history creating/working with Al Qaeda.

Lexington wrote:But we don't like Assad and we didn't like Gaddafi either.


Except when they were aligned with our interests. Then, we liked them.

Lexington wrote:But because radical Islamists also don't/didn't like those guys, we happen in those situations to be oddly sided with radical Islamists.


Interesting how you avoid calling them Al Qaeda (kinda reminiscent of the US state dept). Also, I don't know how odd it is for the US to be allied with Al Qaeda. The US created Al Qaeda (to goad the USSR into Afghanistan) and has worked with them multiple times since then (even in Bosnia and Kosovo).

Lexington wrote:Particularly in the Syrian situation the west has been very cautious about providing aid for the very reason that we don't want the Syrian Taliban/Al-Qaeda types owning the country, hence the tepid response from the West there.


Which is why we just gave Al Qaeda affiliates anti-tank missiles last month. Not sure how "tepid/very cautious" that is..? We might not want Al Qaeda to replace Assad, but we certainly support them in keeping Syria down and destabilized.

Lexington wrote: But do not mistake that for meaning we like them.


I don't know, looks like "we" like 'em.

Image

Lexington wrote:The interests of China and the West are aligned in Nigeria perfectly: we do not want Nigeria to be unstable. It's bad for business for everybody.


Did you read what I wrote? I explained and gave multiple reasons why the West and China's interests in Nigeria are not aligned and at different stages. All you've done is said that they're perfectly aligned w/o giving any explanation or reasons.

Lexington wrote:Even if one believes that China and the West don't give a damn about the lives and welfare of Nigerians (which we do), the business interests of the West and China are aligned to support stability in that country. If you want someone to blame for Boko Haram, it's the oil sheikhs in the Middle East for funding it.


Again, you tell me their business interests are aligned without any explanation. I gave you an explanation as to why they aren't aligned, and I won't believe your idea that their interests are perfectly aligned until you give me an actual explanation. I do blame the oil sheikhs for Boko Haram, but we must remember that those oil sheikhs are US allies and have traditionally been used by the US to funnel funds to Al Qaeda (from the creation of the group, to today in Syria).

Lexington wrote:To the best of my knowledge, this never happened. The West does not fund Al Qaeda.


Um, yes, there's been a good history of the west funneling funds and weapons to Al Qaeda. They created it, and allied with it in multiple instances. You cannot deny this.

Just last week, the Obama administration pledged 27 million dollars to the FSA in Syria, which we all know work with Al Qaeda.

Lexington wrote:But you will note that he points out that those madrasas are not funded by the west.


Like I said, I'm not going to take what western imperialists say at face value (with their track record of lies). He says that the west isn't funding those madrasas in spite of the history of this tactic. According to the Executive Director of the Westminster Institute (an extremism research organization), Katherine Cornell Gorka, the US is funding madrasas in Nigeria through the notorious USAID. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... Propaganda
User avatar
By Lexington
#14412275
FRS wrote:Then please explain why the former is a bigger chosen enemy of the Western ruling consensus than the latter, rather than the reverse. Was it Muammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad or radical Islamists who killed 3,000 Americans and blew up the tube in the middle of London?


We don't like any of the three. We've been constantly drone-striking half of the Middle East for years to hunt down al-Qaeda types. We have hunted down the entire senior leadership of al-Qaeda (sometimes a few times over), including, of course, violating the airspace of an erstwhile ally in the war on terror to kill bin Laden.

Sostalgia wrote:Interesting how you avoid calling them Al Qaeda (kinda reminiscent of the US state dept). Also, I don't know how odd it is for the US to be allied with Al Qaeda. The US created Al Qaeda (to goad the USSR into Afghanistan) and has worked with them multiple times since then (even in Bosnia and Kosovo).


The oddness is that the US clearly has huge ideological differences with al-Qaeda (not least that they rather want to kill us). And I am freely admitting that in certain situations the interests of US and radical Islamists align. The interests of the US and the Soviet Union also aligned in a certain world war.

But we were talking about Nigeria.

Sostalgia wrote:Which is why we just gave Al Qaeda affiliates anti-tank missiles last month. Not sure how "tepid/very cautious" that is..? We might not want Al Qaeda to replace Assad, but we certainly support them in keeping Syria down and destabilized.


The "tepid/cautious" thing is the fact that it took years for us and now we're only giving a handful of weapons to heavily vetted groups in Syria, precisely because we don't want those weapons going to the hardcore Islamists (which is not just al-Qaeda - al-Qaeda is just one group in the pantheon of radical Islamists in Syria).

Now, the US has no interest in a destabilized Syria either. A wrecked Syria is useless for business.

Sostalgia wrote:Did you read what I wrote? I explained and gave multiple reasons why the West and China's interests in Nigeria are not aligned and at different stages. All you've done is said that they're perfectly aligned w/o giving any explanation or reasons.


Sostalgia wrote:Again, you tell me their business interests are aligned without any explanation. I gave you an explanation as to why they aren't aligned, and I won't believe your idea that their interests are perfectly aligned until you give me an actual explanation. I do blame the oil sheikhs for Boko Haram, but we must remember that those oil sheikhs are US allies and have traditionally been used by the US to funnel funds to Al Qaeda (from the creation of the group, to today in Syria).


Because it makes no sense - the West and China both do business in Nigeria. Destabilizing Nigeria (and the activities of Boko Haram are not limited to the north) does not selectively benefit the West. The United States is its largest export partner and its second largest import partner.

Sostalgia wrote:Um, yes, there's been a good history of the west funneling funds and weapons to Al Qaeda. They created it, and allied with it in multiple instances. You cannot deny this.

Just last week, the Obama administration pledged 27 million dollars to the FSA in Syria, which we all know work with Al Qaeda.


The FSA is not al-Qaeda. The US has specifically worked to vet groups in Syria to which it provides aid precisely so that those weapons and aid don't go to al-Qaeda.

Sostalgia wrote:Like I said, I'm not going to take what western imperialists say at face value (with their track record of lies). He says that the west isn't funding those madrasas in spite of the history of this tactic. According to the Executive Director of the Westminster Institute (an extremism research organization), Katherine Cornell Gorka, the US is funding madrasas in Nigeria through the notorious USAID. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... Propaganda


You don't like Gordon Brown, but you think Breitbart's people are a sane and honest source of information?
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#14412365
The FSA is "not al-Qaeda" yet it openly works with Al-Qaeda, is in alliance with them, says as much, and has whole brigades named after Osama bin Laden.

And let's be truthful about your statement concerning the interests of radical Islamists aligning with those of the U.S. They do not align with the interests of the American people or the long-term security picture for the United States or other nations. They are "aligned" in the sense that they are used as a tool to help destroy strong and functional governments which choose sovereignty over whoring out and do not ask "How high?" when told to jump.

In that sense, yes, they are an instrument of state terrorism.
User avatar
By Lexington
#14412475
FRS wrote:The FSA is "not al-Qaeda" yet it openly works with Al-Qaeda, is in alliance with them, says as much, and has whole brigades named after Osama bin Laden.


You seem to be forgetting something.

FRS wrote:And let's be truthful about your statement concerning the interests of radical Islamists aligning with those of the U.S. They do not align with the interests of the American people or the long-term security picture for the United States or other nations. They are "aligned" in the sense that they are used as a tool to help destroy strong and functional governments which choose sovereignty over whoring out and do not ask "How high?" when told to jump.


I like "strong and functional". I admire your appreciation for tin-pot corrupt dictators like Gaddafi and Assad and Yanukovich who spent years looting their own countries and leaving their people impoverished, and conclude that that is "strong and functional" government.
User avatar
By Solastalgia
#14412693
Lexington wrote:The oddness is that the US clearly has huge ideological differences with al-Qaeda (not least that they rather want to kill us).


So what? Ideological differences didn't stop us from creating Al Qaeda in the first place, or working with them in multiple cases. We couldn't give a damn about the ideology of others as long as they're working for us.

It's naive to think that the US doesn't work with others based on ideological differences. This is a slap in the face of history.

Lexington wrote:And I am freely admitting that in certain situations the interests of US and radical Islamists align.


Well you certainly aren't free enough to admit that those radical Islamists are Al Qaeda. I mean it's just hilarious how you take the US state department approach on this point.

Lexington wrote:The interests of the US and the Soviet Union also aligned in a certain world war.


But we were talking about Al Qaeda. There are immense differences between WWII and today on reasons of allegiances.

Lexington wrote:But we were talking about Nigeria.


We were talking about Nigeria, and Al Qaeda. I was staying on topic, reminding you of the US' history working with with Al Qaeda. I've never gotten off subject. You, on the other hand, want to compare the US relationship with Al Qaeda to the US relationship with the USSR.

Lexington wrote:The "tepid/cautious" thing is the fact that it took years for us


This is a complete and utter lie. The CIA has been on the Turkish/Syrian border for years, routing weapons and funds from various arms providers to the "rebels" (or as I like to call them, the "destabilizers", most of which aren't even Syrians themselves)

Lexington wrote:and now we're only giving a handful of weapons to heavily vetted groups in Syria


This isn't any better than the blabber coming from the US state department press briefings. Those "handful of weapons" are now thousands of anti-tank missiles (half of which are routed through Saudi Arabia). And those heavily vetted groups, somehow have snuck past the fact that they work with Al Qaeda on a regular basis. How is that for vetting?

Lexington wrote:precisely because we don't want those weapons going to the hardcore Islamists (which is not just al-Qaeda - al-Qaeda is just one group in the pantheon of radical Islamists in Syria).


Honestly, unless they're speaking to the public, the US could care less who their weapons are going to, as long as it's fueling the destabilization of Syria. The naive idea that they don't want their weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda, contradicts their history in which they explicitly wanted their weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Also, please name the groups of radical Islamists in Syria that are explicitly unaffiliated with Al Qaeda.

Lexington wrote:Now, the US has no interest in a destabilized Syria either. A wrecked Syria is useless for business.


Man, you make so many statements without any explanation. The US definitely has an interest in protracted conflict Syria, as that drains and weakens Iranian and Hezbollah resources. General Wesley Clark said himself that Syria is on the destabilization list for future US military intervention.

So your idea that the US has all along wanted a stable Syria is just ridiculous...

Lexington wrote:Because it makes no sense - the West and China both do business in Nigeria. Destabilizing Nigeria (and the activities of Boko Haram are not limited to the north) does not selectively benefit the West. The United States is its largest export partner and its second largest import partner.


Oh come on, all of Boko Haram's attack are in the North (mainly Borno state). US interests are on the coast of Nigeria. You simply cannot sit here and tell me that the US and Chinese interests are perfectly aligned.

Image

Lexington wrote:The FSA is not al-Qaeda.


Nobody said they were. But they actively work with Al Qaeda, and a lot of their brigades have either left for Al Qaeda or remained as Al Qaeda.

Lexington, pretending that the US has no idea about this (while routing money and weapons to them) is just ridiculous.

Lexington wrote:The US has specifically worked to vet groups in Syria to which it provides aid precisely so that those weapons and aid don't go to al-Qaeda.


This is such bogus. They obviously haven't vetted the FSA enough to know that many of it's brigades actively work with Al Qaeda, and in some cases claim Al Qaeda affiliation themselves. Yet, the US just pledged 27 million bucks to them last week.

Lexington wrote:You don't like Gordon Brown, but you think Breitbart's people are a sane and honest source of information?


The source of that information wasn't Breitbart, buddy, it was the Executive Director of the Westminster Institute, Katherine Gorka. As far as Breitbart's people being a sane and honest source of information, I'm not sure, I don't get my news from them. But upon wiki research I've found that they run stories from the Associated Press and Reuters, so.... I mean, it definitely looks like they're to the right of the political spectrum, but not sure how that automatically makes them dishonest as you suggest.
User avatar
By Lexington
#14414152
I'm going to reorder some things just to not repeat ourselves:

Sostalgia wrote:So what? Ideological differences didn't stop us from creating Al Qaeda in the first place, or working with them in multiple cases. We couldn't give a damn about the ideology of others as long as they're working for us.

It's naive to think that the US doesn't work with others based on ideological differences. This is a slap in the face of history.


Sostalgia wrote:Well you certainly aren't free enough to admit that those radical Islamists are Al Qaeda. I mean it's just hilarious how you take the US state department approach on this point.


Lexington wrote:The interests of the US and the Soviet Union also aligned in a certain world war.


Sostalgia wrote:But we were talking about Al Qaeda. There are immense differences between WWII and today on reasons of allegiances.


Lexington wrote:The FSA is not al-Qaeda.


Sostalgia wrote:Nobody said they were. But they actively work with Al Qaeda, and a lot of their brigades have either left for Al Qaeda or remained as Al Qaeda.

Lexington, pretending that the US has no idea about this (while routing money and weapons to them) is just ridiculous.


Are there? We sided with the Soviet Union in World War II out of pure necessity, we support the FSA in Syria in a 3-way (hell, four-way, if you remember the Kurds) war out of necessity. Do we like Stalin or al-Qaeda? No, it's the same. Just this is rather smaller.

Sostalgia wrote:This is a complete and utter lie. The CIA has been on the Turkish/Syrian border for years, routing weapons and funds from various arms providers to the "rebels" (or as I like to call them, the "destabilizers", most of which aren't even Syrians themselves)


Sostalgia wrote:This isn't any better than the blabber coming from the US state department press briefings. Those "handful of weapons" are now thousands of anti-tank missiles (half of which are routed through Saudi Arabia).


Cite please.

Sostalgia wrote:And those heavily vetted groups, somehow have snuck past the fact that they work with Al Qaeda on a regular basis. How is that for vetting?


Sostalgia wrote:This is such bogus. They obviously haven't vetted the FSA enough to know that many of it's brigades actively work with Al Qaeda, and in some cases claim Al Qaeda affiliation themselves. Yet, the US just pledged 27 million bucks to them last week.


Again, Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict. Care to comment?


Sostalgia wrote:Oh come on, all of Boko Haram's attack are in the North (mainly Borno state). US interests are on the coast of Nigeria. You simply cannot sit here and tell me that the US and Chinese interests are perfectly aligned.


Or this:

Image

Because China's main interest in Nigeria is also oil. Hence alignment of interests.
User avatar
By Solastalgia
#14414210
Not quite sure what you did with the reorder there, but I did my own reordering, as well (hope that's alright). I've tackled each point of yours from bottom to top, instead of top to bottom.

~~~

Please tell me how your map proves me wrong, when I said that Boko Haram attacks are mostly taking place in Northern Nigeria (particularly Borno state). That map backs me up even more than the one I put up myself (I admit I didn't spend much time trying to find the latest or greatest map).

Now, as far as US-Chinese alignment of interests go. We already established that both countries have oil interests in Nigeria at the beginning of this discussion. So you're not saying anything new there (remember I asked you to explain and give reasons why those interests are aligned - and no, not simply because both like Nigerian oil). Don't you remember my explanation (at the beginning of this debate) as to why I believe they're not aligned? I said that US oil interests in Nigeria have rapidly declined over the years, while Chinese interests have rapidly increased. This is actually the case for the entire continent of Africa, as we see more and more Chinese oil deals, while America's Oil imports from Africa have dropped by 90%. Yes, you read that right. 90 percent: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... 90-percent

Here's a graph from that article.

Image

Nigerian oil exports to the US declined drastically from 1 million barrels in 2011, to 38,000 barrels as of February 2014. Meanwhile, China has been signing billion dollar oil deals with Nigeria, as you linked to in your own post. So I don't know about this whole notion you're trying to pass off, that China and the US have equal oil interests in the region and therefore both interested in keeping the country stable.

Again, Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict. Care to comment?


How does that wikipedia page contradict what I said about FSA factions working with Al Qaeda, yet the US just pledged 27 million bucks to them the other week.

Here's an article from earlier this month on how the FSA faction, The Syrian Revolutionaries Front, joined up with al-Nusra Front weeks before Washington was being lobbied by the FSA for weapons and money. The article also talks about how this same FSA faction got into a skirmish with the ISIS. So the whole notion that your trying to pass off with your wiki link - that the moderate rebels and Al Qaeda are against each other exclusively - doesn't mean much to me. Here's a telling quote from that article:

Wall Street Journal wrote:The Syrian Revolutionaries Front, part of the FSA, joined up with the Nusra Front in the past few weeks to capture strategic hilltops from the regime in southwestern Quneitra province overlooking the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, according to two representatives of the Western-backed rebels who are with the fighters.

[...]

Earlier this year, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front turned its weapons on another al Qaeda-linked faction in Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The move was partly to persuade the West that the opposition is a steadfast partner in the war against extremists.

But over the past few weeks in Quneitra, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front increased their coordination with al Qaeda's largest faction in Syria, the Nusra Front, according to Abu Omar Golani, a media coordinator embedded with the Syrian Revolutionaries Front in Quneitra province.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3675484314

Lexington wrote:Cite please.


Advanced U.S. Weapons Flow to Syrian Rebels

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have supplied Syrian rebel groups with a small number of advanced American antitank missiles for the first time in a pilot program that could lead to larger flows of sophisticated weaponry, people briefed on the effort said.


and here's just one of many videos that have surfaced since April...

[youtube]_I7Z7Zkei6E[/youtube]

Lexington wrote:We sided with the Soviet Union in World War II out of pure necessity, we support the FSA in Syria in a 3-way (hell, four-way, if you remember the Kurds) war out of necessity.




Please, please, tell me why it is necessary for the US to be fueling a bloody civil war in Syria, with our tax money (that could be going to social programs that are instead seeing cuts in spending).
User avatar
By Solastalgia
#14414539
Here's an interesting article I read today...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/29-4

Boko Haram a Blessing for Imperialism in Africa: US Training Death Squads

by Glen Ford

Militarily, Africa is fast becoming an American continent. Barack Obama, who has been president for all but the first year of AFRICOM’s existence, has succeeded in integrating U.S. fighting units, bases, training regimens, equipment and financing into the military structures of all but a handful of African nations. The great pan-Africanist and former Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah’s dream of a militarily united Africa has been all but realized – with Americans and Europeans in charge. Under the guise of “humanitarian” intervention, Obama has vastly expanded Bill Clinton and George Bush’s African footprints, so that only a few patches on the continental map lie outside Washington’s sphere of operations. Eritrea and Zimbabwe are the notable exceptions – and, therefore, future targets.

Africa is occupied territory. The African Union doesn’t even pretend to be in charge of its own nominal peace-keeping missions, which are little more than opportunities for African militaries to get paid for doing the West’s bidding. China and Brazil may be garnering the lion’s share of trade with Africa, but the men with the guns are loyal to AFRICOM – the sugar daddy to the continent’s military class. U.S. troops now sleep in African barracks, brothers in arms with African officers who can determine who will sleep next week in the presidential mansion.

The pace of U.S. penetration of West Africa has quickened dramatically since 2011, when Obama bombed Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government out of existence, setting a flood of jihadists and weapons streaming east to Syria and south to destabilize the nations of the Sahel. Chaos ensued – beautiful chaos, if you are a U.S. military planner seeking justification for ever-larger missions. NATO’s aggression against Libya begat the sub-Saharan chaos that justified the French and U.S. occupation of Mali and Niger. Hyperactive North African jihadists, empowered by American bombs, weapons and money, trained and outfitted their brethren on the continent, including elements of Nigeria’s Boko Haram. The Yoruba-speaking Islamic warriors then bequeathed AFRICOM a priceless gift: nearly 300 schoolgirls in need of rescuing, perfect fodder for “humanitarian” intervention.

Nobody had to ask twice that Obama “Do something!”

The heads of Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Benin and Cameroon were summoned to Paris (pretending it was their idea) where they declared “total war” on Boko Haram, as “observers” from the U.S., France, Britain and the European Union (Africa’s past and future stakeholders) looked on. French President Francois Hollande said “a global and regional action plan” would come out of the conference.

Of course, the five African states have neither the money, training, equipment nor intelligence gathering capacity for such a plan. It will be a Euro-American plan for the defense and security of West Africa – against other Africans. Immediately, the U.S. sent 80 troops to Chad (whose military has long been a mercenary asset of France) to open up a new drone base, joining previously existing U.S. drone fields in Niger, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Seychelles Islands, Djibouti (home to a huge French and American base), and CIA sites that need not be disclosed.

The new West African security grouping became an instant imprint of NATO, an appendage to be shaped by imperial military planners to confront enemies chosen by Washington and Paris.

What a miracle of humanitarian military momentum! The girls had only been missing for a month, and might not be rescued alive, but five neighboring African countries – one of them the biggest economy on the continent – had already been dragooned into a NATO-dominated military alliance with other subordinate African states.

It soon turned out that AFRICOM already had a special relationship with the Nigerian military that was not announced until after the schoolgirls’ abduction. AFRICOM will train a battalion of Nigerian Rangers in counterinsurgency warfare, the first time that the Command has provided “full spectrum” training to Africans on such a scale.

With the American public in a “Save our girls” interventionist frame of mind, operations that were secret suddenly became public. The New York Times reveals that the U.S. has been running a secret program to train counterterrorism battalions for Niger and Mauritania. Elite Green Berets and Delta Force killers are instructing handpicked commandos in counterinsurgency in Mali, as well. The identity of one Times source leaves little doubt that the previously secret operations are designed to blanket the region with U.S. trained death squads. Michael Sheehan was until last year in charge of Special Operations at the Pentagon – Death Squads Central – where he pushed for more Special Ops trainers for African armies. Sheehan now holds the “distinguished chair” at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center. In the 1980s, he was a Special Forces commander in Latin America – which can only mean death squads.

U.S. Army Special Forces have always been political killers, most often operating with the CIA. The Phoenix Program, in Vietnam, which murdered between 26,000 and 41,000 people and tortured many more, was a CIA-Special Forces war crime. From 1975 to deep into the 80s, the CIA and its Special Forces muscle provided technical support and weapons to killers for Operation Condor, the death squads run by a consortium of military governments in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, believed responsible for 60,000 murders. Sheehan was probably involved in Operation Condor and its Central American component, Operation Charly, and has perfected the art of political murder, ever since. If he is happy and feeling vindicated by events in Africa, then U.S.-trained death squads are about to proliferate in that part of the world.

There is no question that Obama is enamored of Special Ops, since small unit murders by professional killers at midnight look less like war – and can, if convenient, be blamed on (other) “terrorists.” However, history – recent history – proves the U.S. can get away with almost limitless carnage in Africa. Ethiopia’s 2006 invasion of Somalia, backed by U.S. forces on land, air and sea, resulted in “the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa” at the time, “worse than Darfur,” according to UN observers, with hundreds of thousands dead. The U.S. then withheld food aid to starve out Somali Shabaab fighters, leading to even more catastrophic loss of life. But, most Americans are oblivious to such crimes against Black humanity.

U.S. ally Ethiopia commits genocide against ethnic Somalis in its Ogaden region with absolute impunity, and bars the international media from the region. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – each of them with help from Susan Rice – have collectively killed six million Congolese since 1996. The greatest genocide since World War Two was the premeditated result of the chaos deliberately imposed on mineral-rich Congo by the U.S. and its henchmen in neighboring Rwanda and Uganda. Paul Kagame, the current leader of Rwanda, shot down a plane with two presidents aboard in 1994, sparking the mass killings that brought Kagame to power and started neighboring Congo on the road to hell. America celebrates Kagame as a hero, although the Tutsi tribal dictator sends death squads all over the world to snuff out those who oppose him.

Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, a friend of the U.S. since Ronald Reagan, committed genocidal acts against his rivals from the Acholi tribe, throwing them into concentration camps. Joseph Kony was one of these Acholis, who apparently went crazy. Kony hasn’t been a threat to Uganda or any other country in the region for years, but President Obama used a supposed sighting of remnants of his Lords Resistance Army to send 100 Green Berets to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan. Just last month, Obama sent 150 more troops and four aircraft to central Africa, again claiming that Kony was lurking, somewhere.

Actually, the American troops were deployed near South Sudan, which the U.S, Britain and Israel had destabilized for decades in an effort to split it off from the larger nation of Sudan. South Sudan became independent, but it remained unstable – not a nation, but a place with oil that the U.S. coveted. Many tens of thousands more are certain to die in fighting in South Sudan, but few Americans will blame their own country.

As the carnage in Congo demonstrates, whole populations can be made to disappear in Africa without most people in the West noticing. The death squads the Americans are training in Nigeria, Niger, Mauretania and Mali, and those that will soon be stalking victims in Cameroon and Benin, will not be limited to hunting Boko Haram. Death squads are, by definition, destabilizing; they poison the political and social environment beyond repair, as Central Americans who lived through the 80s can attest.

Yet, that is U.S. imperialism’s preferred method of conquest in the non-white world. It’s what the Americans actually do, when folks demand that they “Do something.”
By ness31
#14787766
I don't pay all that much attention to 'terrorism' anymore as I find it hard to figure out what is and isn't real in the media. But I was reading about Boko Haram and a chill ran down my spine. I think they need to disappear off the face of the planet.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14793679
Solastalgia wrote:What's really going in Nigeria? I've read reports citing Wikileaks saying that Boko Haram is funded by Libyan and Algerian AQ sponsored by the west. Is Boko Haram used to check China's influence in the region (Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon & Chad)? It would seem to be going straight to Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan of seeing Africa separated into smaller ethnic states (divide & conquer).


Africa will always be africa.
Trump's Dumb Economics

Truth and facts are not always the same, since tr[…]

They are not victims just stupid. Your socio[…]

Too Many White People

I would amend that statement. I think the governm[…]

I support this initiative. Small migrant boats can[…]