world

Boko Haram burns kids alive in Nigeria; 86 dead

28 Comments
By ISMAIL ALFA and HARUNA UMAR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

Where is NATO? Where is the UN condemnation? Where are the clerics detesting wasteful killing?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The 6-year Islamic uprising has killed about 20,000 people and driven 2.5 million from their homes.

Savages the all are! If the US were to bomb them and their fellow Islamists anywhere in the world, and we miss and hit some civilians in collateral damage, the world would go in a tizzy and call the US the biggest war criminal. Yet, these clowns get to burn and shoot people just because they are a different religion and the world remains silent.

For those who wish to bash all religion, let me stop you. Name to me any other religion that currently goes into areas, shoots and burns, kidnaps and rapes others not of their own religion? Yeah Christianity may have had a heavy hand in the past but that was a long time ago. Time for the world to wake up and deal with these thugs.

Funny, my being a Black man in America, all I have heard from some of my own is that the USA does nothing for the people of Africa, and that the government didn't care since all the previous presidents were "angry old white men" who would not want to commit US forces to tackle issues in Africa. Now we have a Black president, where are those same voices in my community?

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The 6-year Islamic uprising has killed about 20,000 people and driven 2.5 million from their homes.

Islamic uprising? They are no more than a bunch of crazed fanatics and gangsters. They need to be surrounded and soundly killed. Every last one of them. It's sad that my US president would rather escalate the cold war and start civil wars in the ME to build oil and gas pipelines, rather than rub out these evil people.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

@alphaape I'm quite sure that even if these people were of another religion they'd be doing the same thing. This is a civil war.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Does not anyone's heart ache for this? Innocent children with no chance, born into an unstable country; with no protection. My heart aches, I weep. What is America, what is France, what is anyone in any country doing to help? Where is the government of Nigeria? What is done with the money earned from all that oil? Where can the people go? My heart goes out to the mothers, to the families.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"What is America, what is France, what is anyone in any country doing to help?"

Whenever the West complies with such pleas, it ends up as being blamed for "starting" the conflict in the first place!

Stay out, I say. As long as Muslims and the regressive left can scapegoat the West for local religious and tribal inspired conflicts, the horror in those regions will never improve.

Meanwhile, we increasingly become targets for terror attacks made worse by our "obligation" to take in millions of people from the world's most dangerous places, where nearly everyone adheres to bigoted medieval attitudes. A lose-lose-lose proposition, indeed.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Unfortunately since it is Africa the African Union has more say than NATO or the UN in what is getting done in many of the states experiencing Civil War. There are charters that respect sovereignty of African States and only allow AU peace keeping forces to be deployed if the state requests them.

AU (and UN I believe) peace keeping forces are in Nigeria but it's not the kind of 'war' that a military force can fight and win; The enemy is amorphous. The targets too spread out and indefensible.

Nevermind adding to that fire the extra fuel that is UN/AU peace keeping forces being accused of multiple problematic behaviours.

The West expresses heart ache and disbelief but unfortunately in Africa this is just another day for many of us.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Whenever the West complies with such pleas, it ends up as being blamed for "starting" the conflict in the first place!

The problem is when the West goes in without being asked/invited.

I agree with you that we should stay out of this, unless a formal request is made to the UN to have UN troops come in and sort it out. Then and only then should the world intervene.

It's heart wrenching to standby and let kids be murdered like this without taking action, but the sad fact of things is that stepping in without a formal request or a formal directive by the UN just ends up creating more troubles. The due process needs to be followed.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Well, there are a lot of heroes out there fighting for the children of Africa, as an American, this guy is on the top of my list.

http://www.amazon.com/Another-Mans-War-Battle-Children/dp/1595554246

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Guardian ran an article about how Nigeria's population is projected to exceed the US by 2050. That may also make it the largest English-speaking country in the world. (It's in 2nd place now.)

theguardian.com/global-development/2013/jun/13/nigeria-larger-population-us-2050

I would hope that the Boko Haram problem will be eliminated by then.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The 6-year Islamic uprising has killed about 20,000 people and driven 2.5 million from their homes.

These guys aren't going away soon. & I used to think "they" were the real jv team. Pity what they did to those kids.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

by our "obligation" to take in millions of people from the world's most dangerous places, where nearly everyone adheres to bigoted medieval attitudes. A lose-lose-lose proposition, indeed.

@ Jeff Lee: I agree and to your earlier point about the West being blamed for causing this if we intervene. I Same thing happened back in Rwanda in the 90's as the world stood by and did nothing. In my opinion, since we have a good idea where these idiots are based, drop a few dozen Liquid gas bombs and blast them out. Instead of brining refugees to the west, clear out lands (better still the bad guys) and make the place safe tor them to live in their own homeland.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

since we have a good idea where these idiots are based, drop a few dozen Liquid gas bombs and blast them out.

Yeah, that strategy has worked wonders with ISIS.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

UN blue helmets are prevented by their charter and the agreements that enable them to operate from actively engaging in combat; their remit is limited to protecting civilians, and they are able to return fire when doing so, or defending themselves. There are not enough of them on the planet to protect the entire population of even a geographically small country, much less one the size of Nigeria, particularly given the asymmetrical nature of the conflict there - and in any event, they would be hopelessly outgunned. Unless the AU or neighbouring countries can provide enough troops to provide security, and the Nigerian govt is willing to accept them, such tragic loss of innocent life is going to continue. And, as a number of posters have correctly commented, this is not a "religious" conflict - it is political and tribal.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What needs to happen here, is give these Boko guys a truck-load of cash, have them imply never to do it again.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Where is NATO?

The sentiment is understood and perfectly appropriate. Why does Africa get short-thrifted when it comes to these sorts of atrocities happening, but attacks like those against the U.S., the U.K., or France somehow move people to feel something?

However, NATO has no authority in Africa. It stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is a telling title in that it was created as a mutual defense agreement between European nations against then-Soviet, but now much broader military threats.

No country in Africa is a member of NATO, so there is absolutely no reason it would necessarily be required involve itself in the atrocities being committed by Boko Haram. Perhaps not the answer most people want to hear, but it is the reality. And honestly, what could NATO realistically do against an enemy that is as non-centralized and proficient at guerilla warfare as Boka Haram clearly are? Boko Haram has to be defeated by Nigeria and Africans. There is certainly room to help, but how that help arrives and in what form is the rub that very few can agree on.

Like Syria, come to think of it. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Palestine.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"The problem is when the West goes in without being asked/invited."

Nice sentiment, but bloodthirsty tyrants don't "invite" Westerners to come in and sort out their problems.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Is Nigeria ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It's very brutal, cruel & evil!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's sad that my US president would rather escalate the cold war and start civil wars in the ME to build oil and gas pipelines, rather than rub out these evil people.

People will still have no tolerance for US intervention. Many people will still see it as US empire ambitions - they're getting rid of Boko Haram so they can dominate western central Africa.

Whenever the West complies with such pleas, it ends up as being blamed for "starting" the conflict in the first place!

The problem is when the West goes in without being asked/invited.

I agree with you that we should stay out of this, unless a formal request is made to the UN to have UN troops come in and sort it out. Then and only then should the world intervene.

There was the UN-approved operations in Somalia (UNISOM), the US intervened, resulting in the renowned Battle of Mogadishu with the Black Hawk helicopters special ops unit.

Many people still think the US shouldn't had intervened.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yeah, that strategy has worked wonders with ISIS.

Actually it has somewhat. The reason why airstrikes are not fully effective is because of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) set in place at least on the US side. Where we can't bomb unless we are 99% sure that no civilian collateral damage will be generated and we have also gone and dropped leaflets in areas we are about to bomb letting people know that we are coming. Not too bright giving the enemy a heads up that it's about to rain explosives on you.

They have intelligence sources as to where they are hiding, but as I have stated because of ROE we don't go after them. This issue is being "managed" badly instead of being fought wisely.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Actually it has somewhat. The reason why airstrikes are not fully effective is because of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) set in place at least on the US side. Where we can't bomb unless we are 99% sure that no civilian collateral damage will be generated and we have also gone and dropped leaflets in areas we are about to bomb letting people know that we are coming. Not too bright giving the enemy a heads up that it's about to rain explosives on you.

Which, if you're going to do it, is the best way to do it, so as to limit the number of civilian casualties, thereby creating less future enemies.

But you seem to be advocating bombing them without worrying about civilian deaths. Is that correct?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Civilian deaths will always be part of the equation. But its more acceptable because the the terrorists are the "main target." Everyone know the western powers are never deliberately targeting children. And or "burning" them alive like Boko-Haram is.

But you seem to be advocating bombing them without worrying about civilian deaths. Is that correct?

Yes. I'd worry about the civilian deaths, but its inevitable.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Civilian deaths will always be part of the equation.

Civilian deaths should never be part of the equation.

But its more acceptable because the the terrorists are the "main target."

And in killing the terrorists, you create more through the killings of the civilians you kill with the terrorists.

Blood begets blood, violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.

No one ever bombed their way to peace.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Blood begets blood, violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.

We could go round and round on this but let's look at a few facts. 1. These guys are kidnapping their own country men and people in the local area not because they support US policies, but because they choose to practice a different religion than them. 2. Every measure should be done to try to minimize civilian deaths, but the enemy doesn't seem to care about who lives and who dies, and though I am not saying we do the same barbaric things they do like capturing young girls and raping them or selling them into slavery, but the enemy will need to be killed. 3. Though the survivors may have some remorse from bombing from coalition forces, and be on the wrong end of some of the bombings, I am sure that they may want to have it ended by eradicating the enemy, knowing that their kind will not rise again and do it to them again. 4. Blood begets blood, but as I pointed out any survivors on the Boko side already have a hatred against the coalition forces and if they comprise US forces against the US and the rest of the west simply because they hate us for our religious beliefs. If they also want to add that we are hated because we blew up their followers who were running around killing and looting and raping, what do I care? They never liked me (US) anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These guys are kidnapping their own country men and people in the local area not because they support US policies, but because they choose to practice a different religion than them.

Do you think the relatives of innocents killed excuse the bombers because of this?

I am not saying we do the same barbaric things they do like capturing young girls and raping them or selling them into slavery, but the enemy will need to be killed.

And we're back to the question - you seem to be advocating bombing them without worrying about civilian deaths. Is that correct?

Though the survivors may have some remorse from bombing from coalition forces, and be on the wrong end of some of the bombings, I am sure that they may want to have it ended by eradicating the enemy, knowing that their kind will not rise again and do it to them again.

You realize that from their perspective, the enemy are those that bombed and killed their friends/relatives/neighbors, right? They aren't looking at the extremists as the enemy. Or are you saying that because the bombing that killed their friends/relatives/neighbors also killed IS guys, they will not have any hostility towards the bombers?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to the Caliph. Taking him out would be a big step forward.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually it has somewhat. The reason why airstrikes are not fully effective is because of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) set in place at least on the US side. Where we can't bomb unless we are 99% sure that no civilian collateral damage will be generated and we have also gone and dropped leaflets in areas we are about to bomb letting people know that we are coming. Not too bright giving the enemy a heads up that it's about to rain explosives on you.

Which, if you're going to do it, is the best way to do it, so as to limit the number of civilian casualties, thereby creating less future enemies.

Though it could also lead to not winning the war

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites