Boko Harem

K

Krgrecw

**NOT ACTUALLY RACIST
Supposedly kidnapped another 60 girls and 31 boys in Nigeria a few days ago. The Nigeria government is worthless.

I know many of you all are against armed conflict where it doesn't concern us but how the Western World gives these pieces of a **** a pass is beyond me. These guys are untrained, uneducated, and have no heavy weapons

You can send in 15-20 highly skilled soldiers from a dozen or so countries and take care of these guys fairly easily. If Egypt wants some money have them contribute a sizable force.

No excuse in this day and age to have groups like Boko Harem running around mutilating, killing and kidnapping defenseless people.
 
Boko Haram is just another part of the US's conquest for oil. Make these governments need US assistance from crazy militants, then step in and get some American/British corps to take their oil for more profit.

The US army is the right arm of big oil basically.
 
zitothebrave said:
Boko Haram is just another part of the US's conquest for oil. Make these governments need US assistance from crazy militants, then step in and get some American/British corps to take their oil for more profit.

The US army is the right arm of big oil basically.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
zitothebrave said:
Boko Haram is just another part of the US's conquest for oil. Make these governments need US assistance from crazy militants, then step in and get some American/British corps to take their oil for more profit.

The US army is the right arm of big oil basically.
Click to expand...

How does the US accomplish this aspect?
 
thethe said:
How does the US accomplish this aspect?
Click to expand...

By going to the very poor promising them glory, eternal life, etc. by fighting against the cruel leaders of a certain government, like Nigeria, or Libya, or Syria. Do you honestly think we're just arming the "moderate" resistance to Syria? US has been using this type of strategy for a long time. It started as a way to fight the Soviets, now they've found another way to do it. Taking advantage of the disenfranchised has been something leaders have done for a long long time.
 
zitothebrave said:
Even if you ignore the more conspiracy theory things. At the very least the US choosing to back syrian rebels is arming Al Qaeda and Boko Haram.
Click to expand...

If you play that game, the US to an extent backs and arms every group in the world. Haram are a bunch of Islamic radical ****heads. They all deserve to die
 
Krgrecw said:
If you play that game, the US to an extent backs and arms every group in the world. Haram are a bunch of Islamic radical ****heads. They all deserve to die
Click to expand...

Except when they fight for american interests. Like the rebels in Syria. Those radical ****heads are all right by US.
 
zitothebrave said:
Even if you ignore the more conspiracy theory things. At the very least the US choosing to back syrian rebels is arming Al Qaeda and Boko Haram.
Click to expand...

So you believe that without the US then groups like Boko Harim wouldn't exist? I just want to make sure I understand what you are trying to say here.
 
i was taking the comment as "we don't really want to stop guys like him cause as long as he is out there, we can then say we will help in turn for oil etc etc etc"

but maybe i miss understood it and we are both confused on what is being said
 
Zito is saying the small guys like Boko and the Kony2012 and the ISIS, USA could theoretically overwhelm them with military power and rid of them quickly, but we play the wait and wait card to where it gets desperate and the US will send troops in return for something like oil agreements.
 
I hope we don't lose sight in our "we are the bad guys" responses that Boko Harem really does some atrocious things...

Carry on.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Zito is saying the small guys like Boko and the Kony2012 and the ISIS, USA could theoretically overwhelm them with military power and rid of them quickly, but we play the wait and wait card to where it gets desperate and the US will send troops in return for something like oil agreements.
Click to expand...

I hope Zito doesn't actually believe that.
 
Krgrecw said:
I hope Zito doesn't actually believe that.
Click to expand...

There's been covert CIA stuff like this for decades.

Just like when we supported Saddam and the 53 Coup d'etat in Iran.

We supported Mubarak for years despite the fact he had tons of human rights violations under his belt, he like Saddam was able to suppress certain rebel factions in the country. We took action in Libya not because they were fighting for some historic revolution, but because Libya has plenty of oil at their disposal.

You can't be naive and think the most powerful on the nation on Earth doesn't pick and choose which battles it wants to fight and when it wants to fight them for political convenience. The entire point of mission accomplished and all the terror alerts being raised in 2003 and 2004 was to boost Bush's job approval in the public eye that he was our "protector" in-chief and was strong... and of course we can go all day about swiftboating.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Zito is saying the small guys like Boko and the Kony2012 and the ISIS, USA could theoretically overwhelm them with military power and rid of them quickly, but we play the wait and wait card to where it gets desperate and the US will send troops in return for something like oil agreements.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a damned if you do and damned if you don't. So now people are blaming the US for not getting involved in international affairs enough?
 
Krgrecw said:
I hope Zito doesn't actually believe that.
Click to expand...

Aside from what SAV mentioned which are a few of the more well known examples of the US propping up someone for their own political/financial interests.

But the thing is that we're already repeating it, we're funding Al Qaeda in Syria for some gain either political or economical. WE're funding the bad guys. The guys who used Sarin gas which is a war crime. By proxy the US is basically committing a War crime.

Everyone claims that Sharia Law is bad and the devil, but the people we're backing in Syria want to implement Sharia Law.

Here's an article to read if you think the US is all sunshine and butterflies

http://www.alternet.org/world/35-countries-where-us-has-supported-fascists-druglords-and-terrorists

Here's the truth you won't admit, War makes the rich richer. So they want a constant war. What better way to do that than constantly overthrow governments by backing extremists, then a few years later after you've made the rounds, oust the ones you put in charge.
 
thethe said:
Sounds like a damned if you do and damned if you don't. So now people are blaming the US for not getting involved in international affairs enough?
Click to expand...

Yes, because we've made the world dependent on Team America World Police, as a method to strengthen our case for war, which then profits the rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top