By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: should Xi jinping and Putin gang up on Boko Haram...I think they should
send +/-50,000 each and be done with them
9 years 51 weeks ago in Relationships - China
I assume you meaning ganging up to attack and wipe them out ? don't think its a good solution. We have seen the impact of the U.S's war on terror, all it did is increasing and spreading more and more extremists. I honestly think they are a bunch of batshit crazy cowards that don't deserve to life but brute force won't be enough.
But I think ganging up (teaming up) on protecting and developing growth and prosperity around the area I think will be the best solution, most of them are just poor people with almost no education brainwashed by some fanatics.
Don't think this is going to happen anytime soon though, each country are bound with their own self interest and they don't trust each other.
Hulk:
I'm downvoting you, and here's why.
Those nutjobs kidnapped and raped a bunch of little girls, and you're saying Xi/Putin shouldn't send forces to fuck them up? So they should stay there and CONTINUALLY GET RAPED?
All because you don't want them to be all "war on terrory"?
No thanks. Wipe out those useless terrorists once and for all - I don't care who does it. Prosperity/the economy/etc isn't going to stop a fucked up ideology from spreading. Only the sword can do that.
jetfire9000:
"but I think protecting and developing growth and prosperity around the area" will " be the best solution"
That seems to be an overly simple, even Chinese notion of thought. Does focusing 100% on economic growth solve a problem as serious as embedded terrorist organizations? Does purely focusing on economic growth even solve much smaller problems?
China's got enough issues already just from thinking that people being wealthier will make everything better.
liantohusin:
@hulk and jet
I'm not saying some force isn't necessary, i said it won't be enough. I said "protect and develop growth and prosperity" perhaps i'm not clear but by protect i mean protect the country with military assistance too.
What I meant is I don't think only using force is enough, you must also tried to prevent/stop the influence of this fucknuts. I wish we can just simply identify, locate, and eradicate all of those fuckers but its not that simple, isn't it ?
Its like eradicating pests, you can't kill them all, yes you force them to move out and then you create an unsustainable environment for them so they can't come back. Like death sentence for rape, promoting woman's right and education etc. But the main thing is you need them to be able to lookout for themselves, you can't watch them forever we know there are a lot of crazy extremists like this somewhere thats why you need to develop their economy too, so they can build their own army/protection.
I don't care who sends who. I don't care who gets the glory.
What I want is for those pedophile sons of bitches to be impaled on pikes and fed to wild animals.
They should team up on Procol Harum instead and do a duet of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" at KTV.
I would second Hulk in that case with one exception, send anyone to exterminate the terrorists using any agenda but be planned and carry a targeted operation. As lian pointed out, 'the war on terror' lost its effectiveness because there were numerous innocent people killed during many operations. Thats why it resulted as counter productive and today we have more terrorists in the world though US and NATO put their best to eradicate them.
Many people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan get killed for no reason during the operations and no justice was provided to the families so they turned on to terrorism. Thus in certain cases if three are killed, another 10 would replace them. Education would have a great impact to eradicate this shit from the world.
The most important thing is majority of the groups are using Islam as a shield to carry on their nutfuckery all over the world while to gain the sympathy of Muslim world. Killing or kidnapping people is an extreme sin and strongly prohibited according to Islamic school of thought even in the time of war Muslims are prohibited to kill children, elders and women. Now putting BOCO HARAM, Al-Qaida or whichever terrorist groups in place they certainly killed many of the above mentioned. They cannot be Muslims at all.
First of all: the kidnapping has been broadcast, but not verified.
Second of all, and here's something that will bring the ire of the bleeding-heart liberals against me, the conflicts in Nigeria, Somalia, Ghana, Eritea, Liberia, etc., are civil wars that are beyond our scope to comprehend and solve/stop.
The west can send in a force to 'monitor', 'police' 'broker deals' but in the end, the police action has to end and the fighting resumes.
Education requires money and long-term support. We can see that the effects of science and public-health awareness doesn't even knick the tip of the iceberg here in China after all the years of educational/scientific exchange.
Western approaches to conflict in Africa cannot work - they need African approaches.
Shining_brow:
Except, the Quoran also says that if you're not a believer, then you're not truly human, so killing such people is ok...
Some obviously take that literally... :(
thefidu881:
Shining: thats incorrect and I bet if you find this type of translation from the Quraan, I will go against the Quraan. May be you got the wrong version of translation as I am 100 % sure about it.
Shining_brow:
@thefidu - Ah, perhaps my bad.... maybe I'm just thinking of a justification or interpretation that some of the more extreme and militant have used.
(I'm not anti-Muslim... but I am anti-extremists who interpret things to justify their violence, etc... for any religion!)
thefidu881:
I am on the same page with you, even if they call themselves Muslims, I want them to be exterminated as soon possible in a just way. As the biggest institute of Muslims in India has already said, terrorists have nothing to do with Islam or any other religion rather they are groups involved in terrorism across the world. A Muslim cannot kill innocent people. I wish those nut bags should be wiped out sooner.
These situations obviously must cause a ton of headaches.
Why does it always seem like the Islam extremist are in the center of these things?
Does anyone else get tired of hearing the pain and suffering they cause?
I know the solution. How about all nations create a super-being ("If god doesn't exist, it is necessary to invent him!" - Voltaire). Some kind of super robot or something lol.
We make a list of rules ALL RELIGIONS and all people can agree on (then they must be taught to all people of the world. And program it into the robot and connect it to ALL cameras, satellites, mobile phones, computers in existence.
This robot will immediate gather data and if ANY action is against the rules for ANY reason. The robot goes there and smokes the hell out of all of them instantly (like an suped-up Iron Man except it uses its own AI and it is totally impartial to anyone). Your name is "Obama" and you did something wrong, too bad you are smoked.
All countries put money into the project and crime and terrorism goes down by like 99% in the first year. PROBLEM SOLVED!
I think the world should gang up on freaks like these. It might go all SKYNET on us but it is a risk I think is worth taking.
thefidu881:
Then comes the alien part in the movie, 
or the robot got an abnormal activity from the 'Bermuda Triangle' and eventually the world is ganged up.....
By the way,a nice story for a movie 
.
"The leader of the homegrown Boko Haram terrorist network, Abubakar Shekau, in a video received Saturday claimed responsibility for the Abuja bombing, but said nothing about the kidnapped girls. Shekau repeated his opposition to "corrupting" Western influences, saying, "Everyone that calls himself a Muslim must stop obeying the constitution, must abandon democracy, must stay away from Western education." Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful" in the local Hausa language."
I'm not sure Xi or Putin are going to disagree entirely with this group.. though they may disagree with their tactics.
The problem is, like in oh-o-many countries, corruption and ineptitude. Fix those, and you'll fix problems like this. But, those problems are much harder to fix, because those in control don't want to fix them. Look what happened in Afghanistan - some US companies wanted to put an oil pipeline through the country the locals said 'no', so the local government got taken down... and the first thing that happened once the 'war' was considered won - the signing of a contract for the oil pipeline!
Same here.. while the corruption lasts. the oil flows. Cos, you know, US money is more important than a country's people's well-being....
Ah, seems terrorism threads turn into blaming the US just as quickly here as in other forums.
Also, both countries already are facing significant threats from internal jihadists in the "New Border" in the west of PRC and in the Caucasus, so why would we expect them to be able to resolve a terrorist threat in an entirely other part of the world?
Shining_brow:
Well, the US is the world's #1 supporter and instigator of terrorism.. so it would make sense! The US gov kills and maims more people across the planet than any other organisation through 'terrorist activities' (as well as supporting the business that make and sell the equipment)... just that 'they're the 'good' guys'. so 'we' don't call it 'terrorism'... it's.... 'justice', 'delivering freedom', 'protecting the people', 'bringing democracy', 'eliminating 'radicals'', etc etc.
All depends exactly on which side of the line you look at things from.
sam239:
Well I would need some examples. I looked into US military protocol in Afghanistan. They literally go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. Don't believe me, look at the google map of US drone strikes in Pakistan: concentrated in a tiny area known to internat'l authorities to be used for jihadist training, and strikes occur away from towns to minimize side casualties. Contrast this with the operating style of groups like Boko Haram, Hamas, and AQ offshoots in S and SE Asia, and u will see it is inaccurate to characterize US as in the same category as these creeps.
Shining_brow:
You're denying that the US govt has funded such organisations in the past in order to help bring down 'unfriendly' governments? Hasn't trained personnel on US soil? Hasn't used its own operatives to assassinate 'undesireable elements' thorugh he use of bombs?
And,no.. if the US military "literally go out of their way' (and I hate the mis-use of the word 'literally\!), then they would do ANY sort of drone attacks into an area where civilians live. 'Minimizing' casualties is not the same as 'no' casualties!
As for examples (which I presume you will attempt to justify or ignore, or some other such crap...) how about - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cambodia, Vietnam , Chile, El Salvador, Bolivia (just off the top of my head).. yes, they are acts of terror designed to alter the attitudes of the government/people - in which civilians were targetted - or the area to lead to a certain objective.
I presume you're American. I suggest you look things from the other side.
thefidu881:
Sam: let me correct you with respect to drone strikes within Pakistan. As per UN reports, 1 terrorist is killed at the risk of killing 7 civilians within that region. Now if you presume all the people at that region as terrorist then I won't go any further to debate with you.
Secondly, if drones were so effective why are the terrorists increasing in number instead of decreasing in Pakistan.
Why the majority of UN members down-voted drone strikes? Do you believe in extra Judaic killings? If no what exactly are the drones doing?
We are against terrorism in any shape but it must be discriminated when it comes to the safety of civilians. 2600 civilians have been reported killed in the drone strikes which mean 2600 families are compelled to become terrorists.
sam239:
shining, well aware of all of that, but the only part relevant to OP is the claim that US/"See Eye A" is behind this kind of terrorism. My basic thoughts on the matter are this: there is a worldwide war being waged by Islamic fanatics, from western Africa all the way over to southern Phillippines (u can trace a near border between the "abode of peace" and elsewhere by looking at where bombings and beheadings are going on. US is not behind this; best evidence for this is its emergence in places like western China and Caucasus mtns. in Russia. It is similar to the sex abuse problem in the R. C Church, which is slowly being resolved through police and UN and others' actions. The Islamic militant problem is resolved militarily, however, and countries will be forced to do this in coming years (hell noticed the armed police in China lately? what do u think they are there for?).
And yet another bad news from the fuc***s. They have killed more than a hundred civilians in the area which was evacuated by military to carry on the operation of retrieving the kidnapped girls.
Not gonna lie, but if there is anything of sexual nature in your question, I am going to have nightmares.
