I purposefully waited to respond to some of the comments made because it isn't sound practice here to do so while angry. There was a comment made in reply to one of my earlier post which I find the epitome of ignorant arrogant hubris. However I will respond in sequence.
Have you mustered up your veteran brothers to lead an attack? Or are you too nothing more than an internet armchair activist calling for blood?
Turk is the only one here to ever contact me with questions concerning my military experience. I respect he did that so if you are truly curious, which I doubt, perhaps you can ask him. You can save face that way.
Suffice it to say if I were still active I would go without hesitation. If called now, I would go without hesitation. And I wouldn't be carrying a stupid sign with a hashtag pictured on it.
But perhaps you could go over there and understand them into submission.
I doubt they anticipated the massive public outcry that was spread via....the internet
I seriously doubt they give a crap about public outcry spread via the internet.
It got us talking about it. It got newspapers talking about it. It got politicians talking about it. It brought attention to the issue rather than having a one or two day BBC news headline.
And the girls are still in captivity.
Boko Haram attack kills 31 Nigerian security personnel
The militants, whose violent struggle for an Islamic state in northern Nigeria has killed thousands and made them the biggest threat to security in Africa's top oil-producing state, are still holding more than 200 girls kidnapped on April 14, an act which provoked international outrage.
Source:
Boko Haram attack kills 31 Nigerian security personnel | Reuters
I don't think the hashtag had the intention of getting Boko Haram to release the girls. Its about raising awareness and getting people and politicians involved in the issue.
This is the true straw man repeatedly tossed out in this argument. The issue is not and was not who first thought up the hashtag or that it was about raising awareness. The issue was and is the image of the First Lady of the United States posting this picture:
Imagery is powerful, and the image this picture presented to the world was clear and undeniable. In response to the kidnapping of these girls by the Islamic fundamentalist group Boko Haram, and in response to whatever other murderous activities they may engage in, the United States of America will do nothing. Except pout.
Once again, Kony 2012 was labelled a "disaster" and "idiotic" by many, but it helped give some much needed military and strategic support to the region. It gave politicians the public mandate to act, knowing that millions of people had 'liked' this page and were recognizing it as a serious issue.
And here is what Anneke Van Woudenberg of HRW said about that, quote:
"Arresting Kony and other senior LRA leaders would reaffirm that those who commit mass atrocities will face justice. It will also help end the scourge of one of the most brutal rebel groups in Africa."
Sure it would. But that outcome would first require someone willing to go into Kony's world and find him. As in guys with guns, and not someone holding a cardboard cutout displaying a hashtag.
The Boko Haram are not a small terrorist organization. Asking Obama to "go after" Boko Haram is like asking Bush to "go after" al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush acted as C in C and it resulted in a decade-long and very unpopular war thousands of miles from home.
You know I recall a few missions in Afghanistan during the early deployments there. We went in, captured the objective, destroyed everything and everyone worthy of being destroyed, and then left. That is one type of mission for which special operators are specifically trained for. This argument those who support some actual action in response to what Boko Haram has done are advocating for another war and invading Nigeria is all disingenuous self-righteous pap.
Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, for the last five years American servicemen have been in Afghanistan Obama has been president.
Attacking Boko Haram would have to involve a large scale invasion of most of northern Nigeria in order to weed them out.
An operation with the goal of rescuing those girls would not.
As I said, Boko Haram is very diffuse. They don't really even seem to have an explicit leader. So who should the Navy Seals go after? And where do you go find them? They don't advertise their presence.
This argument is made each and every time a new potential adversary US troops may face arises. Those who oppose the use of US military forces in any other capacity than delivering pizza or deflecting from scandal always claim the soldiers of whatever potential enemy are all ten feet tall, our soldiers can't operate in their terrain because our guys simply don't match up, they will simply outwit our guys, it will be a bloodbath because the US military can't handle such a mission blah blah blah...
Our special ops guys are the best in the world. You doubt that go up to the next one you see and tell him how useless he is.
Another very unsettling part of Boko Haram (like Kony) is that they use child soldiers. So if you send troops in to fight Boko Haram, you are essentially telling your troops that they have to go kill children that have been brainwashed and mutilated.
And if Boko Haram were eradicated rather than appeased they would no longer be able to use child soldiers. Look up the West Side Boys and the British SAS response to them.
Keep in mind, that one of the reasons that the US may get involved with Boko Haram in Nigeria is largely due to public pressure...via the internet.
Nothing which occurs on the internet is going to save those children. As another has said elsewhere, internet activism is the most lazy form of activism known to man.
I ultimately see very few negatives surrounding the internet campaign. I don't see how it harms anyone.
The image of the First Lady of the United States holding a sign and looking all pouty harms the image of the United States. It reveals us as a bunch of spineless wimps without the resolve to actually take a stand.
It is a great way to spread information and knowledge about something and build support for action. I have little doubt that there will be action against Boko Haram because of this.
Well the President used a few harsh words, so...
Straw man. The campaign is not about getting Boko Haram to change their actions. You're just making stuff up.
And you are talking out the wrong orifice. If the campaign isn't about some attempt to persuade Boko Haram to release the girls, what is it about? Oh, right, allowing some people to feel good about themselves...
Ibrahim M. Abdullahi, a Nigerian, was the first tweet to express his complete dissatisfaction with the government response...
I see you have made this point more than a few times during this debate. This point is completely irrelevant. Once the First Lady of the United States posed for and published that picture, who thought up the hashtag slogan no longer made the slightest bit of difference. When the First Lady published that photograph the hashtag became the official foreign policy of the United States. As someone who has seen the face of Islamic Fundamentalism up close and personal I guarantee you the Boko Haram Muslim fanatics were rolling on the ground laughing not only at Michelle Obama but at her husband as well over that foreign policy statement.
Another straw man, I am not surprised.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You're on a roll, another straw man. The campaign was not directed at Boko Haram, so all your points are meaningless.
You haven't addressed my points, so I will repeat them. What war fighters know and the left either refuses to learn or acknowledge is if you want to impress people like the Boko Haram leaders and members there is only one way to do it, from the barrel of a squad automatic weapon. That will cause the next group of terrorist idiots to consider the response to their planed action might be a personal greeting from a Navy Seal or an Army Ranger as opposed to a pouty look from the First Lady.
The frothing at the mouth by conservative media only began because they saw liberals doing something, and since liberals are doing something...
Liberals are doing what liberals always do, talking and pouting and acting all self-righteous. Meanwhile those girls are still in captivity.
Raising money for cancer research? Attack, they're liberal. Dedicating a memorial to a civil rights icon? Attack, they're liberal. Showing solidarity for a cause?
Now this defines a straw man argument. But what cause would that be?
The only fault here is that conservative media thought it was fun and games to attack a response to a deplorable act because some involved with the campaign sre their perceived political enemies.
We attacked the response because it was an idiotic weak-kneed ill-conceived and ultimately pointless response.
And finally...
You can buy those on the internet.
This response illustrates perfectly you know nothing of service in the US military, especially where terms such as honor, commitment, duty and dedication are concerned. The Combat Infantry Man's badge is one of the highest honors a service man can earn, because there is only one manner in which to earn it. Those who have one are proud to display it while those who haven't take pride in such nonsense as hashtag campaigns. And in attempting to denigrate those who have served in a combat zone by drawing petty and pinheaded conclusions that simply because someone can buy an item on the internet the Ranger in the photo can't really be a Ranger.
Again, you know nothing, other than it was more important to you to try and score an internet point than to acknowledge the opinion of someone willing not only to endure and conquer the training requirements of Ranger school and in assignment to a Ranger unit but also to put his life on the line in the service of his country.
Again, I know the guys in my Ranger unit, those I served with, even at our age would be willing to go in and actually do something. Because Rangers lead the way. The Obama-philes click on a hashtag.
