We have discussed the almost weekly race to the bottom by Islamic extremists who use their faith to justify the most despicable and inhumane acts. However, few can match the atrocities of Boko Haram (“Western education is sinful”) — more properly known as The Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad. This Islamic movement in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Niger was founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002 and has made murder and church bombings its special signature of faith. However, even the piles of thousands of corpses killed in the name of Allah did not prepare the world for the latest atrocity: the kidnapping of 200 Nigerian girls and an announcement from Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah.” Reports indicate that many of the girls have been “married” to Boko Haram soldiers. Nigerians are complaining that the government (which receives enormous U.S. and foreign aid) is not working particularly hard to free the girls. President Goodluck Jonathan described the detention as “unfortunate” and “insensitive”. His wife proved more direct. Mrs. Jonathan has reportedly ordered the arrest of Naomi Mutah, a representative of the Chibok community where the girls were seized from their school. So 200 girls are abducted to be sold into slavery by a fanatical Islamic movement and the wife of the president has the woman leading protests arrested.
Last month, the fanatics overpowered guards at a school and forced the girls out of bed and into trucks. Some 276 were kidnapped and at least 53 escaped. That left 223 in captivity. Mutah and others started a campaign to force action from the government.
Reports indicate that First Lady Patience Jonathan felt slighted that the mothers of the abducted girls had sent Ms. Mutah to the meeting. The First Lady appears to have no authority to order such an arrest but that does not appear to matter in Nigeria.
For his part, the devout man promising to sell girls into slavery is captured on a video coldly describing how “There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women. I sell women.” The State Department believes that he means it and that the girls could well disappear into Nigeria’s “market.”
Even if one accepts the statements of the government that they are trying to find the girls, the actions of the First Lady are an outrage. At some point, the United States has to tie foreign aid to basic values protecting women and the rule of law. Nigeria is breathtakingly corrupt. We have seen around the world how such corruption invites extremists to take hold and offer Sharia law as the answer to endemic problems of local governments. We seen to be sustaining such corruption from Iraq to Afghanistan to Nigeria while increasing drone attacks against insurgents fighting these governments. It has not proven a winning strategy but we do not seem to have a plan B. We gave some $625 million to the country in 2012. In the meantime, girls are denied their most basic right to education and choice. U.S. dollars should go to those countries that commit themselves to basic values, including the rights of women and girls as well as protections for free speech and free exercise. The world is facing a deep divide between religious orthodoxy and individual rights. The West has to stop being apologetic for demanding that nations afford their citizens basic rights as a condition for support. At the moment, we are pouring billions into countries that continue to radicalize and organize against basic freedoms. At a minimum, we should put the emphasis on aid to educating girls and establishing free press and independent court systems. Obviously, this needs to include security protection for schools. I believe that the Obama Administration is targeting such programs but we clearly need to require more from recipient countries in terms of reforms. In the case of Nigeria, we might want to start with demanding reforms of the faux office of the First Lady.
90 thoughts on “Islamic Militants Seize Over 200 Girls To Be Sold Into Slavery . . . The Nigerian First Lady Reportedly Orders Arrest Of The Woman Leading Protests For The Girls”
BENGHAZI! (Republican for “I got nuthin.”
Supak – Benghazi is going to be an interesting hearing. Am looking forward to Hillary having memory failure again.
“Wasn’t that one of Lincoln’s favorite tunes?”
I doubt it. But Sherman probably enjoyed it.
Help, please. I had a comment eaten.
Poor schmuck, he had his parole violated because of an election narrative in jeopardy. My wife was a Fed Probation Officer, her take on his getting violated was it was horseshit. She is an Obama voter, twice.
Anyone who attributes the murder of Americans on a video, critical of Mohammed, is apologizing for terrorists, “We insulted their religion!!”
Nick – especially true when they have the maker of the video, which had nothing to do with the deaths of 4 Americans (including the ambassador), thrown in prison.
Please read the above string of posts, which ask that terrorists not be identified as Muslims, and inevitably bring up that Christianity is just as bad.
Karen, I’ve never heard anyone apologize for Islamic extremism terrorist acts.
I have been guilty of posting from Wikipedia on occasion, too, but have tried to kick the habit. You could absolutely never use it as a source for a paper, because its accuracy is not monitored, and it is not properly vetted.
bigfatmike: I agree. Islamic terrorism is happening on a large scale. It’s hard to compare with Christian extremists, like the Branch Davidians, which are comparatively rare.
Islamic extremists take the sword verses literally. Moderate Muslims take them figuratively.
Islamic extremists are trying for another Muslim expansion, which led to the Crusades. The Middle East used to have a majority Christian population before the Muslim Expansion ended that. And there is a reason for all the Moorish architecture in Europe. The Crusades ended a Muslim world takeover. Yes, they burned the library of Alexandria (that still makes me writhe), as well as many other centers of learning, and yes, by the final Crusade, it devolved into basic pillaging. But we cannot apply anachronistic modern standards to a period of time in which it was conquer and take what you can for a prize.
Every time Islamic extremists murder, rape, etc the apologists jump right in and try to explain that they are not so bad, that Christians must be just as bad. It’s nonsensical. Just denounce evil when you see it. When Christians end up in the news for raping and pillaging, denounce their actions. But we don’t always have to drag them into every story about Muslims committing atrocities.
It would be the same if Waco was burning on the news, while the anchor stated, you know, the Branch Davidians are not so bad, because Muslims do this all the time.
Bigfatmike – I agree. If a muslim or a Christian murders somebody, say out of jealous rage, it had nothing to do with his religion.
If a muslim wages jihad, shouting allahu akbar, then it was done in the name of his religion, and he is, specifically, an Islamic extremist. If he commits honor violence in the name of Sharia law, he is an Islamic extremist.
Plenty of Muslims emigrated to America because they wanted to escape the violence. I have known the sons and daughters of Muslim immigrants, and the last thing they would want is Sharia Law, where they could be arrested for wearing nail polish or having a Western haircut.
But that does not change the fact that Islamic extremists commit terrible acts of violence, and have taken over entire regions.
“At some point, the United States has to tie foreign aid to basic values protecting women and the rule of law.” Professor Turley, I could not agree with you more. We boycott the Beverly Hills Hotel here in CA when the Sultan of Brunei announced he would impose Sharia Law, including death by stoning for gays. And yet we pour billions of dollars in aid into countries that do exactly that, and abuse women and girls. We should not financially support countries that do not share our values.
Many people do not realize that slavery still exists today, especially in Africa. They think it only existed in the US, and ended in the Civil War. But it is still practiced in many countries, and experiencing a resurgence in Africa.
Anon to Paul:
” No one has to dance to your tune.”
I wish I was in Dixie?
Wasn’t that one of Lincoln’s favorite tunes?
” I grabbed one a couple of weeks ago and the whole first paragraph was obscene.”
” After that the article was fairly solid. ”
Then fix the first paragraph. See if your corrections make it past the horde.
What you have ignored here (you do seem to make a habit of ignoring that which is inconvenient to you) is that I specifically said it’s a starting point, it’s usually well-referenced, we can all follow the references, and on the big subjects, Wikipedia is actually quite good.
But if you don’t let your students quote it, I’m curious… Are there other things you don’t let them quote?
Do you let them quote the Moonie Times? Fox news?
Paul: “First, Wikipedia is not a fine preliminary source for anything.”
Yes, it is. It’s a good launching point and there are often good articles that back up much of the material. It’s not a definitive source. of course, and most people get that.
“And I will ask you for a different source to back up what you are trying to prove.”
Ask to your heart’s delight. No one has to dance to your tune. Don’t want to click on my links? Hey, fine by me. I don’t post to please or convince you.
As I noted above, this is Jonathan Turley’s blog. It’s not mine and it’s not yours.
We’re talking about comments to a blog, Paul, not a dissertation.
anon – you have been missing the fun as people fight over who can or cannot be used as a source. One would think it was a life-and-death struggle for the truth.
Paul Schulte to Supak – “the problem with Wikipedia is in its solution. Find a different source for your information. When I was teaching I would never let my students cite Wikipedia as a source.”
Paul: “the problem with Wikipedia is in its solution.”
Wikipedia is fine as a preliminary source for basic information.
Paul: “Find a different source for your information.”
S/he doesn’t have to “find a different source for … information.”
Paul: “When I was teaching I would never let my students cite Wikipedia as a source.” (Paul)
This isn’t high school — it’s a blog.
And unless something has changed, this is Jonathan Turley’s blog. His “Comments” section, too, when it comes right down to it.
anon – I am so excited that you have appeared to be the arbiter on Turley’s blog. First, Wikipedia is not a fine preliminary source for anything. Yes, I will agree that on some articles it might be fine, but most of the reasons someone here is grabbing an article from Wikipedia is something there is controversy over. I grabbed one a couple of weeks ago and the whole first paragraph was obscene. After that the article was fairly solid. Since then I have tried not to use Wikipedia as a source.
Second, if I would not let my high school students use it and there are few to no college professors who would let their students use it, why should a blog that complains about the validity of sources all the time, use it. This is one we can all pretty much agree has problems with validity.
Of course, anon, you can use Wikipedia to your hearts content, however I will not click on the link. And I will ask you for a different source to back up what you are trying to prove.
Here is an early news story of gunmen who shot and killed the lawyer of a man accused of blasphemy.
At this time we don’t know anything about the gunmen or their motives.
But I would argue this story can serve as a good hypothetical.
If the gunmen are Muslims who shot the attorney due to his defense of the man accused of blasphemy then I would argue that religious association might be relevant to our understanding of this event.
One the other hand, if the gunmen were Muslims who shot the attorney over say, a bad debt, then I would argue that religious affiliation adds little or nothing to our understanding.
We can always hope the reporters on the scene use good judgment when they present the facts of the event. But we should always use our own judgment and ask ourselves if group affiliation is relevant and aids our understanding or does it obscure or possibly promote stereotypical thinking.
bfm – hoping the reporters use good judgment is like hoping you hit the lottery.
Supak – I would call some Crusaders, including Richard the Lion-Hearted a Christian terrorist, if that make you feel better.
“I am not against calling Christian terrorist groups terrorists”
And yet, somehow I doubt you will.
Wikipedia is a good place to start. One can easily follow the sources, or try to edit it to make it better if you disagree. Banning it here would be a mistake.
To attack a point made that references Wikipedia (and the subsequent sources from there) is the genetic fallacy. Argue the points, don’t attack the source.
With that being said, often when arguing the points, it’s fair to point out that the source has been often, um, incorrect. I do it with the Moonie Times all the time. Some sources are better than others.
Supak – the problem with Wikipedia is in its solution. Find a different source for your information. When I was teaching I would never let my students cite Wikipedia as a source.
Paul, apparently, though it’s not his call.
Anybody know who is trying to ‘ban’ wiki from this blog? The comment said “we” are trying to ban wiki. I wasn’t aware of such an attempt.
Anybody know what gives?
“We” are trying to stamp it out for the following reasons:
Comments are closed.