Најкрвав масакр на Боко Харам: Во Нигерија убиени 2.000 лица

[gladiator15]

Постот на IgorChete му беше иронично и реално кажан како стојат работите од светската гледна точка

 

[Menethil]

Нигерија нема капацитет да обезбеди владеење на правото на нејзина територија, затоа меѓународниот фактор е должен да интервенира заради хуманитарни причини.

Немањето некаква си стратешка позиција не смее да биде никаков изговор за премолчување на овој геноцид врз христијанското население.

Баш проверив,50% од населението е муслиманско,12 федерални држави прифатиле шеријатско право.Кој будала ќе прати војници да се борат во Африка за хуманитарни причини,кога странски компании веќе им ги екплоатираат ресурсите. Едноставно ако сааат поубаво да живеат треба сами да се опаметат.Греота за христијаните таму,али не верувам ни на муслиманиве да им е поарно

 

[IgorChete]

Во основа, не се очекува интервенција од САД или од целиот континент Америка, туку општо од целиот свет.

Проблемот со интервенциите на САД е во тоа што досега истите - без ниту еден исклучок - беа водени исклучиво од економските и политичките интереси на САД, а не од хуманитарни интереси.

Не им претставуваше проблем на САД да интервенираат во Либија со оправдание дека државата е на работ на хуманитарна криза, но еве ги, молчат за Нигерија, за Ирак и Сирија - каде што сепак поддржуваат било кого, освен сириската влада на чело со Башар ал Асад, за Судан - каде што до денешен ден се практикува робовладетелство - и бројни други држави.

Патем, кога сме кај Судан, неодамна суданска жена едвај извади жива глава од оваа држава бидејќи премина од ислам кон христијанство бидејќи се омажи за инвалидизиран американски христијанин. Жената беше осудена на смртна казна, но подоцна ослободена и воопшто не се двоумеше да фати џаде надвор од Судан заедно со нејзиниот американски сопруг христијанин и нивните деца, со првиот авион веднаш откако беше ослободена. А уште колку такви несреќници ги има во Судан, само Господ знае.

И на целиот овој ужас, САД и западот единствено излегуваат со јавна осуда и ништо друго. Исклучоци се Украина, каде што ја поддржуваат хунтата во Киев, и Сирија, каде што ги поддржуваат буквално сите кои се против сириската влада на чело со Башар ал Асад, бидејќи Асад, исто како и руското малцинство во Украина, беа, односно се под заштита на Русија, а повеќе од очигледно е дека на САД поважно им е да си го пикаат носот во рускиот двор, наместо да бидат вистински хуманитарци и да му помагаат на човештвото.

Но да бидеме искрени, и Русија молчи околу ваквите масакри во Нигерија и во останатите држави од светот.

Па и Русија доста сомнително е премногу тивка во врска со ИД иако нивните најдобри борци се токму чеченците.

 

[Dexter26]

Па и Русија доста сомнително е премногу тивка во врска со ИД иако нивните најдобри борци се токму чеченците.

Прочитај убаво што сум ти напишал од почеток до крај, а не веднаш да се исфрлуваш со коментари за Русија.

 

[Menethil]

....

Не се води војна од хуманитарни причини,што се лажете

 

[SparroW]

Не се води војна од хуманитарни причини,што се лажете

Дури и да се интервенира од хуманитарни причини, истите ќе излезат овде со обвинувања за фолс флег и изигравање шериф.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Dexter26]

Дури и да се интервенира од хуманитарни причини, истите ќе излезат овде со обвинувања за фолс флег и изигравање шериф.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Дај 1 (ЕДЕН) пример за интервенција од исклучиво хуманитарни причини.

 

[The xx]

Русија ја прогласи ИД за терористичка организација.
Русија не ги вооружуваше и обучуваше трупите на ИД.

Малце размислите пред да испишувате хејтерски настроен глуп пост.

 

[Bratot]

За среќа твојот здрав разум во овој случај нема врска со реалноста, медиумите ставаат акцент на вести и случувања кои ќе им донесат поголем тираж/кликови, а за медиумите 12 луѓе убиени во сред Париз е ‘поголема‘ вест од 2 илјади масакрирани во село во Нигерија.

Бидејќи не се случуваат вакви “големи“ вести ко во Париз секој ден, а скоро секојдневно се случуваат масакри во Африка и Блискиот Исток, не гледам како едните вести би ги исклучиле другите... дали по приоритет или по атрактивност.
Се работи за новинарска етика, која е заборавена.

Но да бидеме искрени, и Русија молчи околу ваквите масакри во Нигерија и во останатите држави од светот.

Да бидеме искрени, колку од вас читаат руски вести? Имаше исто толку застапеност како и секаде.

 

[Bojan Van Buuren]

Дај 1 (ЕДЕН) пример за интервенција од исклучиво хуманитарни причини.

Дури и кога имало потреба од хуманитарна интервенција (пример Руанда) ја немало...

 

[SparroW]

Дај 1 (ЕДЕН) пример за интервенција од исклучиво хуманитарни причини.

300 војници на македонско-српската граница во времето кога започнуваа војните во Југославија ни завршија доста работа.

Статија од тоа време со која се критикува одлуката на Клинтон. (грчко лоби)

Спојлер

U.S. Troops In Macedonia: Back Door To War?
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of A Search for Enemies: America's Alliances after the Cold War.


Executive Summary

The continued presence of U.S. troops as a tripwire force in Macedonia is an increasingly risky venture. President Clinton's apparent rationale for the deployment was to deter further Serb expansionism, thereby preventing the conflict in Bosnia from becoming a wider Balkan war.
Moreover, Macedonia itself may be the target of expansionist ambitions of Albania, Bulgaria, and Greece as well as Serbia. The recent decision by Athens to impose an economic embargo against its northern neighbor is the latest manifestation of tension.
​

President Clinton's decision last summer to send 330 U.S. soldiers to the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia as part of a UN peacekeeping operation also has lethal potential. Clinton's rationale for deploying those troops was to prevent the fighting in Bosnia from spreading southward, thereby possibly igniting a wider Balkan war. What the administration's regional containment strategy may ultimately do, however, is entangle the United States in the tragic Yugoslavian conflict that American policymakers have thus far been wise enough to avoid--despite periodic bouts of saber rattling.

Washington's policy on Macedonia is so flawed and internally contradictory that it verges on incoherence. The United States sent troops months before it even extended diplomatic recognition to an independent Macedonia. Sensitivity to objections by Greece (and Greek-American voters) to the use of the name "Macedonia" by the new republic caused the Clinton administration to delay establishing diplomatic relations.(1) The United States found itself, therefore, in the novel position of deploying military forces to protect a country that it did not officially acknowledge--an anomaly that was not corrected until February 1994.

That is only one of the many bizarre aspects of American policy. The U.S. military contingent is under orders to merely "observe and report" on developments along the Serbian-Macedonian border. As Air Force Times columnist Fred Reed notes, if Serbian forces did invade Macedonia, one would normally expect the Western news media to report the event. American soldiers are clearly not needed as cub reporters to cover a Balkan war. Despite the official mandate to observe and report, it is apparent that the U.S. troops are there to deter Serbia from making aggressive moves against its southern neighbor. What is less clear is whether the Clinton administration fully comprehends the implications of that mission. Reed points out, correctly, that the tiny American force could accomplish little of military value in the event of a conflict: "The intimidating effect of 300 troops relies on the belief that, if the 300 are messed with, several armored divisions will come to see why."(2)

Therein lies the potential danger of the administration's initiative. If fighting erupts in Macedonia, the U.S. force can easily become a tripwire for full-scale military engagement. Escalation would be the more likely scenario, since hawks in the United States would insist that America's "credibility" was at stake. Indeed, Secretary of State Warren Christopher stressed that "the U.S. is not likely to leave its troops in Macedonia undefended. You can be sure of that."

Although at the moment the Serbs are busy attempting to consolidate territorial gains in Croatia and Bosnia, Serbian expansionists may ultimately have designs on Macedonia, which nationalist elements typically call "southern Serbia." (The region was part of Serbia until it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1371.) Although there is not a large Serb minority in Macedonia (Serbs make up barely 2 percent of the population), historical factors could be sufficient to interest Belgrade.

Macedonia is also a potential arena for conflict arising from competing territorial claims of several other regional powers. Bulgaria qualified its recognition of Macedonia by reiterating its long-standing claim that Macedonians are merely "western Bulgarians."(6) Sali Berisha, president of Albania, has demanded that Macedonia's Albanian population (some 21 percent of the total) be given cultural and political autonomy. (Albania, in fact, sought to block Macedonia's entrance into the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe until the government in Skopje accorded Albanians the status of "constituent nation," with the right to veto any proposed changes to the Macedonian constitution.)(7) And Greece, of course, displays open hostility to the new republic; most recently, Athens imposed an economic embargo and virtually closed the border with its northern neighbor.(8)

History offers little reason for optimism, either. Author Misha Glenny notes that "whenever war has broken out in this century, either Bosnia or Macedonia has been its main theater."(10) Indeed, Macedonia was both the principal arena of and the principal prize in two brief but bloody struggles, the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913. The first conflict pitted Turkey, which then controlled Macedonia, against a loose alliance of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Montenegro. The second found Bulgaria waging war against Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Romania over the territorial spoils of the first. Bulgaria, thwarted in its goal of acquiring Macedonia during the First Balkan War, and completely excluded from the territory after being defeated in the second, subsequently made an alliance with Germany and the other Central Powers in World War I, hoping to reverse that outcome. It tried again in World War II, allying itself with Nazi Germany for the explicit purpose of "recovering" Macedonia.(11) That tenacity is testimony to the long-standing nature of Bulgaria's ambitions regarding Macedonia. Despite Sofia's reluctant (and heavily qualified) recognition of Macedonia's independence, those ambitions have not disappeared.

There is little indication that the situation in Macedonia is significantly more stable today than it was at the time of the Balkan Wars, given the smoldering ethnic and territorial disputes. The attitudes of Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece also demonstrate that Serb expansionism is not the only source of potential danger to the tiny U.S. peacekeeping force. An extremely worrisome omen occurred in November when the Macedonian government claimed to have foiled a secessionist plot directed by Albania.(12) A tripwire strategy is inherently risky, but it is especially so in a case involving multiple, competing expansionist powers.

​

 

[Dexter26]

300 војници на македонско-српската граница во времето кога започнуваа војните во Југославија ни завршија доста работа.

Статија од тоа време со која се критикува одлуката на Клинтон. (грчко лоби)

Спојлер

U.S. Troops In Macedonia: Back Door To War?
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of A Search for Enemies: America's Alliances after the Cold War.


Executive Summary

The continued presence of U.S. troops as a tripwire force in Macedonia is an increasingly risky venture. President Clinton's apparent rationale for the deployment was to deter further Serb expansionism, thereby preventing the conflict in Bosnia from becoming a wider Balkan war.
Moreover, Macedonia itself may be the target of expansionist ambitions of Albania, Bulgaria, and Greece as well as Serbia. The recent decision by Athens to impose an economic embargo against its northern neighbor is the latest manifestation of tension.
​

President Clinton's decision last summer to send 330 U.S. soldiers to the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia as part of a UN peacekeeping operation also has lethal potential. Clinton's rationale for deploying those troops was to prevent the fighting in Bosnia from spreading southward, thereby possibly igniting a wider Balkan war. What the administration's regional containment strategy may ultimately do, however, is entangle the United States in the tragic Yugoslavian conflict that American policymakers have thus far been wise enough to avoid--despite periodic bouts of saber rattling.

Washington's policy on Macedonia is so flawed and internally contradictory that it verges on incoherence. The United States sent troops months before it even extended diplomatic recognition to an independent Macedonia. Sensitivity to objections by Greece (and Greek-American voters) to the use of the name "Macedonia" by the new republic caused the Clinton administration to delay establishing diplomatic relations.(1) The United States found itself, therefore, in the novel position of deploying military forces to protect a country that it did not officially acknowledge--an anomaly that was not corrected until February 1994.

That is only one of the many bizarre aspects of American policy. The U.S. military contingent is under orders to merely "observe and report" on developments along the Serbian-Macedonian border. As Air Force Times columnist Fred Reed notes, if Serbian forces did invade Macedonia, one would normally expect the Western news media to report the event. American soldiers are clearly not needed as cub reporters to cover a Balkan war. Despite the official mandate to observe and report, it is apparent that the U.S. troops are there to deter Serbia from making aggressive moves against its southern neighbor. What is less clear is whether the Clinton administration fully comprehends the implications of that mission. Reed points out, correctly, that the tiny American force could accomplish little of military value in the event of a conflict: "The intimidating effect of 300 troops relies on the belief that, if the 300 are messed with, several armored divisions will come to see why."(2)

Therein lies the potential danger of the administration's initiative. If fighting erupts in Macedonia, the U.S. force can easily become a tripwire for full-scale military engagement. Escalation would be the more likely scenario, since hawks in the United States would insist that America's "credibility" was at stake. Indeed, Secretary of State Warren Christopher stressed that "the U.S. is not likely to leave its troops in Macedonia undefended. You can be sure of that."

Although at the moment the Serbs are busy attempting to consolidate territorial gains in Croatia and Bosnia, Serbian expansionists may ultimately have designs on Macedonia, which nationalist elements typically call "southern Serbia." (The region was part of Serbia until it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1371.) Although there is not a large Serb minority in Macedonia (Serbs make up barely 2 percent of the population), historical factors could be sufficient to interest Belgrade.

Macedonia is also a potential arena for conflict arising from competing territorial claims of several other regional powers. Bulgaria qualified its recognition of Macedonia by reiterating its long-standing claim that Macedonians are merely "western Bulgarians."(6) Sali Berisha, president of Albania, has demanded that Macedonia's Albanian population (some 21 percent of the total) be given cultural and political autonomy. (Albania, in fact, sought to block Macedonia's entrance into the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe until the government in Skopje accorded Albanians the status of "constituent nation," with the right to veto any proposed changes to the Macedonian constitution.)(7) And Greece, of course, displays open hostility to the new republic; most recently, Athens imposed an economic embargo and virtually closed the border with its northern neighbor.(8)

History offers little reason for optimism, either. Author Misha Glenny notes that "whenever war has broken out in this century, either Bosnia or Macedonia has been its main theater."(10) Indeed, Macedonia was both the principal arena of and the principal prize in two brief but bloody struggles, the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913. The first conflict pitted Turkey, which then controlled Macedonia, against a loose alliance of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Montenegro. The second found Bulgaria waging war against Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Romania over the territorial spoils of the first. Bulgaria, thwarted in its goal of acquiring Macedonia during the First Balkan War, and completely excluded from the territory after being defeated in the second, subsequently made an alliance with Germany and the other Central Powers in World War I, hoping to reverse that outcome. It tried again in World War II, allying itself with Nazi Germany for the explicit purpose of "recovering" Macedonia.(11) That tenacity is testimony to the long-standing nature of Bulgaria's ambitions regarding Macedonia. Despite Sofia's reluctant (and heavily qualified) recognition of Macedonia's independence, those ambitions have not disappeared.

There is little indication that the situation in Macedonia is significantly more stable today than it was at the time of the Balkan Wars, given the smoldering ethnic and territorial disputes. The attitudes of Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece also demonstrate that Serb expansionism is not the only source of potential danger to the tiny U.S. peacekeeping force. An extremely worrisome omen occurred in November when the Macedonian government claimed to have foiled a secessionist plot directed by Albania.(12) A tripwire strategy is inherently risky, but it is especially so in a case involving multiple, competing expansionist powers.

Извини бидејќи не бев доволно конкретен.

Наброј 1 (ЕДНА) интервенција на САД и на западот - еве не мораш да ја земаш Русија во предвид за да не се мислиш премногу - која била извршена од исклучиво хуманитарни причини.

 

[Смрт за зони и пајак воз.]

Зашто едноставно они сами не си го решат проблемот,па мора големите сили да се мешаат?.

На твоето прашање е едноставен одговорот - не им дозволуваат

Компаниите кои ја експлатираат нафтата постојано менуваат на власт режими кои се корумпирани и на тој начин обезбедуваат огромни профити.
За нив е битно режимот да им бара што помалку пари да не им прави проблеми. Компаниите имаа свои војски кои им ги обезбедуваат нафтните полиња и другите инсталации и за тоа режимот не им е потребен, потребно им е режимот да го држи народот во покорност.
Во Нигерија нафтинте компании не само што безмилосно експлатираат нафта и гас, туку вршат енормно загадување на водата за пиење и почвата за земјоделие. Но корумпираните режими сето тоа го толерираат
Ако некој се обиде нешто да смени тие по поптреба ќе предизвикаат нереди дури и граѓанска војна
Не мешајте Муслимани - Христијани - Будисти и тн
Тие религии постоеле со векови наназад и никогаш немало вакви страдања.

 

[VOLK2234]

За среќа твојот здрав разум во овој случај нема врска со реалноста, медиумите ставаат акцент на вести и случувања кои ќе им донесат поголем тираж/кликови, а за медиумите 12 луѓе убиени во сред Париз е ‘поголема‘ вест од 2 илјади масакрирани во село во Нигерија.

Аман доста веќе со тие теории на заговор.
Медиумите ставале акцент...
Според тебе сигурно рептилоидите од Нубиру преку ХААРП ги прават тие кликови.

Какви небулози!
Сите ние знаеме дека медиумите постојат за да го информираат граѓанинот за вистината,
а не да куцаат тираж и да прават пари, и да јаваат на ветрот на незадоволството на народот.

Што е следно, дека политичарите се корумпирани?

 

[SparroW]

Извини бидејќи не бев доволно конкретен.

Наброј 1 (ЕДНА) интервенција на САД и на западот - еве не мораш да ја земаш Русија во предвид за да не се мислиш премногу - која била извршена од исклучиво хуманитарни причини.

30 000 Јазиди?

Спојлер

On 7 August 2014, a high-level meeting was held at the White House to discuss the situation. During the meeting, talks included plans for targeted airstrikes on IS militants and emergency air relief for the Yazidis. On 8 August 2014, the US asserted that the systematic destruction of the Yazidi people by the Islamic State is genocide. The US military launched indefinite airstrikes targeting ISIL fighters, equipment and installations, with humanitarian aid support from the UK and France, in order to protect civilians in northern Iraq. On 9 August 2014, at approximately 11:20 a.m. ET, the United States began targeted airstrikes on ISIL militants, when two ISIL armored personnel carriers (APCs) firing on Yazidis were destroyed. Three additional airstrikes occurred when additional IS APCs entered the area, and ISIL fighters were targeted near the town of Makhmur, where the group was launching attacks on the outskirts of Irbil. President Obama also gave an assurance that no troops would be deployed for combat. Along with the airstrikes, the US airdropped 3,800 gallons of water and 16,128 MREs. Following these actions, the United Kingdom and France stated that they also would begin airdrops.

On 10 August 2014, at approximately 2:15 a.m. ET, the US carried out five additional airstrikes on armed vehicles and a mortar position, enabling 20,000–30,000 Yazidi Iraqis to flee into Syria and later be rescued by Kurdish forces. The Kurdish forces then provided shelter for the Yazidis in Dohuk.

On 13 August 2014, fewer than 20 United States Special Forces troops stationed in Irbil along with British Special Air Service troops visited the area near Mount Sinjar to gather intelligence and plan the evacuation of approximately 30,000 Yazidis still trapped on Mount Sinjar. One hundred and twenty-nine additional US military personnel were deployed to Irbil to assess and provide a report to President Obama. The United States Central Command also reported that a seventh airdrop was conducted and that to date, 114,000 meals and more than 35,000 gallons of water had been airdropped to the displaced Yazidis in the area.

In a statement on 14 August 2014, The Pentagon said that the 20 US personnel who had visited the previous day had concluded that a rescue operation was probably unnecessary since there was less danger from exposure or dehydration and the Yazidis were no longer believed to be at risk of attack from ISIL.