• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Attack at a Kenyan University - 600 hostages and [147] dead

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr.Swag

Banned
Besides, surely the terrorist groups understand that if the POTUS was hit/hurt/killed, there would be hell to pay from the US, whereas who will seek revenge against the killing of these students?
:(
That's the worst part.
If even in the us during sandy hook we did nothing to prevent future massacres, why would we do anything to stop it in africa.
 

YoungHav

Banned
So, where are there guns coming from? Is AlShabab an Al-Qaeda off shoot?

I find it unfathomable that a country's own military and police force can't stomp out a terror group.
 
It's not going to be the same.

The kind of security our President will have is nothing compared to what these poor people had. In the world, some lives are considered more important than others, sadly :/

Besides, surely the terrorist groups understand that if the POTUS was hit/hurt/killed, there would be hell to pay from the US, whereas who will seek revenge against the killing of these students?
Are you implying that terrorists are rational thinkers?
 
Depends on how you define rational.

Strategic, perhaps. I don't think they run around killing whoever they want for fun. I'm sure there's reason behind it-- western education is bad, keeping a population in terror and easier to control, etc.

I would also think that a successful terrorist group would be able to plan attacks understanding what they might get in return, especially one that's been terrorizing Kenya for as long as it has.
I guess it ultimately depends on the group's goal as you've said. If they're looking for destabilization attacking any president is just another fucked up strategy of theirs. They thrive on driving whoever they can into conflict.
 

NastyBook

Member
Really puts things into perspective when shit like this happens. Too bad it has to happen at all.

R.I.P. to the victims.
 
All 147 are Christian I believe. They separated Muslims from the Christians and let Muslims go when the attack occurred.
Last time they did that (the shopping centre attack) but still ended up killing a pregnant Turkish woman. Probably thought she was non-Muslim since she was White.
Reset the sign to "0 days since Islamic terrorists last murdered a group of innocent civilians"

Can we specifically call it Wahabbi terrorism? Because specifically nearly all, if not all, Islamist terrorist activity is Wahabbi centered and fuelled.
 

Brakke

Banned
Just awful.

List of battles and other violent events by death toll:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...iolent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks

Sort terrorist attack column by ideology. It's pretty freaky!

Ehh. Put American Slavery on the list--and why wouldn't you?--and it shatters the whole thing. How is the Holocaust *not* terrorism? Action by Mexican or Colombian drug cartels aren't on that list at all. "Terrorism" is a word we generally apply to violence carried out by state-less Jihadists.

I dunno. What do you think I should take away from that list?
 

Oppo

Member
So what are we concluding here? That Islam and Muslims as a whole are at fault for Saudi Arabia's desert oil fueled nonsense ideology called Wahabbism?

Why doesn't greater Islam turn en masse against SA, anyways? I mean, SA have control over major holy sites; surely this is an affront to the majority of Muslim people? I'm asking.
 
Why doesn't greater Islam turn en masse against SA, anyways? I mean, SA have control over major holy sites; surely this is an affront to the majority of Muslim people? I'm asking.

Because SA is backed by the US and we would never allow them to fall? The ramifications on the petrodollar would be immense.
 
But the POTUS' death wouldn't cause destabilization.

It would just provoke incredible retaliation, one which they're not equipped for.

A dead POTUS? Even if other countries didn't help, I can't imagine they would step in to stop the US from wrecking vengeance, especially in Kenya.
Military intervention in a foreign country isn't always a stabilizing force and the Kenyans who have to bear the brunt of the conflict may not take kindly to all the destruction. The fuse that would set off such a response from the US doesn't have to be a single person. Al Qaeda knew that very well and afaik they still exist as a group. When you mentioned strategy earlier I agreed that not all terrorist groups would be looking towards the same goal. Some might be fine with putting themselves at risk if it means more join their cause.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something here.
 
Just awful.



Ehh. Put American Slavery on the list--and why wouldn't you?--and it shatters the whole thing. How is the Holocaust *not* terrorism? Action by Mexican or Colombian drug cartels aren't on that list at all. "Terrorism" is a word we generally apply to violence carried out by state-less Jihadists.

I dunno. What do you think I should take away from that list?

You should probably sort by date. How you interpret or what you choose to take away from the information presented is up to you.
 

Brakke

Banned
You should probably sort by date. How you interpret or what you choose to take away from the information presented is up to you.

I'm saying I don't even know that that list represents "information". It's such a clear coding issue. Does the North Korean regime "count" as terrorism? Probably should. But then deaths attributable to the regime are more spread out / continuous than the more easily-bucket-ed "attacks" on that list.

I'm asking what you think that list represents. You seem to think its self-evident. Why even distinguish Jihadist violence from war violence? Why put Irish republican violence on the same list? They all have different remedies, the character of the victims and the character of the agents is different in all three of those general categories.
 

FZZ

Banned
You should probably sort by date. How you interpret or what you choose to take away from the information presented is up to you.

image.php


Lol okay.
 
Fucking atrocious.

Disgusting that they target people trying to get an education.

No punishment is too harsh for these vermin that would deny Africa's youth the chance to better themselves.
 
I'm saying I don't even know that that list represents "information". It's such a clear coding issue. Does the North Korean regime "count" as terrorism? Probably should. But then deaths attributable to the regime are more spread out / continuous than the more easily-bucket-ed "attacks" on that list.

I'm asking what you think that list represents. You seem to think its self-evident. Why even distinguish Jihadist violence from war violence? Why put Irish republican violence on the same list? They all have different remedies, the character of the victims and the character of the agents is different in all three of those general categories.

You should email Wikipedia and let them know your concerns. They are good about making corrections if people have well thought out reasoning with information to back it up. Perhaps you can get them to add slavery to the list as well.

As for my take? Holy shit there has been a lot of terrorist attacks attributed to Jihadism in the past decade. I would assume most people would look at that list and be shocked in some way. You weren't?
 

xbhaskarx

Member
As for my take? Holy shit there has been a lot of terrorist attacks attributed to Jihadism in the past decade. I would assume most people would look at that list and be shocked in some way. You weren't?

Apparently he'd rather engage in whataboutism regarding slavery which was abolished by the US over one hundred and fifty years ago.

Of course it wouldn't be a GAF thread about an Islamic terrorist attack without some whataboutism...
 

ICKE

Banned
Another case of these lunatics going in and separating Christians from Muslims in order to kill "the disbelievers".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom