Most dangerous terrorist organization in Africa merges with ISIS

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/w...-pledge-allegiance-to-islamic-state.html?_r=0

So the merger between Boko Haram and ISIS is terrible news. Some of the implications are:

-ISIS increasing appeal to jihadists around the world
-increased funding and logistical support to Africa's most dangerous terrorist organization
-the professionalization and increased militarization of boko haram
-increased likelihood that boko haram will attack western targets within its operational reach; thereby, increasing likelihood that NATO and allies will need to respond
-increased likelihood that other jihadist organizations will follow suit: Abu sayyaf, jemaah islamiyah, AQAP to name a few

Boko haram is probably the deadliest terrorist group in the world, since al-Qaeda to kill 2000+ people in a single attack
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/

IMHO, the world's strongest militaries should coordinate a response to the expanding ISIS threat and slay their leaders wherever they may be found

 

there just a bunch of psychopaths with right brain hemisphere damage
http://energyfanatics.com/2014/05/01/left-vs-right-brain-dominance-side-effects-dangers/

 

Seems strange to kill people we are arming but hey our Foreign Policy hasnt made sense in decades.

 

It's Bush's fault. He created all these Islamic extremists.

 

Yeah, we armed boko haram

 

We armed ISIS.. Thanks for playing.

 

Sure we did.

 

See Nusra front and FSA.. Its really not that complicated.

 

1. FSA is at war with ISIS. Seeing as the majority of FSA were never Islamists it's easy to see why
2. NF and ISIS separated on bad terms. While there is some coordination against a common enemy, the Assad govt., they aren't allies. Maybe NF and the Khorasan group...
3. None of that has anything to do with BH

 

http://thehill.com/policy/international/210168-us-has-been-arming-isis-in-syria-sen-paul-claims

 

That's bad analysis. We did arm rebel group in Syria. ISIS is a rebel group in Syria. Doesn't mean we armed ISIS, and NF is not an ally

I recognize they've coordinated attacks before but I think it's derived from the Arab saying, the enemy (NF) of my enemy ( Assad) is my friend (sorta).

 

Quick question: Do you believe that the US War in Iraq had anything to do with the raise of ISIS?

 

Me? Yes, I do. We should've predicted that a less than inclusive government in Iraq, one dominated by shia, would lead Sunnis to accepting a brutality imposed by ISIS over one that could've been imposed by Irans proxies

 

Why are y'all worrying about this.........when someone put up a billboard in Selma welcoming people to their town and civil war history.......with a picture of a Confederate general............get you priorities in order!

 

ISIS and Boko Haram have not yet engaged in any coordination, including sharing of resources.

 

IMHO, getting involved created ISIS. Iraq, Syria, and Libya where better off under their respective dictators. Until we have the political will to win a conflict, it is on the people that live there to fight it. Without ground troops and occupation till likely the end of this century nothing will really change. Might get them to change names again but no real change. It is certainly not worth that much American blood and money to me.

 

I'd agree except I think about the Kim kong il dynasty and it makes me think dictatorships ain't for the better. Iraq, Libya, and Syria were pursuing nukes and were in various stages of development. Plus ISIS existed before 2003, it was just called ansar al Islam, and it operated under tacit knowledge of saddam Hussein

 

In response to the discussion on arming ISIS, I think I can help.
Al-Nusra and the Islamic State were both counterparts of the greater Al-Qaeda network.

When Islamic State forces launched their offensive across the border into Iraq, Al-Qaeda leadership declared they were no longer associated with the Islamic State.
While Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State eventually reached an agreement to restore the newly founded Caliphs status in the network, the Islamic State still held de-facto autonomy from Al-Qaeda.
Today the association is rather loose, and many would argue non-existent.

The point stays the same though. The United States provided light financial and military aid to the Free Syria network and Islamic Front. Weapons spread through the alliances eventually working their way into the hands of the Islamic State, who in turn used them in their offensive into Iraq.

RP12 is right in saying the US, however unintentional, put weapons in the hands of the Islamic State. Clausewitz is right in his claims that Al-Nusra and the Islamic State are not buddy buddy.
Nonetheless, it remains confusing. I doubt it is that important to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

A fair opinion that I happen to agree with.

 

I do not doubt the desire for these nations to own nuclear weapons, but I do doubt the three dictator's dedication towards obtaining them.
Saddam Hussien was blowing hot air in his nuclear claims, whereas Libya and Syria did not make any claims at all. Was there even evidence that they were working to obtain nuclear weapons to begin with?

 

The dictators want to maintain power. Attacking the US is a way to lose power very quickly. I dislike the idea of dictators but evidently some people need them. The whole region is ruled by various dictators.

You get rid of one only to have another or several others fill the void. As bad as they might have been they did value their own lives. ISIS does not appear to have that weakness. We can kill them but without a very long costly occupation nothing will change but the name IMO.

 

You're mostly correct but the division between ISIS and NF happened when baghdadi absorbed them with permission from zawahiri. It was when isis crossed into Syria....and not aid was ever given to NF, which I'm assuming you're calling the Islamic front.

 

I think there is a good chance there has been some coordination at least as it relates to propaganda

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...am-takes-a-page-from-isis-propaganda-playbook

 

Boko Haram can't even win battles against the army of Chad. Why should I be scared of them?

 

That agreement was probably reached (IDK), but that just means Al-Nusra wasn't in compliance with Zawahiri. The Islamic Front is a separate organization in alliance with the National Coalition For Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. The Islamic Front consists of numerous Muslim factions against the Assad government.

Many members of the Islamic Front are close allies to Al-Nusra, whom practically guarantees their existence. I think the division suits Al-Nusra just fine.

 

The armies of Africa are better trained than western forces for fighting warlords. Their tactics for victory are more willing... and brutal.