Another young girl used as a 'suicide bomber'. Just when you thought the world couldn't get more grim.

[Pagwatch]

women and girls are disposable

We in the west can't deal with Boko Haram (although, British commandos, and special forces have been sent into African countries in the past for specific missions.) But that's not the same thing as dealing with a full blown insurgency. Maybe we could ask better questions about why the Nigerian government is making such a pig's ear of it.

What is the African Union saying about the whole thing?

It seems as though the African Union (and Ecowas) have done a fair bit of meeting, a fair bit of talking, a fair bit of agreeing, but not any actual fighting of Boko Haram, as far as I can see. They all seem to agree that it's a problem.

Well not just Boko Haram, but on various threads I've seen people saying we won't deal with ISIS and various other problems because we don't care, but on other threads complaining that we are going to other countries and killing people with drones etc. I just don't know what we are meant to do.

It would probably be better dealt with by neighbouring countries, but it doesn't look like that's happening either.

The mission in Baga was African multinational, wasn't it?

And the attack to retake it began easier today, and according to reports I've seen Nigerian Army has confirmed 14 fatalities and continues to fight.

Baga does seem to be a spectacularly unlucky town (in the middle of nowhere). In 2013 the Nigerian Army was accused (by Human Rights Watch) of destroying 2000 homes there.

And now, the Nigerian Army is saying that Boko Haram has burned it down. It appears to be the same Nigerian military spokesman who denies claims that the Chadian Army refuses to help on account of the fact that the army it would be supporting is entirely corrupt. Nobody here believes that the Nigerian Army could possibly be corrupt, do they?

To use a ten yearold girl, who I'm certain believed totally that she would find glory in heaven, is beyond evil.

Someone in that report says that he doubts very much that the little girl knew what was strapped to her body. I hope to God that's true.

Interesting Telegraph article here

I think it is easy to overlook what a huge area Boko Haram controls (about the size of Belgium) and that it is like another state.

The Nigerian Army does have all sorts of problems, but that does not reduce Boko Haram's responsibility one iota.

Horrific.
I wonder if she was one of the Christian girls taken in Nigeria.

Nigeria has elections coming up next month. The main opponent to Jonathan is a previous leader and army officer, Muhammadu Buhari, who came to power in a coup. But, despite his political entry, he seems to have a world wide reputation for cleaning out corruption in Nigeria. He seems to be something of a soldier too, unlike the current generals.

The only problem is that on the three occasions that he has stood as a presidential candidate in a democratic election, he's been thrashed by tens of millions of votes. (Maybe something to be said for coups, after all.)

Goodluck Jonathan's spokesman is talking about the Paris unity march as an example of what his own country should be doing. Unfortunately it's in the context of blaming the opposition candidate for Nigerian disunity. But, hey, France is setting a worldwide example.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/boko-haram-attack-before-and-after-satellite-images-show-shocking-scale-of-destruction-in-north-east-nigeria-9978905.html

^ sorry if already been mentioned.

why isnt UN on ground there....I thoght they were in rwoanda

The UN did a really poor job in Rwanda. But, then they were woefully staffed and ill equipped. The African Union, though, does a creditable job in many places. Ironically enough, the Nigerian soldiers in the African Union's deployments have a good and robust reputation. Some people can't understand why they can perform in Sudan and Somalia, but not at home. There have been suggestions that the general staff is to blame.

I know dora but they were there UN had an interest mass slaughter here and whats the international community doing?

Has any nation brought forward a Resolution for the UN to consider, mandating a force?

What would such a force be directed to do, how big would it need to be, and which nations would be asked to contribute troops?

The UN normally provides peace keeping forces. Peace enforcement is a different proposition. But, the truth is that this is really a tribal conflict. The leader, Abubakar Shekau, hails from the kanuri tribe, essentially from Borno State in northeastern Nigeria. And that's where Boko Haram is strong. It has temporarily taken over other regions but made strategic withdrawals. In a nutshell, it's a tribal territorial rebellion. It's a state security problem which the state is dutifully ignoring. As Chad has pointed out, the Nigerian army needs to fix the problem.

BBC article on the kidnapping of 30-50 people from neighbouring Cameroon

It looks as if this is not going to stay within one country.

The Chadian army is one to watch. They have a good reputation. I see they're willing to patrol in Cameroon but not inside Nigeria, which is also on their border. I haven't seen reports of the Cameroon army in action, so I'm not sure what they're like. I also don't know what they mean about not being able to cross Nigeria's border. Who's going to stop them. The Nigerian army is not there, by definition.

And another assault underway, it seems

Why does the Nigerian army keep waiting to be attacked? Surely their generals must realise that's not the way to win anything.

Sorry to move conversation backwards, but just had the most pathetic response from the BBC to my complaint about using 'suicide bomber' in this context.

"It is impossible to know the precise circumstances of any of these people – and whether they volunteered to kill themselves or were forced to do so.
In these circumstances, while we accept the points you have made, we think it is best to use the phrase suicide bomber as that is a term our audiences are used to and so will quickly convey what has happened."

So apparently the BBC do think it possible that a 10 year old can volunteer to kill herself for 'the cause' and are also incapable of realising that it's partially their fault that audiences are used to the phrase or that they could change that situation. Wonderful. Trying to compose a reply that is scathing enough without being a rant, might have to calm down a bit first.

I used to watch a right of reply programme on the BBC. I don't know how many editors I've seen being accused of impropriety. But, not one ever admitted that he or she was wrong. And, when repeatedly challenged, all they all did was to find a different method of explaining why the complainant had it all wrong and they didn't.

I've put "I received a response to my previous complaint to you last night. It was an interesting read. Apparently your Africa desk feels that it is possible for a 10 year old child to make an informed decision to kill herself and 19 other people and that it is therefore acceptable to label her a suicide bomber. Please can I have some clarification on this?

They also state that "we think it is best to use the phrase suicide bomber as that is a term our audiences are used to". I'm sorry to hear that the BBC has such a low opinion of the intelligence of their audience. I think most of us can understand the difference between suicide and murder. If audiences are 'used to' the phrase suicide bomber, the BBC needs to take some responsibility for this misguided complacency and use its influence to educate and open audience minds.

I would like the Africa desk to take a moment to think about how they would frame and report this story if the victim was a 10 year old white British girl in a UK town."

I won't be letting this drop. If anyone on this thread has similar feelings and 10 minutes to spare, it would be great if you could complain too.

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/

Well.

"Thank you for taking the time to contact us and we appreciate that you felt strongly enough to write to us again. We have noted your points and are sorry to learn you were not satisfied with our earlier response.

We are sorry to tell you that we have nothing to add to our previous reply. We do not believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation. We will not therefore correspond further in response to additional points, or further comments or questions, made about this issue or our responses to it."

So there you go. The BBC do believe children can choose to be suicide bombers and that this issue is not important enough to be addressed further. In fact, they refuse to discuss it further, regardless of anyone else's opinions on the subject. Biased, inflammatory language, treating their audience like idiots- tough. Just going to ignore you. You can't make us respond to your actual points in any way!