| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Why is ISIS feared more than Boko Haram?
When reading news headlines this year, many would be forgiven for trying to understand what separates ISIS from Boko Haram, that is apart from geographical distance.
You may recall hearing all about Boko Haram, who suddenly dropped out of the headlines with the emergence of ISIS over the past number of months. In Nigeria, forces are struggling in their battle against the Islamic fundamentalist group, Boko Haram (officially called Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’Awati Wal-Jihad - People Committed to the Prophet’s Teachings for Propagation and Jihad) have wreaked havoc in Africa, slaughtering entire towns and villages . Most notably they abducted 300 school girls, who have still not been located..
Meanwhile, in Iraq and Syria a small number westerners have been abducted and beheaded by another Islamic Fundamentalist group, called ISIS or now IS (Islamic State). Western media and western powers have gone into over drive in order to secure public support for military action, namely air strikes against key IS facilities. The UK parliament has been recalled by Prime Minister (PM) David Cameron, who urged the world to unite in the fight against IS. Why has such rhetoric not been used in the fight against Boko Haram? Why is London and Washington not equipping and training the Nigerian army to deal with this threat head on? It is difficult to understand how IS can be perceived to pose a greater risk than Boko Haram. Both are heavily armed, highly motivated and highly dangerous. The situation in Nigeria in particular is fragile, Boko Haram have made gains there, seizing towns and villages by the day and often leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake.
Recently at the last Security Council meeting the UN Security Council passes resolution restricting movement of foreign fighter’s intent on joining Isis. Again, this begs the question what of Boko Haram? Surely, the fight against global terrorism must target all groups who pose a threat and not just single out one group, such as IS.
It does add fuel to the fire when alluding to the fact that IS are being taken more seriously by the UN due to the potential for IS to gain control of key oil installations and impact the flow of oil out of Iraq. It does also give the US and the UK permission to begin air strikes in Syria, something they had wanted to do in order to destabilise the Assad regime in 2013, however this was prevented as a result of a no vote against military action from the UK parliament.
