Re: Zaria massacre is an act of state terrorism


[ad_1]

An article titled “The Zaria Massacre is an Act of State Terrorism” by one Abdulmumin Giwa recently surfaced, apparently for the sole purpose of reigniting a confrontation in which the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) emerged. bruised by his ill-advised confrontation with the state.

Giwa’s treatise was released simply because anyone can exploit the freedom cyberspace offers, while the media organizations that released it had to do so under duress to satisfy the requirement to meet all the nuances. of ideas.

But even then, they should have made the author soften the desperation with which he was trying to cover his tracks. Most of his words were insults towards Nigerians, citizens of a secular state, which the author tried to smear with his bigotry.

It is important that the false premises thus advanced be corrected, otherwise we all run the risk of such defamation going into documents to be dredged up in the near future as a narrative of history, which would then be tedious to refute. simply because an interval was allowed without the fake count being disputed. Since most of the article was disjointed, the focus would be on points that blatantly tried to turn logic upside down.

Giwa is saddened that the state cracked down on terrorism, the IMN brand, before it reached its wildest and fiercest stage. This is for him what he described as irony and the basis for accusing the Nigerian state of sponsoring terrorism.

His proof of this was the incident of December 12 to 15, 2015, which was for him a massacre because he never considered that it could also be qualified as “suicide by going to war”. If his people recognized that the army was better trained and equipped, why did they attempt the lives of their leaders knowing that the logical response would first be self-defense and elimination of the threat.

There is no crystal ball that shows for sure what the alternative option would have ended up with, but given the reign of terror that Zaria’s Gyallesu Axis, Kaduna State suffered at the hands of extremists. IMN, people trying to portray themselves as victims would have turned Nigeria into the Syria of Africa to this day.

If being proactive in containing an emerging terrorist group makes Nigeria a terrorist state as it is claimed, then all countries that have acted to protect their nationals from terrorists would fall into this category. The list would include France, which has neutralized every terrorist who has committed attacks against its citizens in the past decade.

This would include the United States crossing seas and oceans to launch attacks in foreign countries in pursuit of their geostrategic counterterrorism goals. Russia would be on the list for responding to incidents in the Chechen region while proactively preventing ISIS from growing as fast as it wants. The United Kingdom would not be exempt, having learned the lesson to liquidate the terrorist attackers on the spot and spare itself the hassle of managing the fallout from political correctness.

Alleging that the response to the IMN provocation was planned belies the mood and fashion of the nation at the time of the incident. It was the height of the days when the country was just cracking down on the terrorist group Boko Haram.

If “the Nigerian government, the army, the government of Kaduna State, certain traditional leaders, leading Islamic scholars and certain media” had reacted differently to the existential threat posed by the IMN on this occasion, this would have been the height of irresponsibility.

This would have hinted that no lesson had been learned from the mistake of past leaders in letting Boko Haram fester before action was taken to reduce its threat. Similar to how the experience in managing the polio virus was quickly deployed to contain Ebola virus disease, saving thousands of lives.

The infrastructure to contain Boko Haram has been deployed swiftly and decisively to prevent the growth of a new terrorist group.

Accusing the Nigerian state of acting by proxy to get “Americans, Israelis and Saudis to achieve their malicious political goals” is nothing less than a mind game of reverse psychology. On the other hand, it is an admission by the IMN as being an Iranian proxy with the aim of opening a new theater of war far from the Middle East where its influence plunged after the Arab Spring.

Assuming that these countries were secretly pulling the strings that make the Nigerian state move, Giwa conveniently failed to mention that Saeed Koozechi, as Iranian Ambassador to Nigeria, not only directed the activities of the IMN, but strutted around. instructions to the country as the colonial governor appointed by Iran. for Nigeria.

The writer’s actions to capture what defines a terrorist organization would have been laughing at had it not been for the seriousness of the matter under discussion. Poverty doesn’t stop a person from committing acts of terror – Boko Haram started out as an assemblage of kids with clubs, bows and arrows before moving on to Danish guns and then degenerating into monsters with RPGs and arrows. anti-aircraft guns.

Running schools, hospitals and libraries is no guarantee since the Islamic State (Daesh) has schools to radicalize children and young people while their hospital treats their war wounded and takes care of their business. organs. Alqaida, the Islamic State or even Boko Haram have their civilian wings, which appear in places where combatants cannot show their faces.

The fact that the civilian wing of the IMN was more dominant at the material time did not lessen the risk it posed to the rest of us.

Therefore, hiding behind the civilian IMN to market him as the savior of the West African sub-region or Africa’s most populous nation is not only malicious but also spurious. If its leader, Mr. Ibraheem alZakyzaky succeeded in “emancipating the West African bloc and the continent as a whole”, what would have been the cost? An imposition of Sharia law as he once married?

Did Al Zakzaky advocate this in his movement for the emancipation of a purely civilian enclave as argued by Giwa? Its enclave of Gyallesu would have delivered weapons that could have slaughtered half the country if its supporters, members of the IMN, had not been restricted by the military. This is the same group that has a video of its militant wings training in military combat.

The civilian police would not have been able to do much to contain the excesses of the IMN, and the military could have suffered untold hardship if they had treated the threat they posed lightly. Their ability to wage war on multiple fronts – combat, intellectual, and propaganda – is evident in Giwa’s claim that “the soldiers who acted like zombies came to sing songs of war against a constitutionally accepted religion. They destroyed Islamic literature, including the holy Koran on which they stepped and molested ”.

He made this statement knowing full well that the problems of profanation of the Holy Book provoke violent reactions. Again, he ignored the fact that the troops are of mixed faith and that devout Muslims among them, including the commanders, would in no way allow any religion to be desecrated.

Giwa was able to relate what he perhaps expected to be graphic accounts of how the IMN members were slaughtered, only that he was wrong.

First, he alleged that the military and the state destroyed evidence and did not allow IMN members to give their own account of what happened, but he was able to give his own bloody account. so framed. Second, he apparently sort of got part of his tale from a Hollywood blockbuster littered with tales of restless IMN members.

Third, where were Giwa and his brothers when the Kaduna State Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Zaria Crisis publicly heard testimony? They stayed on the sidelines, citing bias against them when in reality they knew any lie told in front of the panel would be easily shredded to shreds because of the panel’s open session.

IMN’s criminal partners, Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Islamic Human Rights Commission London (IHRC), are organizations that have meticulously attempted to cover up their dealings with the terrorist group. They had confined themselves to propaganda and publishing reports to cast a bad light on the Nigerian state as the extremists, as their militant wing, gained ground in the march to derail the country.

Several groups that made this connection were seen as advancing conspiracy theory. Giwa’s article, however, ultimately helped to draw this conclusion as he could not help but state his true intention in the last two paragraphs, which is to come to the defense of Amnesty International that several groups have said. asked to leave Nigeria.

In another reverse psychology case, IMN through Giwa claimed that the state and military were behind spontaneous protests demanding that Amnesty International leave Nigeria. It is as ridiculous as to say that the Arab Spring protests were instigated and not the product of citizens’ response to terms they found oppressive.

The least the IMN can do given the glaring reality on the ground is to reflect on its status as a banned entity, a process that has been properly published in accordance with the law. He should also acknowledge that his foreign arm characterized by Amnesty International and others has been burned because Nigerians are now aware of the malicious intent to burn Nigeria and they have been advised to resign.

To resurface on the incident of December 2015 which was buried by a properly constituted investigation is a pure waste of time.

By Okanga Agila

Okanga writes from Agila, Benue State.

[ad_2]

Thelma J. Longworth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.