realistically what happens when a government collapses and is taken over by Jihadists in one of these countries? Would anyone even bother doing anything? Which African state is the most combat ready?
realistically what happens when a government collapses and is taken over by Jihadists in one of these countries?
The only country in Sub-Saharan Africa I can say has any level of combat readiness is South Africa/The RSA. Everywhere else would immediately go to shit. Even Nigeria, the largest economy in the region, is regularly losing battles to armed militias with AKs
>South Africa
Missing, presumed eaten by locals.
>Even Nigeria, the largest economy in the region, is regularly losing battles to armed militias with AKs
Regularly throwing battles or refusing to fight. Its 50% Muslim as a conservative estimate. And holy shit its going to burn down everything around so hard when the collapse comes, too over populated.
Rwanda has good capabilities. They conquered half of the Eastern Congo before getting ratfricked by the UN.
>realistically what happens when a government collapses and is taken over by Jihadists in one of these countries?
Besides being a shitty time for the natives? Authoritarian govts like China and Russia swoop in and make deals to prop up warlords for cheap resources and basing rights. Warlords get guns and heavy weaponry out of the deal and jihadis fly in from all over to crew them, enabling them to prop up their regimes.
>Would anyone even bother doing anything?
France, UK and US currently are heavily involved in Africa. CTF 151 was a very diverse multinational effort to police Somali waters, but a land intervention would only be supported if the navies are overwhelmed.
>Which African state is the most combat ready?
South Africa.
>SouthAfrica marked as "at risk"
>Not a single Jihadist attack recorded
There are cells operating in SA. https://www.state.gov/designation-of-isis-organizers-and-financial-facilitators-based-in-south-africa/
>There are cells operating in SA
Small Jihadi cells operate across the globe including the US and Europe. South Africa isn't unique.
I know. I was pointing out that having no attacks doesn't mean you have no terrorist activity.
>Would anyone even bother doing anything? Which African state is the most combat ready?
24 African countries have formed a coalition and sent troops to Northern Mozambique to fight ISIS.
>Which African state is the most combat ready?
Only White SA special forces, the soldiers of those countries are terrible
Caring about Africans or trying to civilize them is a mistake. Just trade for resources and let them ferment in their own filth.
>Caring about Africans or trying to civilize them is a mistake. Just trade for resources
The problem is that unless you take a certain degree of care, they decide to trade resources with your enemies instead.
Africans are easy to bribe and manipulate. China is winning cause that's what they are doing. They don't try to "educate" Africans on any topic, they just use them to extract resources.
This is correct. China saw Africa as an opportunity and they're taking advantage. The Africans are too stupid to realize they're being colonized all over again
>The Africans are too stupid to realize they're being colonized all over again
Playing to a world power that actually pays you mind while navigating the deals you do and don't want isn't the same thing as being colonized, but you're not intellectually honest anyway.
https://www.dw.com/en/sierra-leone-nixes-controversial-china-funded-airport/a-45832726
>Playing to a world power that actually pays you mind while navigating the deals you do and don't want isn't the same thing as being colonized, but you're not intellectually honest anyway.
He's right though. Minor powers ultimately have to bow to the pressures of greater powers and have to learn to manipulate and exploit them just like the great powers try to manipulate and exploit the lesser powers. In the failures the lesser powers end up like Qing China, Indian princes, or some Greek city state that kept sucking Roman wiener until Rome just annexed them without resistance. In the successes you see Meiji Japan, Abyssinia, and the Saud dynasty, maybe they don't make the leap to superpower but they at least prosper more than their peers or at least (in the case of Abyssinia) survive.
I don't think China is colonizing Africa in the same sense that Western powers did in the past. What I think is that China doesn't care about spreading any ideology and couldn't care less about the average quality of life of Africans themselves.
China is strictly business and that's why they're winning influence in the area. Westerners are extremely homosexual and preachy and they tire everyone out.
>Westerners are extremely homosexual and preach
>China is winning cause that's what they are doing. They don't try to "educate" Africans on any topic
Well, Western govts can't be seen trading with fellows such as Joseph Kony, Assad, Abdul Malik Al-Houthi and so on. For one it's bad PR, for another, private companies trading there will inevitably clash with the regime when they target Westerners or suppress freedom of speech or what have you. It's not a matter of "preaching" per se; it's these people actively out to get you. How on earth are you supposed to create trade ties with Houthi rebels for example when they're actively fighting a war with the Sauds?
The reason why the Chinese can do it is that they don't really have private enterprise; one way or another it all operates on the sufferance of - and therefore under the control of - the State.
You're really dumb and nothing you said is remotely accurate.
you're chinese and your speech patterns are predictable
I'm not Chinese, I'm just saying you're dumb as hell. Do you think the Chinese go out and trade with Kony or send merchants to the middle of Yemen to trade with the Houthis? The Chinese are beating the Westerners when it comes to their influence with actual governments, not rebel groups or countries at war.
>actual governments, not rebel groups or countries at war
Clearly you don't know Africa.
But clearly the Chinese do since they're kicking Western ass.
you've convinced me, china is going to become the new world hegemon
Africa isn't relevant enough for that, so shove your hyperbolics up your coping and seething ass.
calm down you'll live longer
I am perfectly calm, fatass.
i believe you
It makes no difference.
ok
You lost the argument so now you're just desperately trying to get the last word in? kek
>incel
It's easier for them because they can ply the African govt officials with all the embezzled millions, opposition torture devices, and underage poon that said officials demand. How do you think Western trade envoys are supposed to compete with that aid package?
>we're losing out on trade because we're just too moral for africans
kek
A crushing rebuttal; I kneel
>the airport, which had been planned under the government of his predecessor
>The World Bank had called into question the financial prudence of the project.
So basically the West is getting butt hurt that China is beating them left and right, and are now trying to manipulate Africans into going back on their deals with China.
Like the previous poster said, Africans are easy to manipulate. And the West is full of manipulating conmen
>And the West is full of manipulating conmen
so Is china lmao, every country is
Which is a no-brainer. Of course it's not hard to realize that if one were to run a eugenic program without bias on Africans it would look like genocide. The man who discovered DNA said something similar(and got shunned for doing so). Really quite embarrassing the lengths we go to simply to avoid being called a 'racist'.
He didn't discover DNA, but yeah you're right overall.
I do disagree with him but come on, the dude is 200 years old, either he's senile or he just shares the opinion that 99% of people his age have.
>a literal who on an anonymous website disagrees with the man who fricking discovered DNA
Oh noooo kek. Why do so many homosexuals think their opinions have sway nowadays? Did the internet really mind break this many people?
>tries to be smart
>can't even process information correctly
See, the reason why I disagree with him is cause mutts like you can also be moronic. He didn't "discover DNA", just watch the video you mongoloid scum.
Eugenics is moronic. Race and inferiority of specific groups of humans aside humans are fricking awful at breeding healthy animals. I'm sure we could breed something recognizeable as ubermensch, 7 foot tall men with muscles and genius IQs whose knees give out in their early 20s, suffer from early onset dementia, and randomly have enlarged hearts or are born with a single kidney.
Humans are too lazy to properly breed animals without complete control of their breeding habits, imagine needing to breed superior humans just by culling a minority of the population and letting humans breed freely.
Any artificial selection could be argued to be eugenic. Farm animals, domestic cats and dogs, all tamed plants are a product of eugenics.
> imagine needing to breed superior humans just by culling a minority of the population and letting humans breed freely.
This sentence makes no sense to me. Dunno what you were trying to say with this.
>This sentence makes no sense to me. Dunno what you were trying to say with this.
Nobody would support a eugenics program that entails mandatory pairing "frick this man/woman it is your social duty" or sterilizing the majority of the population. Thus any attempt at eugenics would have to be carried out via the sterilization of a minority of the population. This is a horribly inefficient way to breed anything beneficial.
>Any artificial selection could be argued to be eugenic. Farm animals, domestic cats and dogs, all tamed plants are a product of eugenics.
And cats, dogs, pigs, and horses are all extremely unhealthy on a genetic level if you consider quality of life as opposed to specific valued traits. There's a reason mongrels are often healthier than purebreds.
>horribly inefficient
it'd be a step in the right direction
How so? Did the developed world see a notable increase in the quality of life while Eugenics was practiced and a notable decrease when the practice ceased? FFS the majority of the victims of eugenics didn't have heritable diseases, being a moron or cripple isn't a traceable genetic illness, if you were to practice eugenics as a science and not a justification to castrate stupid teenagers you would sterilize people with Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis, or Marfan's syndrome. Of course sterilizing someone who suffers from chronic pain comes across less like an act of civic duty and more like a general butthole move so people don't carry it out.
>Nobody would support a eugenics program that entails mandatory pairing "frick this man/woman it is your social duty" or sterilizing the majority of the population.
Those aren't the only forms of eugenics. You don't have to commit genocide or sterilize most people or force people to pair up.
Eugenics can be anything from castrating pedophiles which is still done, to giving high IQ people tax cuts when it comes to buying a house or having kids. You don't need an overreaching or authoritarian government to carry any of that out.
>And cats, dogs, pigs, and horses are all extremely unhealthy on a genetic level
Relative to what, you fricking moron? They live way longer on average compared to their wild counterparts.
>There's a reason mongrels are often healthier than purebreds.
No, the reason purebreds are unhealthy is because breeders cut corners and use heavy inbreeding to get specific traits. Inbreeding is dysgenic, not eugenic.
>Those aren't the only forms of eugenics. You don't have to commit genocide or sterilize most people or force people to pair up.
Illiterate mongoloid. "Thus any attempt at eugenics would have to be carried out via the sterilization of a minority of the population." I never claimed it was the only let alone the most probable method of eugenics.
>Relative to what, you fricking moron? They live way longer on average compared to their wild counterparts.
Wrong again moron. Wolves have an average lifespan of 16 years in the wild, German Shepherds have an average lifespan of 13 years.
>No, the reason purebreds are unhealthy is because breeders cut corners and use heavy inbreeding to get specific traits. Inbreeding is dysgenic, not eugenic.
The selection of specific traits and control of breeding to spread and increase the extent of traits is eugenics. Whether you blindly incentivize smart people to breed or sterilize idiots the end result is the same, specifically supporting a specific trait. If you breed people who score highly on IQ tests you aren't breeding intelligent people, you are breeding people who can do well on IQ tests.
There's a reason that the "those kids you read about who graduate Oxford at age 14" don't go on to fundamentally change the world, because intelligence and beneficial traits are far more difficult to measure than some magic test. Artificial selection regardless of the means is a delicate process while natural selection is self-correcting process. Natural selection tends not to frick up because as soon as a trait becomes harmful organisms are less successful at breeding or surviving. You can actually see this in sickle cell which is becoming less common in the US because without Malaria as a threat it's exclusively harmful.
>Thus any attempt at eugenics would have to be carried out via the sterilization of a minority of the population
Yeah, that's still wrong.
>Wolves have an average lifespan of 16 years in the wild
kek what? What wilds are you referring to here?
>The selection of specific traits and control of breeding to spread and increase the extent of traits is eugenics.
Only if those traits are considered positive. Pugs for example are a product of dysgenic selection, hence why they can barely function.
>There's a reason that the "those kids you read about who graduate Oxford at age 14" don't go on to fundamentally change the world, because intelligence and beneficial traits are far more difficult to measure than some magic test.
Ok? There is still a verifiable difference in IQ between your average doctor and your average hobo. People that score 200 on their IQ tests not becoming presidents doesn't invalidate that.
>natural selection is self-correcting process
That's nice, except modern humans aren't undergoing natural selection. Modern society doesn't abide by Darwinian principles.
> You can actually see this in sickle cell which is becoming less common in the US
Nope, it's actually becoming more common. The numbers of people suffering from it are increasing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7675126/
>Yeah, that's still wrong.
That’s how eugenics was in fact practiced.
>kek what? What wilds are you referring to here?
Google. Either way your source gives better claims in captivity than similar sized dogs in captivity.
>Only if those traits are considered positive. Pugs for example are a product of dysgenic selection, hence why they can barely function.
Pugs were selected for traits deemed positive by their owners.
>Ok? There is still a verifiable difference in IQ between your average doctor and your average hobo. People that score 200 on their IQ tests not becoming presidents doesn't invalidate that.
It illustrates that IQ isn’t the only factor and selecting for IQ doesn’t necissarily improve humanity.
>That's nice, except modern humans aren't undergoing natural selection. Modern society doesn't abide by Darwinian principles.
Wow I didn’t know every single human had exactly 3 children and nobody died before reproducing, had more than 3 children or died without issue. Natural selection selects the fittest, not the smartest, not the strongest, not the prettiest. A woman with strong maternal instincts and a desire to have a lot of children is a more fit specimen in humanity than a career driven 180 IQ doctor who has a single kid when she’s in her mid 40s.
>> You can actually see this in sickle cell which is becoming less common in the US
>Nope, it's actually becoming more common. The numbers of people suffering from it are increasing.
The numbers, not the birthrates. Migration and extended lifespans don’t directly have anything to do with birth rates.
>That’s how eugenics was in fact practiced.
You really need to learn how to read, you fricking illiterate. I'm explaining to you that you can practice eugenics without sterilization or anything like that.
>Google
Eat my dick. It's not up to me to prove your claims. Provide evidence or admit you were wrong.
>Either way your source gives better claims in captivity than similar sized dogs in captivity.
No, it doesn't. Wolves can live up to 17 years same as dogs. 17 years is not the average lifespan of wolves in captivity.
PLEASE LEARN TO READ YOU DUMB homosexual.
>Pugs were selected for traits deemed positive by their owners.
And? Simply selecting for traits doesn't constitute eugenics.
>It illustrates that IQ isn’t the only factor and selecting for IQ doesn’t necissarily improve humanity.
And? You don't only select for IQ. You can also select for impulse control, long term thinking, physical strength, low rates of illnesses etc.
>Wow I didn’t know every single human had exactly 3 children and nobody died before reproducing
The frick are you talking about you dumb moron?
>Natural selection selects the fittest, not the smartest, not the strongest, not the prettiest.
Yes, and? Modern humans are still not subject to natural selection. They're subject to artificial selection.
>The numbers, not the birthrates. Migration and extended lifespans don’t directly have anything to do with birth rates.
Ok? Why the frick did you use this dumb example as proof of natural selection when the disease is actually spreading?
You dumb low IQ homosexual.
>Eugenics is moronic.
not all eugenics is racial power eugenics, everyone practices eugenics to a degree, especially women and governments
Unlike Syria/Iraq where the CIA wanted to see if ISIS would knock out Assad first, there would be immediate international involvement to fight them in Africa due to most African states having an amicable relationship with the rest of the world.
Thing is who knows how far a new "caliphate" would expand before it gets stopped. It took ISIS less than a year to expand from Syria to Iraq, and that was surrounded by tons of heavily armed militias and conventional militaries of opposing ideologies, religions, and ethnicities. In theory a similar uprising in the Sahel region wouldn't have that problem because almost all of them are Sunni muslims who hate their governments, which are substantially less effective than Syria and Iraq were. Also Africa tends to have extremely small militaries relative to their population size, sometimes only 10-20 thousand standing soldiers. And those soldiers do not usually have heavy vehicles or aircraft which could be used to their advantage against a militia force.
Shit could be bad if France, the US, and South Africa can't contain it.
Africa is a whole different beast, the place is so insanely vast it makes little sense in practice to even speak of "Africa" instead of the countries/regions
>Which African state is the most combat ready?
Morocco.
nothing, really. Those governments barely exist in any form you recognize them, anyway.. You just have to pay your bribes to a slightly different flavor of criminal.
>Those Fulani Jihadis
Based Neo-Tukulor Empire
100 nogs shoot eachother
100 thousand nogs "flee the war"
Probably nothing. The only African military that is remotely worth a damn is the SA army but they are mostly garbage now because it has been demographically shitted up with blacks. Wars in Africa used to be fought with white mercenaries from SA, now they they don’t really operate anymore.
>what happens when a government collapses and is taken over by Jihadists in one of these countries
Anon, this has happened more than once.
Somalia got occupied by Kenya and Uganda, Mali is being occupied by the French and UN (not the French any more lol) for this exact reason.
Rwanda would send 600 paratroopers in the enemy capital, frick up their infrastructure then retreat back home into hostile territory. Sincerly, I doubt Kagame would tolerate Jihadi bullshit in his country.
>Africa
who cares
Every jihadi insurgency in Africa is bankrolled in part by some state actor somewhere who stands to profit from destabilization and the loss of one or more trade deals.
>taken over by Jihadists
i assumed this to already be the case for most of them tbh. africas a mess lol.
Based Namibia again prooves to be the best country on that God forsaken continent.