The Nation Newspaper

Tag: answers

  • No easy answers (2)

    Just when I was about submitting the first part of this article for publication last week, breaking news came in that Turkey just shot down a Russian jet it claimed violated its airspace. This action further complicated the fight against ISIS. Equally too, the US issued a travel advisory to its citizens which is expected to last till February 2016. In Belgium, some major cities were on lockdown because of imminent terrorist strike. Back home, Boko Haram (BH) continued it suicide bombing campaign, the latest being in the ancient city of Kano.

    All these point to the fact that we are not merely dealing with local issues, but issues that are intertwined and have a global connection with no easy answers. Beyond the merciless killing of innocent souls like it did with the Russian plane where over 200 people died, the group also wages economic war. By its action, Egypt’s tourism industry, on which so much of the country’s financial future depends, has been negatively affected.

    And once again, the global aviation industry has also plunged into crisis. The big question remains who controls what and what is/are the goal(s) of these terrorists? If they can evade security at the airport and plant bombs on planes, then we are not safe. The implication is that they have sympatisers everywhere.

    Two weeks after watching the Aljazeera documentary I referred to last week, I read a lengthy article published in “The Atlantic” by Graeme Wood titled “What ISIS Really Wants.” Wood’s detailed twenty two page treatise on the group is the best I’ve read so far – I still research and read articles to gain theoretical understanding of the group and what drives them.

    “The Islamic State,” he wrote “is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.”

    With this opening statement Wood posed the question: Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? “The simplicity of these questions,” he stated “can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers.”

    He referred to a December edition of The New York Times which published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”  That in itself is the biggest dilemma.

    According to Wood, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, which some analysts believe may have contributed to significant strategic errors in dealing with it.

    Does this sound familiar when the issue of BH is raised? It appears so. First we were told it was a mere political tool foisted on us by some politicians for political reasons. Next, we were told we are where we are today because the leader of BH was extra judicially murdered by agents of the state. We were also told that BH is thriving because of the unemployment crisis in the land. These are among several theories propounded with no concrete easy practical answers that would really make us understand what we are really dealing with, except that it takes pleasure in killing innocent people hiding behind religion.

    During the last administration we read how some BH “negotiators” fleeced the government of millions of naira claiming they were acting on behalf of the group. The government is finding it increasingly difficult identifying who to negotiate with because it is difficult knowing who they really are.  Abubakar Shekau, the presumed “leader” has been reportedly killed more than twice. So, it’s challenging to finger what really the grievances of the group are.

    In trying to find answers to the rapid rise of ISIS, Wood wrote: “Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.”

    I learnt from him that with this ideology, it follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy. Things will however get complicated if there emerges a Russian-Iranian coalition against ISIS. This will encourage resentment in the Sunni community because a Shiite enemy will always be seen as a threat. Similarly, a Western-led coalition will further ISIS rhetoric that the West is waging a war against Muslims. No easy answers.

    However, one aspect which a non-Muslim like me found enlightening is the aspect that deals with the nature of the Islamic State from two standpoints. First, he says we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al Qaeda to an organisation that has decisively eclipsed it. “The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.”

    His point is that Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organisation was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State – by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. Since they now control a territory, Bagdadi confidently declared himself a Caliph.

    Finally, Wood dwelled on other issues like devotion, territory, the Apocalypse, the Fight – ideological purity of Islam and Dissuasion. All these are very deep issues – some followed by interviews with scholars and academics – that went to the core of Islam that cannot be fully explained in a thousand plus words article.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo – who has met with some leaders of the group in the past – said recently that BH is a matter of socio-economic development, but for it to have hold of the people they must tie it up to something, and they tie it up to some form of religious agitation. “So what do I see? I see a situation where first of all the government must have the upper hand militarily, then after you have had the upper hand militarily you have to deal with the genuine issues of socio-economic development. And I believe that if that is well-handled such issues will disappear.” We earnestly hope so.

    While OBJ has a strong point, it is now our common responsibility to ensure that our vibrant youth populations truly understand what their religion preaches. Religious issues are highly emotional which is why a religious war is the most dangerous of all wars. Understanding our religions is critical.

    On combating ISIS, I’d like to end with this quote from The Economist: “Military force is not enough on its own, though. It will make the rest of the world safer in the short run, but the critics are right that Islamic terror will end only when the Middle East lives in peace. The parallel aim, therefore, must be for regional powers to stop fighting through their proxies, and for the creation of federal states in Syria and Iraq that give Sunnis, Shias, Alawites and Kurds confidence that they can live together with decent representation in government. That requires strengthening the administration in Baghdad. And it means bringing an end to Syria’s civil war.”

     

  • ‘Jega still has more answers to give Nigerians’

    ‘Jega still has more answers to give Nigerians’

    The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega, still has more answers to give Nigerians on the proposed creation of 30,000 polling units, the Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly (SNPA) has said.

    It noted in a statement by its Coordinating Secretary, Dr. Ayakeme Whisky, that Jega’s explanation did not hold water, as it failed to address the issue of lopsidedness in the planned allocation.

    SNPA led by former Vice- President Alex Ekwueme, Chief Edwin Clark and Bishop Emmanuel Gbonigi asked the INEC boss to explain why it was the North alone, which deserved the increase, when the purpose of creating additional polling units was to split large polling units.

    It reiterated its call for the removal of Jega, saying it could no longer trust his actions.

    The group said: “The Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly wishes to state that Prof. Attahiru Jega’s claims are spurious, hollow and indefensible. They are at best a demonstration of continued affront to the sensibilities of the people of Southern Nigeria.

    “Jega has to convince the people of Southern Nigeria that it was only the polling units of the North that had registered voters in excess of 500 persons and the region is  deserving of 21,615 additional polling units to the detriment of the South. He knows he cannot in good conscience deprecate allegations of conspiracy and primordial parochialism.

    “Contrary to the averment of Prof. Jega that no polling unit has been created and allocated, it was reported in Nigerian Pilot of September 10,  page 16 that the Resident Electoral Commissioner of Zamfara State, a state whose registered voters have been grossly depleted by half, following the Automated Fingers Identification System (AFIS), has inaugurated a committee to distribute Jega’s additional 1,163 polling units for the state.

    “Other states in the North have also reportedly begun the implementation of the additional polling units created and allocated to them. Was Prof. Jega merely pulling the wool over our eyes, to endorse his make-believe stories and defences when he claimed that it was a ‘framework’ for approval? “We urge security agencies to put a finite halt to this insidious design by Prof. Jega to forestall further provocation and breakdown of law and order in the country.

  • G-20 summit: More questions than answers

    G-20 summit: More questions than answers

    The St. Petersburg G-20 summit will be recorded as one of the recent history’s most important non-events. Nothing happened at the summit which is par for these gatherings. But the diplomatic context of this summit was material different than most others. President Obama needed action at the summit to halt the quickening erosion of his domestic and international standing precipitated by his awkward Syrian policy and his increasingly incoherent rationale for that policy. President Obama came to the fine old city hoping to gain the endorsement of most summiteers. He fell short of that aim.

    The summit took place in the most inauspicious venue possible for the American. Summit host and Russian President Putin has been the most vociferous international opponent of America’s Syria policy calling for military action against the Assad government for purported misuse of chemical weapons. Breaking normal diplomatic etiquette by calling America’s top diplomat Secretary of State Kerry “a liar,” Putin declared the rebels, aided by foreign clandestine agencies, deployed the chemical weapons so that America and other western nations would blame Assad. Putin claimed it insane for Assad, who had gained a decisive strategic advantage in the war, to use chemical weapons. Assad surely knew deployment of said weapons could bring American involvement in a way tipping the balance of war against Assad. It was more probable the despairing rebels, losing ground by the day, concocted this situation to give America a colorable pretext to intervene, literally saving the rebels at the final moment of the eleventh hour, according to Putin. As evidence of his position, Putin pointed to the UN report attributing a prior incidence of chemical weapons use to the rebels.

    Despite the usual primacy of economics at such gatherings, this summit’s climax came when participants discussed Syria. President Obama stated his case as did Putin. President Obama sought to isolate Putin in his own house. It did not happen. Summiteers divided also equally between those supporting Obama and those holding closer to Putin. America and the richest western nations craved military action. Russian and the more populous nations rejected a forceful strike against Assad.

    The same dichotomy has been paralleled in American politics. The elite Washington-New York axis of political and financial power lusts for martial action as if addicted to war. Most ordinary Americans bitterly oppose war action in Syria as if tired of it.

    In his post-summit press conference, Putin barely concealed gloating over the turn of the summit. He talked with the roguish look of a burglar who barely absconded with the purloined booty the moment before the detectives could apprehend him. In front of the world, he had withheld something the most powerful man in the world dearly wanted. In most cases, a thief is morally and legally in the wrong. With allegations about Assad’s government culpability still unproven and with the wisdom of aerial bombardment less than certain, it remains an open question whether the thief is right this time. If this is one of those rare occasions where the thief is right, Putin might have saved the world from a nasty turn expanding the Syrian civil war into a regional conflagration or worse.

    In his press conference, President Obama looked tired, somehow appearing diminished yet swollen at the same moment. Clearly, he had been stung by the considerable domestic and international rejection of his Syria policy. He assumed he could convince the world of the rightness of his dubious cause by virtue of his eloquence and by basing his war appeal on humanitarian grounds. He has been taken aback by his failure to garner support despite the intense, high-priced public relations campaign mounted by Western governments and their agents, the largest global corporate media houses such as CNN and BBC.

    Even critics of President Obama must feel a certain sympathy for him. Before the world, stood a man stewing in a cauldron of his own design or, at least, one designed by the vested, penumbral interests he so faithfully has served. He struggled to construct persuasive arguments much like a drowning man clutching at straws, hoping the harder he clutched the straw might turn into the rope that could save him.

    He argued Assad’s purported recourse to chemical weapons was a dire breach of international law, warranting a martial reply. The assertion contradicts the predominant weight of international law. Chemical weapons use constitutes a breach but the breach is not the only pertinent legal factor. In its rush to action, the American government now behaves as if the weapons abuse is the only factor worthy of consideration. Fixated on punishing the terrible Assad, America caricatures the world as if it is based solely on one legal norm. That single norm, if viewed in isolation, would neatly place Assad on the scaffold constructed by America.

    However, the world is a complexity where almost nothing can be assessed in isolation. The prohibition against chemical weapons must be read in consonance with the larger body of international law. Here, America runs afoul of the very corpus of international law it purports to protect. There are tenets of international law more established and more central to the conduct of global affairs than the chemical weapons prohibition. First, the most well established principle in international law is the restriction against interference in the internal affairs of another nation. Second, nations are disallowed from unilaterally using force against another state except in valid self defense. Third, where the law of self-defense is inapplicable, military action must be sanctioned by the United Nations.

    America can’t claim self-defense; Syria poses less of the threat to it than America does to Syria. Under established law, America has no right to attack Syrian unless approved by the world body. Reading the prohibition against chemical weapons in harmony with other legal principles leads to one conclusion. To punish Syria’s purported use of chemical weapons, America can only unilaterally impose sanctions short of military action. If it seeks to legally apply a military sanction, America must gain approval from the global organization. However, since the world body rejects America’s position, America has decided to ignore canons of international law that America had previously authored in order to superimpose this presently favored legal precept over the entire body of international law. Because it believes Assad’s government has breached the law, America believes it has the right to distort that law for its own purposes. As such, both regimes are outlaws albeit committing somewhat different crimes.

    President Obama opined that other despots will rush to deploy illicit weapons if Assad is not quickly punished. This position is nothing but dangerous conjecture clothed as statecraft. America winked when Saddam Hussein used deadly gas against Iran and against portions of Iraq’s population in the 1980’s. The rest of that unfortunately large club of despots did not rush to deploy such weapons. If the evildoers did not break the door to deploy chemical weapons at a time when America seemed to approve their use why would they now do so when America now seems hell-bent in opposition?

    Despite the American political elite’s attempts to shape global opinion by depicting its enemies as evil incarnate, these enemy states have been more circumspect in the large-scale use of military power than has been the American government. Even the most wanton leaders do not frequently embark on large-scale military operations against their populations or against other nations. They would rather maintain power by employing the more mundane, daily tools of repression. Such tactics are less expensive and less of a gamble than massive endeavors that might backfire, squandering their regimes and lives.

    Sadly, President Obama has become too slick. The danger in becoming too well-versed in the arts of verbal fabrication is that the accomplished hypocrite becomes the last person to recognize his cover has been blown. During his press conference, President Obama likened the chemical weapons incident to the Rwandan genocide. Twice, he criticized that the world watched idly as Rwanda turned itself crimson. Shame on any American leader for drawing this analogy. Either America’s present crop of leaders is ignorant of recent history or they believe the world has a grave memory deficiency. During the Rwandan carnage, much of the world wanted to act in concert to halt the slide. The UN was poised to do more. It was President Obama’s political mentor, Bill Clinton, who made sure the UN remained passive. Clinton did not want to bear the domestic political costs of UN involvement in Rwanda. In that instance, the world did not prevent America from taking morally and legally responsible action. It was America that prevented a unified world from doing the right thing. Attempting to justify an illegal strike against Syria, America no tries to whitewash its sad history of tolerating inhumane atrocities where America has no economic or political interests in thwarting the nightmare.

    Further trying to justify his position yet absolve himself of personal responsibility, Obama had the temerity to claim he never said Assad government use of chemical weapons was a “red line” for him which if crossed would cause him to respond with muscle. Now, Obama’s tune is that the world community, America and the American congress drew this line and everyone’s credibility is at stake if no response is had. Someone should do him the favor for replaying his prior statement to him. He would quickly drop this revisionary tact as few leaders have publicly assumed such personal responsibility for a matter outside the ken if his country’s vital strategic interests.

    Sadly, Obama has gone so far as to assert, because of this fictional red line, America’s credibility and thus national security has been placed at risk. This argument diminishes the man’s personal stature and that of his office. Clearly, the localized use of chemical weapons in a suburb of distant Syria is not an imminent national security threat to America. In fact, Obama undermined his own argument in the same press conference by later saying the world would have forgotten about this issue had not his Administration pressed it to the forefront. If the issue was so compelling and important, his government would not have had to work to keep it newsworthy. In other words, Obama admitted that his government has overinflated a serious local issue to become one of artificial global importance. As tragic as the lethal incident was, it is equally troubling for the most powerful man in the world to say the death of 1000 people in a distant civil war constitutes a grave threat to his nation’s security and, in fact, global security. In that case, every war no matter where is a matter of grave national security for America. In that case, America should commit half of its military to single-handedly resolve the civil war in the Congo which has consumed the lives of over 5 million Africans. However, America remains opposed to funding a sufficiently robust international peacekeeping force to resolve that perennial crisis.

    Fortunately, most Americans and much of the world remain unconvinced by the hasty presidential expostulations. Opinion polls reveal the overwhelming majority of Americans regardless of race and party oppose unilateral action in Syria. Congress seems in lockstep with public opinion. President Obama has asked Congress to approve his desire to attack Syria. Unless the beneficiary of a political miracle, President Obama will suffer a dramatic, wholly unnecessary setback when the majority of congressional Republicans and a large minority of Democrats vote down his war request.

    This is the second week I have dedicated this column to the Syrian crisis. I have done so for two reasons. First, if handled imprudently, what is essentially a local civil war can transmogrify into something larger, more sinister, and much more dangerous. Second, I am concerned about how easily our people are taken by western media and propaganda. Nigeria and Africa will never develop as they ought unless we can think more independently and objectively. If our collective mind is so easily moved in the direction determined by the western press and the vested interests the western media represents, we are sunk.

    Last week, I received emotional comments that America was justified to seek retribution because of the civilian deaths caused by the incident. People just wanted to strike out emotionally, indiscriminately. These people uncritically swallowed that Assad’s government committed the crime. That allegation may eventually prove true. For now, it remains unproven. Thus, there should be no haste in action. In fact, the purported intelligence President Obama and his officials deem so convincing has been unable to persuade America’s own Congress.

    Moreover, Russian President Putin has released his own report implicating the rebels and anti-Assad foreign intelligence agencies. General Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff has implicated Israeli. An Associated Press reporter wrote a compelling piece wherein he interviewed people on the ground in the affected Damascus suburb. Rebel fighters and relatives rebels were interviewed. Although this area is in rebel control, the rebels and others admitted that the chemical weapons were in the possession of rebel factions financed by outside intelligence agencies. These agencies supplied the weapons which were inadvertently ignited by negligent mishandling by the rebels during an untimely conventional artillery shelling of the area by Assad’s forces. Why aren’t these reports being seen and considered as credible as the ones America backs? These and like reports never are revealed by the western media because that media’s primary mandate is not to present all or objective news but to project a subjective viewpoint promoting the interests of the vast powers behind the throne.

    For the second time in less than ten years, those entrenched powerful interests have enticed the most visible, influential Black American political figure to stand before the world to promote needless war or military action. Wanting so much to belong to the global elite, both Black men chomped the bait and got hooked. First, Colin Powell lied to the world for his masters. His reward was to lose his reputation and later to be dismissed from his post. Failing to learn the lesson, Obama has allowed the puppeteers to dance him before the world, placing false arguments for false war in his mouth. This episode will likely diminish him permanently. If he attacks Syria, the world will conclude that his Nobel Peace Prize was improperly given. He will join the ranks of American warmongers no different than those of Bush Administration infamy. If he fails to carry out the attack, the entrenched interests will turn their vast wealth and media against him. They shall whittle him down before our eyes. It shall be a painful thing to watch. Again, those Black leaders who seek personal gain by giving faithful, blind obeisance to established interests move smoothly along at first. However, the powers will ultimately ask the Black leader to sacrifice himself because they don’t want that leader to become an independent force. Thus far, Black leaders have sacrificed themselves for interests not their own. As it is with individual Black American leaders so it has been with Black African nations. When shall we ever learn?

     

    08060340825 (sms only)

     

     

     

  • Chevron boat mishap: Victims’ families demand answers

    Richard Egbe’s death is perhaps the most inopportune of the 11 victims in the calamitous Jascon 4 boat accident. He was enjoying his mandatory two-week off when he was recalled for a special task on May 22. Four days later, he went down with the boat. He left an expectant wife, six children, an aged, recently widowed mother, unfulfilled dreams and tons of responsibilities. Joy Esigbemi and other members of the Ogbe family spoke exclusively with our Southsouth Regional Editor Shola O’Neil.

    At the Ubeji residence of the Egbes, signs of unfinished businesses are visible everywhere: his children lay on sofas; his wife – heavily pregnant and groaning – sat on a threadbare mattress in a sparse bedroom; his younger brothers – Amaju and Oritsema – sat on the cold bare floor, all bedraggled, all garbed in black.

    Outside the bungalow, an attached store under construction stood desolate. One of his siblings said Richard had meant to complete the building and set up a provisions shop for his wife so she could stay at home and take care of the growing family.

    “He had also built one for my mother and was yet to stock it before his last journey,” Oritsema rued.

    Richard was one of the 12 men who went on tension tow expenditure at the Single Buoy Mooring (SBM) #3 of Chevron Nigeria Limited aboard the Anchor Handling Tugboat, Jascon 4 on Sunday, May 26. All but the cook of the vessel returned in body bags.

    The event leading to their deaths on that fateful morning of May 26 is still a mystery, but the grief and pains of the families, like the Egbes, are real. The management of West African Ventures (WALVIS), a subsidiary of Sea Truck Group and Chevron on whose duty the fatal accident occurred have kept mum so far.

    When Mrs Egbe spoke to our reporter, her voice was low and burdened by sorrow. There was also unmistakable bitterness and anger as she recalled how her spouse was “dragged to his death”.

    “He was on time off when he was recalled by his employer. He was asked to relieve someone who had to leave. It was the last time we saw him; if they had allowed him complete his rest period at home he would still be with us.

    “It was my mother-in-law who called me to break the sad news. When I got to the house, she was crying. I was curious because she called to send me on an errand. When they told me what happened, I said it was not possible because my husband just went to work on Wednesday.

    “See (pointing) that is his eldest son, he had just gained admission. When my husband was going to work, he asked him to come later for money to get the things he needs. Look at the daughter; she is in SS3 and preparing for her WAEC, the second son is about to learn a trade and he needs money to start off.”

    Still, as painful as his death was, the family lamented that the treatment of WALVIS, on whose duty their breadwinner died, made the pain unbearable.

    Displaying a certificate of long service given by WALVIS, Mrs Egbe said the late Richard, a boson, had served the company for over 17 years, first as a casual worker before his employment was ratified. She said he was due for another honour later in the year before his unfortunate end.

    Amaju, a younger brother of the deceased, said: “Even the death of an animal does not deserve the kind of treatment meted on us and other victims’ families by the company. They acted as if our brother was a fowl that died.”

    He lamented that the family got no formal information about the accident until the corpses were deposited at the morgue of a private hospital in Warri.

    “They (WALVIS) called us to come and identify the body so that we would collect them for burial. They want to get the matter over with as soon as possible and they think that getting the corpses out of the mortuary is one way to do this.”

    Speaking in the same vein, Mrs. Egbe said: “I feel aggrieved because since the incident, I have not heard from the company. This makes me feel very bad because my husband gave 17 years of his life to the services of this company and when he died they did not have the sensibility to come and inform us about what happened.

    “Since I got the news I have been sitting here and up till this moment there has been no official response or visit from the company. There has been no condolence visit or even a letter to say, ‘sorry about your loss’. This is most callous and irresponsible.”

    Besides, some of the deceased’ families are furious about the perceived slow rescue operation. Amaju said the late Egbe and some other colleagues would have survived if the company had reacted as soon as they got the boat’s distress call.

    Although his assertion could not be independently confirmed, he said information available to the family indicated that rescue operation did not start until about 24 hours after.

    “My brother did not drown, he died of suffocation. Drowning would have left his skin messed up but it was dry and normal when we saw his body; no bodyorpse will stay in a salt water and come out the same. We are riverside dwellers and we have seen the bodies of persons who drowned,” Amaju said.

    Another sore spot for the family is the autopsy. His wife said they were unimpressed that they were not notified or represented when the post-mortem was carried out. She said the posture indicated that the company hadn’t told the whole truth about the accident.

    The Warri Base Manager of the company, Mr. Prince Ebhodaghe, who was contacted by our reporter on telephone, refused to comment. He became very hostile when our reporter asked for information about the accident and allegations about his firm’s conduct.

    “Do you know who I am? Do you know the person you are talking to?” he thundered repeatedly before hanging up.

    Before Ebhodaghe’s telephone meltdown, our reporter had spoken with a top management staff of the company who assured that there is a package already in place for the grieving families. Our source, who asked not to be named until the package is official, said West African Ventures was picking the bills for the burial rites of the 11 victims, including a Ukrainian, whose remains had long been ferried to his home country.

    “In line with the agreement they (dead staff) signed with our company, they will get 350 percent of their annual salaries as compensation. Apart from that we also paying for the coffins, transportation, burial rites and others,” the source added.

    But angry relatives of the victims seemed unimpressed. Ochukor Idolor, a sibling of Basil Idolor accused the company of valuing money more than the deceased and the families they left behind. “WALVIS said they do not have life insurance policies for their staff, yet the sunken boat has insurance. Strange, is it not?”

     

  • The woolwich killings: More questions than answers

    The woolwich killings: More questions than answers

    Some things just don’t add up when it comes to the Woolwich killings. There are certainly more questions than answers. Let us examine the facts. An off-duty British soldier by the name of Lee Rigby was walking down the street in the charming and peaceful London suburb of Woolwich. All of a sudden, and out of the blue, he was randomly selected and run over by a car which was being driven by two young black men. After they hit him to the ground with the car, the two young men jumped out of it, armed with matchetes, knives, a rusty old pistol and a meat cleaver, and in a deep and uncontrollable frenzy amidst shouts of ‘’Allahu Akbar’’, proceeded to take his precious life by carving him up, mutilating him, butchering him and beheading him in full public glare. This all happened barely 100 metres away from Rigby’s Army Barracks home. The attack began at 2.30 pm whilst the soldier gave up the ghost at approximately 3.00pm on a four-point inter-section roundabout and crossroads.

    Immediately after finishing their gruesome act, the killers then conducted their own impromptu press conference, brandishing knives and meat cleavers in blood-soaked hands, with random members of the public asking to be filmed and qouted whilst their clothes were soaked, drenched and dripping in human blood. After their ‘’presss conference’’ ended, they moved to the other side of the road and calmly waited for the police to arrive. They had all the time in the world to do so but they plainly refused to run and attempt to avoid arrest or the imminent arrival of the police. According to eye-witnesses (and I watched the footage on CNN), the police took no less than 30 minutes to get to the scene and confront the two killers. They did NOT get there in the nine minutes that they were claiming.

    When the police eventually arrived, instead of surrendering peacefully to them or attempting to run away, the two young men charged at them brandishing their knives and meat cleaver in a menacing way and attempting to shoot their old and rusty pistol. Unfortunately for them, the pistol exploded in the hand of the individual that tried to use it. They were both promptly shot, wounded and disarmed. Yet before the police arrived another rather curious incident took place. A strange yet very courageous Scandanavian woman, who just happened to be sitting on a bus that was driving past, told the bus driver to stop when she saw the carnage that was being inflicted on the dying soldier, got off the bus and calmly walked over to the killers even as they were still killing him. She then proceeeded to have a detailed conversation with them asking them why they were doing what they were doing and assuring them that in the end they would lose the fight because it was ‘’just them against many.’’

    Is this not a rather curious encounter? Who really was that Scandanavian lady and who does she really work for? Is she a genuine hero or is she what, in security and intelligence circles, is known as a controller? Is she part of the system because to do what she did took immense courage? So many questions still need to be asked and answered. For example, why did the police take so long before responding? Why were the killers given all the time in the world to conduct a graphic, loud and unofficial press conference in the streets with members of the public after beheading and carving up the young soldier?

    Even more curiously, the police and intelligence agencies have now admitted that these two young men were “known to them”. If that were the case how come they were never put under close surveillance, monitored, questioned or arrested? Why did all this have to take place at exactly 3.00pm in the afternoon, at that location (a crossroads of four junctions) and on that date? Why did the assailants have to cut off their victims head, hang around there for thirty minutes whilst ranting and whilst soaked and covered in their victims blood? Why did the killers insist that only women could come near the dying body of their victim? Why was this whole thing allowed to happen and to drag on like it did for 30 uninterrupted minutes by the authorities? Why did the police refuse to move in even though numerous members of the public were having detailed conversations with the assailants?

    Was this whole thing some kind of state-sponsored illuminati-style human sacrifice? Was it designed and orchestrated by the authorities to create more terror in the land and to give them the opportunity to introduce more draconian laws, curb immigration and do away with even more civil liberties on the grounds that they wish to fight the very terror that they themselves created. Are we not being fooled again by the ‘’powers-that-be’’ and the state just as we were over ‘’9-11’’ and over the murder of Princess Diana, both of which were clearly inside jobs with strong illuminatti connections . If anyone doubts this assertion, they ought to do themselves a favour and find the time to watch David Icke’s revealing docuementry titled ‘’9/11-It Was An Inside Job.’’ It is on youtube. They can also find his numerous books and watch his numerous docuementries on the murder of Princess Diana. Their world view will change dramatically after that. Back to Woolwich.

    Are there not clear parallels between the Woolwich incident and the Boston bombings which took place just a few weeks ago. Are there not similarities in the profiles of the two sets of killers in both incidents. Both operations were conducted in full public glare and in the afternoon. Both operations were carried out by two Americans and two British citizens respectively each of them with a foreign heritage and family ties with nations that are rife with and that are being torn apart by islamist terror. In the case of the Boston bombers the two perpetrators had strong links and family ties with Dagestan and Checnya. In the case of the Woolwich incident both perpetrators had equally strong links and family ties with Nigeria. Both sets of killers were muslim fundamentalists and both sets were ‘’known to the intelligence agencies’’ of their respective countries. Both countries in which the murders took place, i.e. Great Britain and the United States of America, are the greatest allies and leaders in the war against terror and they are both committed to standing ‘’shoulder to shoulder’’ with one another in that fight. Is it not strange that similar acts of terror will take place in the two just a few weeks apart and that those acts of terror were all carried out by people with similar profiles and virtually the same age. The coincidences are just too many and things just don’t add up. The performance of the British police particularly has opened up the door for a lot of speculation. They made so many mistakes. Yet I can assure you that the British police and intelligence agencies are NOT that sloppy. They are amongst the best, if not the best, in the world and they just don’t make mistakes. There is far more to this whole thing than meets the eye and there is also a sinister purpose and agenda to it. The full picture has not yet been shown to us and perhaps it never will but little by little those that are well-versed in these matters will work it out and the truth will be exposed.

    Yet the questions just keep coming. Is it possible that those two British boys of Nigerian descent were under some kind of ‘’Peter Powers’’-type hypnosis and mind-control system which was triggered off by something or someone. In many of his books and videos David Icke has alluded to the usage and existence of such capabilities by the more advanced intelligence agencies in the world for the last ten years and he has cited many examples of such usage. Initially, I was skeptical about his assertions until I listened and read carefully and I cross-checked the examples and the events that he cited. After that, I was convinced that he was right and ever since then I have acknowledged the fact that we live in an exceptionally dangerous world where only the dullard would rule anything out.

    Back to the two young men that killed in Woolwich. Were they cultivated, ‘’programmed’’ and used by agents of the illuminati in the British establishment to carry out this gruesome operation and this monstrous sacrifice? It is relevant and interesting to note that the two suspects were not just British citizens of Nigerian descent but that they were both muslim CONVERTS. That is to say they were both brought up as christians and then somewhere along the line they converted not just to islam but to it’s most extreeme and radical brand. They became dangerous islamists that were prepared to kill for their faith. Who cultivated them and took them to this point and how did it get so bad? More importantly will this whole episode not give the western powers and the British people another reason to demonise islam and target mosques and muslim clerics? Is that part of the plan and the wider picture? Is the whole idea to create the atmosphere for vicious reprisal attacks against muslims and Nigerians in the U.K.?

    Is all that I have written here far-fetched? You may believe so but I don’t. And neither have I gone mad. The devil is real and the illuminati is it’s toool for world control and domination. It has been around for years and those that are part of it operate in the deepest secrecy. Yet even if you do not agree with me on anyything that I have said here, the questions that I have raised are legitimate and they are indeed food for thought. In this game there are no coincidences and everything happens for a reason and has its own sybolism and purpose. As far as I am concerned only David Icke can crack this Woolwich nut and unravel it’s secrets and I look forward to the day that he does. Meanwhile I pray that thesoul of Officer Rigby rests in perfect peace and I urge every Nigerian that is resident in or that is visiting the UK, especially if they are muslims, to be exceptionally careful in their movements and in their dealings with the British people and authorities. There is FAR more to this whole thing than meets the eye and whether anyone likes to admit it or not, sadly, there will be some kind of backlash against our people at some point.

    As for the two British men of Nigerian descent (whose names I refuse to mention) that cut short the life of this brave young and heroic British soldier in the prime of his life for doing absolutely nothing wrong, may they both die a slow and terrible death and may they rot in hell.