How George Bush and Tony Blair destroyed Christianity in Iraq.
By Ebere Inyama
 |
George W. Bush (right) and Tony Blair (left), were responsible for the invasion of Iraq
|
Presently, a vast exodus has taken place in Iraq following an
ultimatum given by ISIS to Christians in that country that if they did not
convert to Islam by noon on July 19, they would pay a fine or be executed.
This is a Christian community that was one of the oldest in the
world. The murals of the earliest church building to have been discovered in
that part of the world was painted between 232 AD and 256 AD, three-quarters of
a century before the Roman emperor, Constantine, recognised Christianity.
The travails of the Christians living in Iraq began with the
invasion of that country by Britain and the United States under the leadership
of Tony Blair and George Bush.
The naive and stupendously ill-conceived foreign policy of Britain
and the United States over the issues in the Middle East in 2003 is about to
wipe out the practice of the Christian religion in Iraq.
Because Saddam Hussein refused to reduce the price of crude oil
sold by his country and perhaps because he made a mistake by annexing Kuwait,
the Government of the United States plotted his downfall by alleging that
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Even when no evidence was found in
support of that claim, the US government kept on insisting that Iraq had
chemical weapons and later, George bush convinced the then British Prime
minister, Tony Blair to join him in the plot to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
In the end, Hussein’s government was toppled and himself executed
by the US government.
For however revolting Saddam Hussein may have been, he did at
least tolerate Iraq’s Christian community, which at one time was almost 1.5
million-strong. In the years following the invasion, the number of Christians
dwindled to 300,000.
Then, last month, Islamic State captured Mosul, Iraq’s second
biggest city, which still had a sizeable Christian minority
Meanwhile, in the north of Iraq — a country allegedly delivered
into freedom from Saddam Hussein in 2003 — a psychopathic organisation called
Islamic State (previously known as ISIS) is executing thousands of Shia Muslims
and Christians as the central government in Baghdad looks on, powerless to
intervene.
According to Canon Andrew White, a brave Anglican priest resident
in Baghdad: ‘It looks as though the end [of Christianity in Iraq] could be very
near.’
The largely untold story of the persecuted Iraqi Christian
minority is especially shaming for those avowedly Christian leaders, George W.
Bush and Tony Blair, who were responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
The lives of the Christians in Iraq obviously are not more
precious than those of the no-less-terrorised Shia Muslims, but one might have
expected Christian leaders to have spared a thought for them before they set
about tearing apart the country’s social fabric.
It is certain, however, that if the admittedly odious Saddam
Hussein were still in power, Islamic State would not be on the rampage in
northern Iraq and the lives of thousands of Christians and Shias would not have
been lost.
And it is also certain that the number of people who have died
since the invasion — as many as 500,000, according to reputable studies — far
exceeds the number of victims of Saddam Hussein during his much longer period
in power. No doubt thousands more innocent people are doomed to be killed.
Cruel and despotic though he was, Saddam
did offer Iraq a measure of stability, which was destroyed by the invasion.
This repulsive strongman at least held his country together, which the divisive
Shia-dominated government in Baghdad cannot do.
A similar point can be made about the no less repellent Gaddafi. In the Libya over which he presided for more than 40 years, there were no factions of militias killing innocent people and destroying their homes and livelihoods.
A similar point can be made about the no less repellent Gaddafi. In the Libya over which he presided for more than 40 years, there were no factions of militias killing innocent people and destroying their homes and livelihoods.
Of course, this is not the choice that western statesmen had in
mind when they intervened in Iraq and Libya. They genuinely believed that, when
the tyrants had been removed, better and more competent rulers would replace
them.
But such a belief constituted a triumph of hope over good sense.
It arose from a toxic combination of naivety, ignorance and vanity. Tony Blair
displayed these fatal characteristics in all his foreign excursions.
His habit was to divide the world into ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’.
Before the British-led invasion of Kosovo in 1999, Blair demonised the Serb leader,
Slobodan Milosevic, while representing the Kosovans, and their leader Hashim
Thaci, as noble and blameless victims.
I’ve no doubt that Milosevic was a brute and a war criminal, but
Thaci was hardly a saint. This week, a special EU prosecutor has alleged that
Serb prisoners may have had their organs removed and sold by Hashim Thaci’s
Kosovo Liberation Army during the war.
When it came to Iraq, Blair unhesitatingly identified Saddam
Hussein as a ‘baddie’, which he undoubtedly was. But neither he nor President
Bush considered the consequences of removing him, and they grossly exaggerated
the moral qualities and competence of the Iraqi opposition.
In 2011, David Cameron made a similar error in forcing out
Gaddafi. Earlier that year, he had rushed to Tahrir Square in Cairo after the
ousting of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak to celebrate what he appeared to
think was the birth of democracy in the country.
As it turned out, it was no such thing. The Egyptian army is back
in charge. The Prime Minister — in his innocence — thought that democracy was
much easier to establish in the Middle East than it has turned out to be.
Last year, again in the Blair mould, he tried to involve Britain
in the Syrian war on the side of the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad’s
undeniably nasty regime. Fortunately, he was thwarted by Parliament. It has
since become increasingly clear that the rebels are far from being ‘goodies’.
Indeed, they include the genocidal Islamic State.
Under Tony Blair and, to a lesser extent, David Cameron, Britain’s
foreign policy has been driven by a kind of do-gooding naivety rather than a
hard-headed assessment of our own interests or a sophisticated appraisal of the
consequences of getting rid of disagreeable, but efficient, rulers.
Western leaders have idiotically assumed that democracy can be
imposed with the barrel of a gun. Of course it can’t be — as Iraq and Libya
have demonstrated, and as we will see in Afghanistan once the last American
troops have left.
One day, perhaps, Iraq and Libya will be democratic, but if they
ever are it will not be as a result of western meddling but because that is
what people in those countries, and their rulers, want.
Boko Haram uses military hardware
stolen from the Nigerian army - US officials
Much of Boko Haram’s military hardware is not bought; it is stolen from the Nigerian army, an official of the US Treasury Department said in a statement to Reuters yesterday.
In February, dozens of its fighters descended on a remote military outpost in the Gwoza hills in north-eastern Borno State, looting 200 mortar bombs, 50 rocket-propelled grenades and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
Such raids have left the group well armed. In dozens of attacks in the past year Nigerian soldiers were swept aside by militants driving trucks, motor bikes and sometimes even stolen armored vehicles, firing rocket-propelled grenades.
Boko Haram’s inner leadership is security savvy, not only in the way it moves money but also in its communications, relying on face-to-face contact, since messages or calls can be intercepted, the current and former U.S. officials said.
“They’re quite sophisticated in terms of shielding all of these activities from legitimate law enforcement officials in Africa and certainly our own intelligence efforts trying to get glimpses and insight into what they do,” a former U.S. military official said.
U.S. officials acknowledge that the weapons that have served Washington so well in its financial warfare against other terrorist groups are proving less effective against Boko Haram.
The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield has equally said that “Members of the dreaded Islamic sect, Boko Haram, are surviving on very lucrative criminal activities that involve kidnappings,”
According to Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Boko Haram uses primarily a system of couriers to move cash around inside Nigeria and across the porous borders from neighboring African states To fund its murderous network.
Earlier, The Treasury Department said in a statement to Reuters that the United States has seen evidence that Boko Haram has received financial support from al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), an offshoot of the jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden.
But that support is limited. Officials with deep knowledge of Boko Haram’s finances say that any links with al Qaeda or its affiliates are inconsequential to Boko Haram’s overall funding.
“Any financial support AQIM might still be providing Boko Haram would pale in comparison to the resources it gets from criminal activities,” said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Assessments differ, but one U.S. estimate of financial transfers from AQIM was in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. That compares with the millions of dollars that Boko Haram is estimated to make through its kidnap and ransom operations.
Lucrative kidnapping racket
Ransoms appear to be the main source of funding for Boko Haram’s five-year-old Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, whose 170 million people are split roughly evenly between Christians and Muslims, said the U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In February last year, armed men on motorcycles snatched Frenchman Tanguy Moulin-Fournier, his wife and four children, and his brother while they were on holiday near the Waza National Park in Cameroon, close to the Nigerian border.
Boko Haram was paid an equivalent of about $3.15m by French and Cameroonian negotiators before the hostages were released, according to a confidential Nigerian government report later obtained by Reuters.
Figures vary on how much Boko Haram earns from kidnappings. Some U.S. officials estimate the group is paid as much as $1m for the release of each abducted wealthy Nigerian.
It is widely assumed in Nigeria that Boko Haram receives support from religious sympathisers inside the country, including some wealthy professionals and northern Nigerians who dislike the government, although little evidence has been made public to support that assertion.
Current and former U.S. and Nigerian officials say Boko Haram’s operations do not require significant amounts of money, which means even successful operations tracking and intercepting their funds are unlikely to disrupt their campaign.
Boko Haram had developed “a very diversified and resilient model of supporting itself,” said Peter Pham, a Nigeria scholar at the Atlantic Council think-tank in Washington.
“It can essentially ‘live off the land’ with very modest additional resources required,” he told a congressional hearing on June 11.
Low cost weapons
“We’re not talking about a group that is buying sophisticated weapons of the sort that some of the jihadist groups in Syria and other places are using. We’re talking AK-47s, a few rocket-propelled grenades, and bomb-making materials. It is a very low-cost operation,” Pham told Reuters.
That includes paying local youth just pennies a day to track and report on Nigerian troop movements.
“My sense is that we have applied the tools that we do have but that they are not particularly well tailored to the way that Boko Haram is financing itself,” a U.S. defense official said.
Culled from PUNCH
Charles Taylor takes Britain to court over human rights violation
|
The former Liberia President, Charles Taylor has taken the British
Government to court, claiming his detention in Britain denies his
human rights.
He says his wife and 15
children – some of them criminals too – should not have to travel from Africa
to visit him, adding that he fears being attacked in Frankland jail.
Taylor said: 'My position is that serving my sentence in Rwanda,
in my home continent of Africa, would be substantially more humane not only on
my own account, but also on account of the impact on my family.'
He argues that the court's statutes said
access for prisoners' relatives should be taken into account when deciding
where they should serve their sentence.
Taylor's lawyers argue that in 2011,
Bosnian war criminal Radislav Krstic was attacked in a British jail by three
Muslim men, apparently in revenge for his role in the Bosnian conflict.
Taylor, who has already lost an appeal
against his conviction, is expected to demand the right to attend the hearing.
The Ministry of Justice, which is proud of
the UK's role in bringing him to justice, will contest his claims.
Whitehall officials
described his claim as the 'ultimate perversion of the concept of human
rights'. One said: 'This is simply disgusting. He is a war criminal. He doesn't
get to choose where he serves his sentence. As for his right to a family life –
what a sick joke.'
Tory MP Dominic Raab
said: 'It shows the corruption of human rights that such a brutal warlord
convicted of crimes against humanity, including terrorism, rape and conscripting
child soldiers, thinks he can claim jail violates his right to family life.
'If he's successful, it
would turn British human rights laws into a laughing stock around the world.'
Taylor's case will be
heard by Judge Philip Waki at the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone.
The case is the latest
appalling example of criminals claiming they have a right to a family life,
which is enshrined in law by a series of treaties, conventions and other
international obligations. Convicts normally cite these rules to stay in
Britain whereas Taylor wants to be transferred to Rwanda.
His wife, Victoria
Addison Taylor, claimed his incarceration among 'common British prisoners' was
humiliating. She said: 'They took him to this prison where high [risk]
criminals, terrorists and other common British criminals are kept and he is
being classified as a high-risk prisoner.
+7
'He is going through
humiliation and you cannot treat a former head of state that way.'
Taylor was convicted in
April 2012 of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He aided
murderous rebels in Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war that ended in 2002 and
cost around 250,000 lives.
Taylor's trial was held
at the Hague in case it sparked renewed unrest in West Africa.
Born in a remote
Liberian village in 1948, Taylor excelled at school and earned a university
place in Boston. After gaining an economics degree in 1977, he returned home to
take a government job in Liberia – only to flee back to the US in 1985 after
embezzling more than £1million from state coffers.
But he was arrested on
his arrival in America for crimes committed in Liberia and jailed pending
trial.
Mysteriously, Taylor escaped a year later – reputedly with the help of the CIA – and was next spotted in Libya.
Mysteriously, Taylor escaped a year later – reputedly with the help of the CIA – and was next spotted in Libya.
There, he underwent guerilla
warfare training and – helped by his friend Muammar Gaddafi – he raised an army
and fought his way back into Liberia, all while intervening in Sierra Leone.
When Liberia's leader,
Samuel Doe, was killed by a rival warlord in 1997, Taylor, whose forces already
controlled vast swathes of territory, seized total control.
He installed his son as
head of his secret police and began killing opponents and diverting state money
to his private bank accounts.
'Chuckie', his
American-born son, buried victims alive. He
tortured others with red-hot irons and electric shocks. A favourite method was
to drip hot oil into the eyes of prisoners.
He orchestrated the death of at least 250,000 people, many of whom
were tortured and raped. Others were cooked and eaten by his troops.
Taylor had fomented a bloody rebellion in
Sierra Leone, sending men and weapons to help the plunder.
As a front, he used a proxy army called
the Revolutionary United Front, a rag-tag collection of rebels and child
soldiers recruited at gunpoint from rural areas. They were plied with
'brown-brown' – a mixture of heroin and gunpowder – so they could murder and
rape without emotion.
In an orgy of terror, these drug-crazed fighters were ordered to
hack off arms and legs with machetes, offering their victims the option of
'short sleeves or long sleeves' – a cut at the wrist, or the shoulder.
.
Maria Tukamara, shows her false arms in the Amputee camp run by the French aid agency Medicins Sans Frontiers in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Maria lost her hands after Charles Taylor's Revolutionary United Front invaded her village on April 30, 1999
Sierra Leone became Africa's new Heart Of
Darkness and was reduced to ruin as forces backed by Taylor, some dressed in
women's clothes in the bizarre belief this would protect them from bullets, ran
amok.
His child soldiers have told how they were
forced to rape elderly women at gunpoint, and torture anyone suspected of
collaborating with government forces.
The aim was to drive everyone away from
the diamond fields, leaving Taylor's forces in undisputed control of the mines.
Thousands of women were kept as sex slaves by his marauders – after the tendons
in their feet were slashed with machetes so they couldn't flee.
Pregnant women had their stomachs hacked
open and their unborn children killed in the womb.
As a member of the Poro Society, an ancient West African cult of demon-worshippers, Taylor believed that eating the organs of his enemies gave him their strength.
Both Liberia and Sierra
Leone descended into anarchy, forcing UN troops and Britain's SAS to intervene.
Taylor fled to Nigeria where he was later arrested and sent to the Hague in
2006.
Following his
conviction, he was transferred to prison in Britain.
Today, Sierra Leone and
Liberia are still struggling to recover from Taylor's madness, with thousands
maimed and mentally scarred by his atrocities.
Pivotal to the original case against him
was the evidence of Miss Campbell and actress Mia Farrow, who provided a clear
link between Taylor and blood diamonds he received in payment for arms.
Taylor had his helpers deliver these uncut
diamonds to Naomi Campbell following a flirtatious dinner in South Africa.
Famous friends: Charles Taylor gave Naomi Campbell a handful of 'blood diamonds'. Here they are pictured together in 1997, at a dinner hosted by then South African President Nelson Mandela
'
Naomi Campbell appears at the war crimes trial of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor at the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague in 2010
London-born Miss Campbell admitted being given a pouch of uncut gems by the president's men in South Africa. Taylor is thought to have acquired from the rebels diamonds worth almost £1billion.
Culled from Daily mail, Edited by Ebere Inyama
How Gaddafi kidnapped and raped dozens of women to fulfill his perverted desire
|
 |
| Sham: In public, Gaddafi claimed to have women's rights at his heart. In 1981, he said that he had decided 'to wholly liberate the women of Libya in order to rescue them from a world of oppression and subjugation |
The horror started with the lightest of
touches. As the 15-year-old schoolgirl held out the bouquet to the 62-year-old
man, he took her free hand and kissed it gently.
The man was Muammar Gaddafi, the dictator of
Libya who had seized power 35 years before. His people were forced to call him
the Guide, but the rest of the world knew him simply as Colonel Gaddafi.
That morning in April 2004, Gaddafi was
visiting a school in his home town of Sirte, on the Mediterranean coast 350
miles east of Tripoli.
 |
| Glamour: Some of Colonel Gaddafi's guards. Others were horribly attacked by the Libyan dictator |
The girl had been selected to present the
Guide with gifts and flowers, and it was considered a privilege.
Before
Gaddafi arrived, she was trembling with nerves, and she continued to tremble as
he looked her coldly up and down. He squeezed her palm and then her shoulder,
before gently patting her head.
At the time she was euphoric. To have been
touched by the Guide! It was a real honour.  |
| Tyrant: Gaddafi abused women on massive scale after coming to power aged just 27 |
She had no idea that the pat on the head,
seemingly so paternal, actually signified something far more sinister.
The car arrived the next afternoon. The girl
was working at her mother’s hairdressing salon when in walked three women, one
of whom was dressed in a military uniform.
The women told the girl’s mother that her
daughter was needed to present another bouquet to ‘Papa Muammar’ because she
had conducted herself so ‘beautifully’ the previous day.
Despite the mother’s protestations, the girl
was driven away at high speed to an encampment in the desert.
There she was once more introduced to
Gaddafi, who was sitting in a red chair holding a TV remote control. He looked
her up and down and barked to one of the women: ‘Get her ready!’
Now terrified, the girl was taken away and
undressed. Her measurements and a blood sample were taken, then her entire body
was shaved except for her pubic hair.
She was made to wear a G-string and a low-cut
dress, and make-up was plastered on her face. She was then shoved into
Gaddafi’s room.
To her disgust and shock, he was lying naked
on his bed. The girl immediately tried to run out, but one of the female
helpers grabbed her and insisted that she did what was required.
The girl sat next to Gaddafi on his bed and
he started to kiss her. She remained frozen with fear until eventually she
could take no more and pushed him away.
A struggle ensued until a female helper
appeared.
‘Look at this whore!’ Gaddafi snapped.
‘Educate her! And then bring her back to me!’
The following evening, Gaddafi beat the
girl and then got what he wanted.
‘I will never forget that moment,’ the girl
later recalled. ‘He violated my body, but he pierced my soul with a dagger. The
blade never came out.’
Such a tale might seem like something from
the imagination of a particularly lurid and sadistic pornographer but,
horrifically, it is true.
Though we do not know the girl’s real name,
in a powerful new book called Gaddafi’s Harem, written by the French journalist
Annick Cojean, she is simply called Soraya.
Cojean met Soraya in Tripoli in October 2011
and was immediately struck by her great beauty: apparently, she resembles the
actress Angelina Jolie.
When Soraya told her story, Cojean did not
doubt it for a second, as she had heard many similar tales of
Gaddafi’s crimes before — but only second-hand, never from the victims
themselves.
Cojean spent months verifying Soraya’s story.
As well as meeting people who had known her through those dark years, she
met other women who’d suffered a similarly brutal experiences at the hands of
the Guide.
There can be no doubt that what Soraya says
is the very painful truth. For almost seven years, Soraya was raped, beaten,
abused and even urinated on by a man who claimed to be the great emancipator of
women in the Arab world.
Many of the episodes in the book are too
distressing to relate here, but it is sufficient to say they would turn even
the strongest of stomachs.
Yet Soraya’s story is typical. She was just
one of thousands of young Libyan girls and women who were kidnapped from their
schools, homes or places of work and forced to be Gaddafi’s sex slaves.
Nor did the Libyan leader restrict his
attentions to women. He also took delight in sexually abusing young male guards
in front of his ‘harem’.
Fuelled by cocaine, whisky, cigarettes and
Viagra, Gaddafi used sex not only as a physical weapon, but as a political
tool through which he could exert his power.
Rape subjugates women — and at the same time subjugates
the men who are close to them, such as their husbands and fathers.
 |
| Gaddafi (centre) as a young man in 1973 shortly after seizing power. He
was known to abduct women from their own wedding ceremonies as the
ultimate show of omnipotence
|
Gaddafi was all too aware of this. The wives
and daughters of senior figures were blackmailed, bribed, cajoled and forced
into having sex.
Gaddafi not only enjoyed the act of degrading these girls and women, but relished the power it gave him over other men.
Some women were even abducted during their wedding ceremonies, as the ultimate show of omnipotence.
As one of Gaddafi’s close collaborators admitted after the tyrant’s death, sex was ‘all he seriously thought about’ and ‘he governed, humiliated, subjugated and sanctioned through sex’.
In public, Gaddafi claimed to have women’s rights at his heart. In 1981, he said that he had decided ‘to wholly liberate the women of Libya in order to rescue them from a world of oppression and subjugation’.
As ‘evidence’ of this most hollow of promises, Gaddafi surrounded himself with female bodyguards.
The message was clear: if the great Guide trusted women with his safety, then Libyan men should follow his example and treat women as equals.
However, the guards were little more than window dressing. Many of them had been kidnapped and raped by Gaddafi, and most had little military experience.
On occasion, when she wasn’t being raped or forced to snort cocaine, drink whisky or watch pornography — the list of abuses is endless — Soraya sometimes acted as one of Gaddafi’s supposedly elite guards.
In 2007, she accompanied the Guide on a tour of African states and put on the most stern expression, showing the world just how enfranchised Libyan women had become.
However, in private, on that very tour, Soraya had to pretend that she was indisposed in order to avoid being raped by the man she was supposedly protecting.
Gaddafi soon found out about her lie — Soraya had been seen having a swim — and he viciously beat her and spat on her before raping her.
‘I came out with a swollen face and they locked me up in a room,’ says Soraya.
From the other side of the door she was taunted by a woman called Mabrouka Sherif, Gaddafi’s leading procurer of girls and young women.
‘You wanted to escape, did you?’ Mabrouka asked her. ‘No matter where you may go one day, Muammar will find you again. And he will kill you.’
What makes the story of Gaddafi’s harem even more shocking is the complicity of women such as Mabrouka in procuring members of their own sex to satisfy their master’s twisted desires.
Thanks to her ability to get Gaddafi what he wanted — a seemingly endless supply of young virgins — Mabrouka rose to a position of immense power in Libya.
Gaddafi not only enjoyed the act of degrading these girls and women, but relished the power it gave him over other men.
Some women were even abducted during their wedding ceremonies, as the ultimate show of omnipotence.
As one of Gaddafi’s close collaborators admitted after the tyrant’s death, sex was ‘all he seriously thought about’ and ‘he governed, humiliated, subjugated and sanctioned through sex’.
In public, Gaddafi claimed to have women’s rights at his heart. In 1981, he said that he had decided ‘to wholly liberate the women of Libya in order to rescue them from a world of oppression and subjugation’.
As ‘evidence’ of this most hollow of promises, Gaddafi surrounded himself with female bodyguards.
The message was clear: if the great Guide trusted women with his safety, then Libyan men should follow his example and treat women as equals.
However, the guards were little more than window dressing. Many of them had been kidnapped and raped by Gaddafi, and most had little military experience.
On occasion, when she wasn’t being raped or forced to snort cocaine, drink whisky or watch pornography — the list of abuses is endless — Soraya sometimes acted as one of Gaddafi’s supposedly elite guards.
In 2007, she accompanied the Guide on a tour of African states and put on the most stern expression, showing the world just how enfranchised Libyan women had become.
However, in private, on that very tour, Soraya had to pretend that she was indisposed in order to avoid being raped by the man she was supposedly protecting.
Gaddafi soon found out about her lie — Soraya had been seen having a swim — and he viciously beat her and spat on her before raping her.
‘I came out with a swollen face and they locked me up in a room,’ says Soraya.
From the other side of the door she was taunted by a woman called Mabrouka Sherif, Gaddafi’s leading procurer of girls and young women.
‘You wanted to escape, did you?’ Mabrouka asked her. ‘No matter where you may go one day, Muammar will find you again. And he will kill you.’
What makes the story of Gaddafi’s harem even more shocking is the complicity of women such as Mabrouka in procuring members of their own sex to satisfy their master’s twisted desires.
Thanks to her ability to get Gaddafi what he wanted — a seemingly endless supply of young virgins — Mabrouka rose to a position of immense power in Libya.
 |
| Accord: Tony Blair (left) shakes hands with Gaddafi in Tripoli in 2009. Just over two years later the dictator was dead |
It also seems likely that she practised some
form of black magic with Gaddafi, which further raised her status. For Soraya,
Mabrouka was a jailer and a tormentor.
Soraya was forced to live in a squalid, damp
basement in the heart of Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli.
She was allowed to go into the city only for
half an hour at a time, and even then she had to be accompanied by a guard.
On very rare occasions she was allowed to
make contact with her family, but it soon became apparent that they were
ashamed of what had happened to her.
When she was briefly reunited with her
parents and brothers, Soraya grew to fear them.
They regarded her as ‘a girl who doesn’t
deserve to live, whose honour is at stake’.
‘And that thought chills my bones,’ she
recalls. ‘Cutting my throat would make respected men of them. Crime would wash
away shame.
‘I am defiled, so I defile others. I’m a
deadbeat, so who would cry over my death?’
As she grew into an adult, Soraya admitted
that eventually she preferred life in Colonel Gaddafi’s compound, a thought
that she found ‘unimaginable’.
There was a horrible stability there, free
from social opprobrium. Soraya’s position gave her a view of the rich and
powerful. Among them was Cecilia Sarkozy, the wife of the French president, and
also Tony Blair, who visited Gaddafi in 2004.
‘In Sirte, I saw Tony Blair come out of the Guide’s camper [van]. “Hello girls!” he tossed out to us with an amicable gesture and a cheerful smile,’ says Soraya. In his memoirs, Blair makes no reference to his meeting with the Libyan dictator, but it seems unlikely that the British prime minister would not have been apprised of intelligence reports that mentioned Gaddafi’s depravity. After all, the Guide had been abusing women on a massive scale ever since he came to power at the age of just 27. But when Gaddafi’s regime collapsed and he was killed in October 2011, Libya and the world did not look at the crimes this monster had committed against women — the gender he professed to love and respect. Instead, as Soraya discovered, people were more interested in the crimes committed against men, such as beatings and torture. Because of the stigma of rape, very few of Gaddafi’s female victims are willing to talk about what happened to them. As one of them said: ‘I would kill myself instantly if I knew that my husband or children could find out about my past one day.’ Nevertheless, the story of Gaddafi’s harem is starting to seep out, even though it seems likely that the full truth will never emerge. What we do know is that there are many Sorayas, and they are in every town in Libya. One of them is called Leila and, like Soraya, she was a schoolgirl when she was first raped by Gaddafi. On the first occasion she was abused with such violence that she lost consciousness. When she came round she saw that Gaddafi was back at his desk, working. ‘You’ll like it later on,’ he laughed at her. He would continue to rape her for the next three years. Another woman, called Houda, was blackmailed into sleeping with Gaddafi because her brother was under arrest. The Guide hit, bit and raped her in an office, and she was left locked up without food or water for two days. When she was given a medical examination in hospital, the doctor threatened to report her to the police for having ‘sexual relations outside marriage’. It was only when Houda revealed the identity of her rapist that the doctor realised that silence was the best option. Today, Soraya and all the other surviving female victims are struggling to rebuild their lives.
‘In Sirte, I saw Tony Blair come out of the Guide’s camper [van]. “Hello girls!” he tossed out to us with an amicable gesture and a cheerful smile,’ says Soraya. In his memoirs, Blair makes no reference to his meeting with the Libyan dictator, but it seems unlikely that the British prime minister would not have been apprised of intelligence reports that mentioned Gaddafi’s depravity. After all, the Guide had been abusing women on a massive scale ever since he came to power at the age of just 27. But when Gaddafi’s regime collapsed and he was killed in October 2011, Libya and the world did not look at the crimes this monster had committed against women — the gender he professed to love and respect. Instead, as Soraya discovered, people were more interested in the crimes committed against men, such as beatings and torture. Because of the stigma of rape, very few of Gaddafi’s female victims are willing to talk about what happened to them. As one of them said: ‘I would kill myself instantly if I knew that my husband or children could find out about my past one day.’ Nevertheless, the story of Gaddafi’s harem is starting to seep out, even though it seems likely that the full truth will never emerge. What we do know is that there are many Sorayas, and they are in every town in Libya. One of them is called Leila and, like Soraya, she was a schoolgirl when she was first raped by Gaddafi. On the first occasion she was abused with such violence that she lost consciousness. When she came round she saw that Gaddafi was back at his desk, working. ‘You’ll like it later on,’ he laughed at her. He would continue to rape her for the next three years. Another woman, called Houda, was blackmailed into sleeping with Gaddafi because her brother was under arrest. The Guide hit, bit and raped her in an office, and she was left locked up without food or water for two days. When she was given a medical examination in hospital, the doctor threatened to report her to the police for having ‘sexual relations outside marriage’. It was only when Houda revealed the identity of her rapist that the doctor realised that silence was the best option. Today, Soraya and all the other surviving female victims are struggling to rebuild their lives.
After so many years of abuse, even though she is
only in her mid-20s, Soraya says she has the body of an old woman.
She smokes 60 cigarettes a day — a habit
picked up from Gaddafi — and is unable to integrate fully into society.
Though her abuser is dead, the pain he
inflicted on his country’s women will never go away.
In that way, Soraya and many others will always
be imprisoned in the harem.
How the Rothschilds conquered the world
by Ebere Inyama
Published 12th May 2012
The Rothschild family (German: [ˈʁoːt.ʃɪlt], French: [ʁɔt.ʃild]), known as The House of Rothschild, or more simply as the Rothschilds, is a European dynasty, of German-Jewish origin, that established European banking and finance houses starting in the late 18th century.
 |
| Anthony Rothschild |
During the 1800s, when it was at its height, the family is believed to have possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world as well as by far the largest fortune in modern world history.
 |
| David Rothschild |
The first member of the family who was known to use the name "Rothschild" was Izaak Elchanan Rothschild, who was born in 1577. The name means "Red Shield" in old German. The family's ascent to international prominence began in 1744, with the birth of Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. He was the son of Amschel Moses Rothschild, (born circa 1710), a money changer who had traded with the Prince of Hesse. Born in the ghetto (called "Judengasse" or Jewish-alley) of Frankfurt, Mayer developed a finance house and spread his empire by installing each of his five sons in the five main European financial centres to conduct business.
 |
| Jacobs Rothschild |
Mayer Rothschild successfully kept the fortune in the family with carefully arranged marriages, often between first or second cousins (similar to Royal intermarriage). This idea was hatched probably in a bid to prevent non members of the Rothschild’s family from benefitting from their wealth and also to safeguard the family’s secrets.
 |
| Oliver Rothschild |
Belief in other ‘gods’
According to press reports, eye-witnesses who were prominent enough to visit one of the British Rothschild homes, the Rothschilds worship yet another god too, Satan. They set a place for him at their table. The Rothschilds have been Satanists for many generations. The Rothschilds are an important part of the history of the Seal of Solomon (also known as hexagram, Magen David, six-pointed star, Star of David.) The Seal of Solomon, the hexagram, was not considered a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds began using it. Throughout the Middle Ages the Seal of Solomon had been used by Arab Magicians, Cabalist Magicians, Druid witches and Satanists. One of the few ancient uses of the symbol was on the floor of a 1,200 year old Moslem Mosque found where Tel Aviv is today. In the twelve century, an Ashkenazic Jew, Menahem ben Duji, who thought he was the Messiah, used the magical symbol. Because the Rothschilds were Satanists, they adopted this powerful magic symbol in 1822 for their coat- of-arms.
 |
| Nat Rothschild |
The Rothschild coat of arms contains a clenched fist with five arrows symbolizing the five dynasties established by the five sons of Mayer Rothschild, in a reference to Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior". The family motto appears below the shield: Concordia, Integritas, Industria (Harmony, Integrity, Industry).
Power within Christendom
The Rothschilds also wielded much influence and power not only in Secret Societies, but also in Christendom’s churches. The Salvation Army under the suggestion of the Rothschilds adopted the Red Shield (Roth-red Schild-shield) for their logo. One history of the Rothschilds remarks, "The Rothschilds had rapidly propelled themselves into a position of immense financial power and political influence. They were an independent force in the life of Europe, accountable to no one and, to a large extent, reliant on no one. Popular lampoons depicted them as the real rulers of Christendom..."(47) Some of the Rothschilds have been involved in the campaign to loosen public morals. The first executive Secretary of the National Student Forum was John Rothschild. This National Student Forum changed its name like articles of clothing. Speaking about clothing, one of the aims of this Socialist group was to promote public nudity, and free love. This organization had the following constituent groups Radcliffe Liberal Club, Union Theological Seminary Contemporary Club, Yale Liberal Club"(48) to name just a few.
EXTENT OF ROTHSCHILD POWER
According to one source "it was estimated that they controlled half the wealth of the world."(50) The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was controlled by five banks which owned 53% of its stock.
 |
| Adam Rothschild |
These five banks were controlled by Nathan M. Rothschild & Sons of London. Control over the U.S. Fed is basically control over the world’s money. That fact alone shows how immense the Rothschild Power is. If one examines who has been appointed to head the Fed, and to run it, the connections of the "Federal" Reserve System to the Rothschilds can further be seen. Another private enterprise using the name Federal that the Rothschilds also direct is Federal Express. Any one else might be taken to court for making their businesses sound like their are government, not the Rothschilds. It is appropriate for them to appropriate the name of Federal, because by way of MI6 via the CIA they instruct the U.S. government. Senators are bought and paid off by their system, as investigators of the BCCI are discovering. The Rothschilds have been intimately involved in witchcraft and the Illuminati since its early known history.
International high finance
In 1816, four of the brothers were each elevated to the hereditary nobility by Austrian Emperor Francis I; moreover, a fifth brother, Nathan, was elevated in 1818. All of them were granted the Austrian title of baron or Freiherr on 29 September 1822. As such, some members of the family used "de" or "von" Rothschild to acknowledge the grant of nobility. Barons (Knights) who received their title from the Holy Roman Emperor are known as Barons of the Holy Roman Empire, Reichsfreiherr, although the title is sometimes shortened to Freiherr.
In 1847, Sir Anthony de Rothschild, was made a hereditary baronet of the United Kingdom. In 1885, Nathan Mayer Rothschild II (1840–1915) of the London branch of the family, was granted the hereditary peerage title Baron Rothschild in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.
The Frankfurt terminus of the Taunus railroad, financed by the Rothschilds. Opened in 1840, it was one of Germany's first railroads.
Rothschild family banking businesses pioneered international high finance during the industrialization of Europe and were instrumental in supporting railway systems across the world and in complex government financing for projects such as the Suez Canal. During the 19th century, the family bought up a large proportion of the property in Mayfair, London.
Major 19th century businesses founded with Rothschild family capital include:
• Alliance Assurance (1824) (now Royal & SunAlliance);
• Chemin de Fer du Nord (1845)
• The Rio Tinto mining company (1873) (From the 1880s onwards, the Rothschilds had full control of Rio Tinto)
• Eramet (1880)
• Imerys (1880)
• De Beers (1888)
The family funded Cecil Rhodes in the creation of the African colony of Rhodesia. From the late 1880s onwards, the family took over control of the Rio Tinto mining company.
The Japanese government approached the London and Paris families for funding during the Russo-Japanese War. The London consortium's issue of Japanese war bonds would total £11.5 million (at 1907 currency rates; £902 million in 2012 currency terms).
The name of Rothschild became synonymous with extravagance and great wealth, and the family was renowned for its art collecting, for its palaces, as well as for its philanthropy. By the end of the century, the family owned, or had built, at the lowest estimates, over 41 palaces, of a scale and luxury perhaps unparalleled even by the richest royal families. The soon to be British Prime Minister Lloyd George claimed, in 1909, that Lord Nathan Rothschild was the most powerful man in Britain.
In 1901, with no male heir, the Frankfurt House closed its doors after more than a century in business. It was not until 1989 that the family returned, when N M Rothschild & Sons, the British investment arm, plus Bank Rothschild AG, the Swiss branch, set up a representative banking office in Frankfurt.
Jewish identity and positions on Zionism
Jewish solidarity in the family was not homogeneous. Some Rothschilds were supporters of Zionism, while other members of the family opposed the creation of the Jewish state. Lord Victor Rothschild was against granting asylum or even help to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. In 1917 Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild was the addressee of the Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Federation, which committed the British government to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
After the death of James Jacob de Rothschild in 1868, Alphonse Rothschild, his oldest son, who took over the management of the family bank, was the most active in support for Eretz Israel. The Rothschild family archives show that during the 1870s the family contributed nearly 500,000 francs per year on behalf of Eastern Jewry to the Alliance Israélite Universelle Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, James Jacob de Rothschild's youngest son was a patron of the first settlement in Palestine at Rishon-LeZion, and bought from Ottoman landlords parts of the land which now makes up present-day Israel. In 1924, he established the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), which acquired more than 125,000 acres (22,36 km²) of land and set up business ventures. In Tel Aviv, he has a road, Rothschild Boulevard, named after him as well as various localities throughout Israel which he assisted in founding including Metulla, Zikhron Ya'akov, Rishon Lezion, and Rosh Pina. A park in Boulogne-Billancourt, Paris, the Parc Edmond de Rothschild (Edmond de Rothschild Park) is also named after its founder. The Rothschilds also played a significant part in the funding of Israel's governmental infrastructure. James A. de Rothschild financed the Knesset building as a gift to the State of Israel and the Supreme Court of Israel building was donated to Israel by Dorothy de Rothschild. Outside the President's Chamber is displayed the letter Mrs. Rothschild wrote to the then current Prime Minister Shimon Peres expressing her intention to donate a new building for the Supreme Court.
Edmond de Rothschild Group
In 1953, one Swiss member of the family, Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild (1926–1997), founded the LCF Rothschild Group (now Edmond de Rothschild Group), based in Geneva, with €100 billion in assets, which today extends to 15 countries across the world. Although this Group is primarily a financial entity, specialising in asset management and private banking, its activities also cover mixed farming, luxury hotels, and yacht racing. Edmond de Rothschild Group's committee is currently being chaired by Benjamin de Rothschild, Baron Edmond's son.
Investment
In 1991, Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild founded J. Rothschild Assurance Group (now St. James's Place) with Sir Mark Weinberg. It is also listed on London Stock Exchange.
In December 2009, Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild invested $200 million of his own money in a North Sea Oil company.
In January 2010, Nathaniel Philip Rothschild bought a substantial share of the Glencore mining and oil company's market capitalization. He is also buying a large share of the aluminium mining company United Company RUSAL.[54]
During the 19th century, the Rothschilds controlled the Rio Tinto mining corporation, and to this day, Rothschild and Rio Tinto maintain a close business relationship.
Wine
Château Lafite Rothschild, Bordeaux. Alongside Château Mouton Rothschild, it is perhaps the most prestigious of the many Rothschild wine estates
The name Rothschild has been associated with fine wines for a century and a half. In 1853 Nathaniel de Rothschild purchased Château Mouton Rothschild. In 1868 James Mayer de Rothschild purchase the neighbouring Château Lafite and renamed it Château Lafite Rothschild.
Today Rothschild family owns many wine estates.
Art and charity
The family once had one of the largest private art collections in the world, and a significant proportion of the art in the world's public museums are Rothschild donations which were sometimes, in the family tradition of discretion, donated anonymously.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
INDIA, a country unsafe for women to live in
Published 29th December 2012
TrustLaw, a news service run by Thomson Reuters, has ranked India as the worst country in which to be a woman. This in the country where the leader of the ruling party, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, at least three chief ministers, and a number of sports and business icons are women. It is also a country where a generation of newly empowered young women are going out to work in larger numbers than ever before.
But crimes against women are rising too.
Female foetuses are aborted and baby girls killed after birth, leading to an an appallingly skewed sex ratio. Many of those who survive face discrimination, prejudice, violence and neglect all their lives, as single or married women.
With more than 24,000 reported cases in 2011, rape registered a 9.2% rise over the previous year. More than half (54.7%) of the victims were aged between 18 and 30. Most disturbingly, according to police records, the offenders were known to their victims in more than 94% of the cases. Neighbours accounted for a third of the offenders, while parents and other relatives were also involved. Delhi accounted for over 17% of the total number of rape cases in the country.
And it is not rape alone. Police records from 2011 show kidnappings and abductions of women were up 19.4%, women being killed in disputes over dowry payments by 2.7%, torture by 5.4%, molestation by 5.8% and trafficking by an alarming 122% over the previous year.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has estimated that more than 100m women are "missing" worldwide - women who would have been around had they received similar healthcare, medicine and nutrition as men.
New research by economists Siwan Anderson and Debraj Ray estimates that in India, more than 2m women are missing in a given year.
The economists found that roughly 12% of the missing women disappear at birth, 25% die in childhood, 18% at the reproductive ages, and 45% at older ages.
They found that women died more from "injuries" in a given year than while giving birth - injuries, they say, "appear to be indicator of violence against women".
Deaths from fire-related incidents, they say, is a major cause - each year more than 100,000 women are killed by fires in India. The researchers say many cases could be linked to demands over a dowry leading to women being set on fire. Research also found a large number of women died of heart diseases.
These findings point to life-long neglect of women in India. It also proves that a strong preference for sons over daughters - leading to sex selective abortions - is just part of the story.
Clearly, many Indian women face threats to life at every stage - violence, inadequate healthcare, inequality, neglect, bad diet, lack of attention to personal health and well-being.
Analysts say deep-rooted changes in social attitudes are needed to make India's women more accepted and secure. There is deeply entrenched patriarchy and widespread misogyny in vast swathes of the country, especially in the north. And the state has been found wanting in its protection of women.
Angry citizens believe that politicians, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, are being disingenuous when they promise to toughen laws and speed up the prosecution of rapists and perpetrators of crime against women.
How else, they ask, can political parties in the last five years have fielded candidates for state elections that included 27 candidates who declared they had been charged with rape?
How, they say, can politicians be believed when there are six elected state legislators who have charges of rape against them?
Culled from BBC
Lockerbie Bomber: Public Figures Demand Inquiry into Conviction ... (Posted May 22 2012)
 |
| Megrahi |
Religious leaders, politicians and journalists have signed a letter calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bomber's conviction. The plea comes two days after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted of blowing up Pan Am Flight 103, died of cancer.
The Scottish government said it did not doubt the safety of the conviction. However, it also insisted it did not have the power to order such an investigation into case. In 2001 Megrahi was found guilty of committing the 1988 atrocity which saw 270 people killed over the south of Scotland town of Lockerbie.
The Libyan bomber was returned to his home country on compassionate grounds in August 2009 after serving 10 years in a Scottish jail. He was suffering from prostate cancer and was released by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill when it was thought he had only a matter of months to live.
Megrahi, who died in Tripoli on Sunday morning, always protested his innocence. The 42 signatories of a letter which appeared in the Scottish Review magazine claimed Scotland's criminal justice system had become a "mangled wreck" as a result of the Lockerbie conviction. It called on the authorities to have the courage to examine the judgement, and claimed the prosecution case held water "like a sieve". The letter read: "If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government acts by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair. "As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror." First Minister Alex Salmond said there was still a live investigation and that the Crown Office never believed Megrahi was the only person responsible for the bombing.
Signatories of the letter Kate Adie (former chief news correspondent, BBC News) John Ashton (author of Megrahi: You are my Jury and co-author of Cover Up of Convenience) David Benson (actor/author of the play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business) Jean Berkley (mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103) Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie researcher) Benedict Birnberg (retired senior partner of Birnberg Peirce & Partners) Professor Robert Black QC ('architect' of the Kamp van Zeist trial) Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103) Professor Noam Chomsky (human rights, social and political commentator) Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005; Father of the House: 2001-2005) Ian Ferguson (co-author of Cover Up of Convenience) Dr David Fieldhouse (police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site) Robert Forrester (secretary, Justice for Megrahi) Christine Grahame MSP (MSP) Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector) Ian Hislop (editor of Private Eye) Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21 December 1988) A L Kennedy (author) Dr Morag Kerr (secretary-depute, Justice for Megrahi) Andrew Killgore (former US Ambassador to Qatar) Moses Kungu (Lockerbie councillor, 21 December 1988) Adam Larson (editor and proprietor, The Lockerbie Divide) Aonghas MacNeacail (poet and journalist) Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator. culled from BBC .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Terrorism: Boko Haram and the Nigerian government
Published January 2nd 2013
 |
| Nigeria's President, Goodluck Johnathan |
Terrorism, as social scientists and legal scholars have noted, is difficult to define. Even so, the definition that has emerged is not universally accepted. This difficulty may be due to the fact that how terrorism is perceived depends on who the perpetrator is, and who the aggrieved are. And while terrorist activities can be criminal, not all criminal activities are terrorism.
Nonetheless, after the horrendous events of September 11, 2001 in the United States, many countries and institutions and scholars alike took it upon themselves to come up with a precise definition. In many of these definitions and understanding of terrorism, you will find certain phrases, such as, “calculated use of unlawful violence”; “to induce fear”; “to intimidate government”; “to intimidate the citizens”; “cause harm”; “endanger the welfare of”; among others. And even the legislation that was passed by the National Assembly in 2010 entitled, An Act to Provide for Measures to Combat Terrorism and for Related Matters, also contained some of the aforelisted phrases.
In all of these, domestic and international laws and conventions seem to be silent when government is the perpetrator and the people are at the receiving end. It is as if a government cannot and does not terrorise its people. As far as I am concerned, this is a fallacy. It is a fallacy because nation-states, in the pursuit of certain objectives do instil fear, and cause egregious bodily harm.
In most cases, their actions do lead to the loss of innocent lives. Just as non-state actors and rogues states are known to commit terrorism at home and abroad, democratic countries also do the same in order to achieve political, religious, or other objectives. How would you label western and non-western countries that cross international boundaries to invade, destabilise, or remove governments they consider hostile or unyielding? Many of the injurious and insidious actions undertaken by African countries (against their own people) can be classified ‘War crimes or Crimes against humanity”. But for whatever reason, the Civil Society and foreign governments and organisations do not label them thus.
At other times — more so in places like Nigeria — many of these actions should have been labelled Terrorism. And I do! I do because, for several decades, successive regimes have been brutalising and traumatising the citizens and have, directly or indirectly, been responsible for the loss of several thousands of lives; and for the maleficent and complete destruction of properties.
Ironically, the average Nigerian does not think in terms of terrorism insofar as government actions and inactions are concerned. They simply say, “Hey, this government is wicked…that government is bad.” But by any definition and reasonable yardstick, governments — with special attention to the Babangida, Abacha, Obasanjo and Jonathan’s governments — have, in varying degrees, been terroristic in nature. Having been a witness to what was done to market women, to protesting university students, to Dele Giwa and many intellectuals and critics, I am convinced that these governments have been terroristic in nature.
What was done to the late music maestro, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti (and his family), were some of the great injustices of 20th century Nigeria: the endless beatings and harassment; the destruction of his musical home; the killing of his mother; and the never-ending false accusations against him and those closely associated with him. But the greatest tragedy of all is the constant and continuing state of destitution and abject poverty most Nigerians live in — in spite of the trillions of dollars in earnings from oil sale and annual budgetary allocations.
Therefore, without sounding hyperbolic, I consider the Nigerian government more dangerous than Boko Haram! On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, several domestic media houses reported Caleb Olubolade, the Minister of Police Affairs, as saying that “the Boko Haram sect has so far carried out 118 attacks in six northern states and the FCT, killing 308 people.” Really? What Boko Haram has done, to me, pales in comparison to the number of deaths, destruction, and maiming that are directly and indirectly attributed or attributable to the Nigerian government, especially in the last three decades. If one were to take the post-1970 data into consideration, one could surmise that governments, at both the federal and state levels, have been responsible for 40 per cent or more of the deaths that has occurred in the country.
It is not my intention to dismiss or to make light of the deaths and destruction Boko Haram has caused. After all, I too lost a brother, James Ako Abidde, to Boko Haram in Maiduguri in November 2011. Still, what you should know is that our state and federal governments appear to have caused us more grief and anguish than Boko Haram could ever impose on us.
Day after day, hundreds of men, women, and children die as a result of our governments’ carelessness, neglect, and indifference. For instance, the failure to provide basic needs (potable water, quality and accessible health care, clean environment, etc.) has led to the untimely death of millions of Nigerians. And the failure to provide and or maintain good roads and bridges has also led to the death of many.
The vast majority of our roads and bridges are substandard and are therefore death-traps for motorists and other road users. Not only are the roads bad, we have shortages of traffic lights and traffic agents. In addition, government allows the importation of vehicles that are not road-worthy, thereby contributing to the vehicular accidents that have become an everyday reality in our country.
Furthermore, millions of Nigerians have died because government failed to properly regulate the quality of medicines that are imported for use in our clinics and hospitals and pharmacies. In addition, inadequate power supply has forced many to import generators. The carbon monoxide these generators emit, along with the poor state of the environment is responsible for most of the cardiovascular and lung diseases many now suffer. Yes, Boko Haram may be responsible for the heightened state of insecurity in the country in recent times, the Nigerian government has been responsible for far more and far worse calamities and iniquities than any group or groups of people since 1960! culled from PUNCH
.. ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
.. Why Charles Taylor Deserves his 80 years in Prison –
.... by Lansana Gberie
Taylor 
- On 16 May, convicted war criminal, Charles Taylor, delivered a 30-minute speech – part plea for clemency, part lubricious defence of his actions, and part grandstanding – before his trial judges at The Hague as he awaits sentencing on 30 May. Because the address has been seized upon by crypto pro-Revolutionary United Front’s (RUF)activists and supporters to discredit the carefully-deliberated ruling against Taylor, it is important to respond to the key claims made therein. I will be quoting in this article from the summary judgment: the final judgment will be far more detailed, and for that reason far more devastating. So I’ll begin by reminding readers of the main legal finding against Taylor.
The Trial Chamber in its judgment on 26 April found Taylor “beyond reasonable doubt” to be“criminally responsible” for aidingand abetting the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The judges wrote that they were satisfied that “as of August 1997” Taylor“knew of the atrocities being committed against civilians in Sierra Leone by theRUF/AFRC forces and of their propensity to commit crimes.” Notwithstanding this knowledge, Taylor“continued to provide support to the RUF and RUF/AFRC forcesduring the period that crimes were being committed in Sierra Leone. The Trial Chambertherefore finds beyond reasonable doubt that [Taylor] knew that his support to theRUF/AFRC would provide practical assistance, encouragement or moral support to themin the commission of crimes during the course of their military operations in SierraLeone.” The judges found that “in addition to planning and advising” the RUF and rogue soldiers of the so-called Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) “on the Kono-Freetown operation” including with respect to the gruesome invasion of Freetown in January 1999, Taylor “provided military and other support” to make the attacks and subsequent atrocities possible.
Taylor “facilitated the purchase and transport of a large shipment of arms and ammunition from Burkina Faso in around November 1998 which was used in the attacks on Kono and Kenema in December 1998, where further arms and ammunition were captured. These arms and ammunition were in turn sent to the troops in Freetown in January 1999 and also used by the RUF and AFRC in joint attacks on the outskirts of Freetown.” In addition to this crucial support, Taylor “also sent personnel in the form of at least four former Sierra Leone Army (SLA) fighters who participated in the attack on Kono, as well as 20 former NPFL fighters who were part of the forces under the command of Gullit that entered Freetown, and a group of 150 fighters with Abu Keita (a former ULIMO member), known as the Scorpion Unit, who participated in the attack on Kenema.
”During the mass atrocities Freetown in January 1999, Taylor’s “subordinates in Liberia also transmitted ‘448 messages’ to RUF forces to warn them of impending ECOMOG jetattacks. These messages originated in both Sierra Leone and Liberia.” Taylor, the judges wrote, “held a position of authority amongst the RUF and RUF/AFRC.” There are other devastating findings by the judges, but these alone from any reasonable point justify the severest of punishments.
Those who affect to contrive a hierarchy of guilt wherein ‘aiding and abetting’ is somewhat venial should note that the attacks on Freetown in January 1999 alone led to the murder of about 6,000 people, the crude amputation of hundreds of people (including babies), and the burning down of a large part of the city by the rebels. The verdict in this case concludes that Taylor made that attack happen. Now to Taylor’s vapid last speech before the judges on 16 May. He said. “What I did to bring peace to Sierra Leone was done with honour,” noting that his involvement in Sierra Leone’s war was aimed at bringing peace.
This outrageous claim fails even the irony test: at least the hangman in the old morality tale wasn’t speaking to save himself when he told Don Carlos: “I shall assassinate you but for your own good!” Taylor was apparently referring to the events of May 2000, when the RUF abducted hundreds of freshly-arrived Zambian UN troops in northern Sierra Leone and ferried them into Liberia, from where – now posing as a statesman after no doubt helping to orchestrate the kidnapping – Taylor had the Zambians released and flown back to Sierra Leone. Against that public drama let us place the court’s findings around the barbarous attacks against defenceless civilians.
“In November/December 1998,” the court found, Taylor met with the psychotic RUF commander Sam Bacokarie. The two men “jointly designed” – here the judges used the heavily-loaded phrase – the “two-pronged attack on Kono,Kenema and Freetown.” That was the beginning of the road to the January 1999 atrocities in Freetown. Taylor “emphasised to Bockarie the need to first attack Kono District and told Bockarie to make the operation “fearful” in order to pressure the Government of Sierra Leone into negotiations on the release of FodaySankoh from prison, as well as to use “all means” to get to Freetown. Subsequently, Bockarie named the operation ‘Operation No Living Thing’, implying that anything that stood in their way should be eliminated.” This is what the judges found. If this is Taylor’s idea of peacemaking, then he really should be removed from the rest of humanity for the rest of his baneful life.
On the atrocities themselves, Taylor was rather dismissive to the judges. Atrocities necessarily happen in war, he said, and then he added an idiosyncratic take on the concept of ‘just war’. He invoked the Roman statesman and orator Cicero, noting that Cicero lost the just war “card.” But Cicero, like all writers in the classical world, never worried much about the problem – just as he never worried about the massive institution of slavery of which he gleefully partook – and his understanding of the concept fundamentally differs from ours. For Cicero, the nature of the enemy – if ‘barbarian’ or ‘civilised’ – determined the conduct of war against that enemy. ‘Barbarians’ may be wiped out and their towns and cities razed (as the Roman legions did against rebellious tribes in Gaul and against Carthage), but the Romans should weigh carefully the extent of destruction to be wrought on their ‘civilised’ neighbours, like the ancient Greeks. Over the past few centuries, a just war tradition has developed into natural law which, for example, protects non-combatants, especially women and children. Can Taylor claim ignorance of this development? Let the judges ponder such a claim. Clearly, Issasesay – not to mention AllieuKondewa and MoininaFofana, the completely illiterate and honourable leaders of the Civil Defence Forces – were not given the benefit of the doubt. I have reserved the most potent – but also most ridiculous – claim of Taylor for the last response: it is his argument that his prosecution and the verdict against him are the result of an American conspiracy to dispose of an awkward African leader. In the very active mouth of his swashbuckling lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, the claim merited listening to.
But from Taylor? This is a man who was a paid agent of the CIA for many years – and the CIA is a core institution of American imperial power. Here again – as in his claim that he was pursuing peace in Sierra Leone while arming the RUF – Taylor would want to have it both ways. You cannot claim to be revolted by American imperialism while being an enabler for it.
In any case, Taylor’s own peers concluded long before the Americans publicly did that Taylor was supporting the RUF to commit atrocities in Sierra Leone. On 28 December 1998, the leaders of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) met on the crisis in Sierra Leone and issued a communique accusing Taylor of supporting the RUF and AFRC rebels destroying Sierra Leone. The judges, in other words, merely confirmed what has been well known by people in West Africa. But from this claim, Taylor made by inference the more seductive point: surely both George W. Bush and Tony Blair were also guilty of similar crimes in Iraq for which he has been convicted yet no court has preferred charges against them. Why, he asked, is international humanitarian justice focused only on African leaders that have fallen out of favour with major Western leaders? It is a good and troubling point, to which my friend Abdul Tejan-Cole, the distinguished Sierra Leonean human rights lawyer, has offered a good response in another context.
While it is curiously true that mostly African leaders face international justice,Tejan-Cole has argued, it is also decisively true that all those African leaders very much deserve to face that justice. One has to choose one’s side carefully in this emotionally charged debate, and my side is with the many African victims of the depredations of ghastly African leaders who have so far been indicted for such heinous crimes. Indeed, there should be more of such indictments and trials. On diamonds, I’ll quote the summary judgment without comment. It says (read Taylor for ‘Accused’): “The Trial Chamber finds that there was a continuous supply by the AFRC/RUF of diamonds mined from areas in Sierra Leone to the Accused, often in exchange for arms and ammunition…
Following the ECOMOG Intervention, from February 1998 to July 1999, the diamonds delivered to the Accused by Sam Bockarie directly, as well as indirectly through intermediaries such as Eddie Kanneh and Daniel Tamba, were given to him inorder to get arms and ammunition from him, or sometimes for ‘safekeeping’ on behalf of the RUF… From February 1998 to July 1999, diamonds were delivered to the Accused by Sam Bockarie directly. These diamonds were delivered to the Accused for the purpose of obtaining arms and ammunitions from him.
During this period, diamonds were also delivered through intermediaries such as Eddie Kanneh and Daniel Tamba…From July 1999 to May 2000, FodaySankoh delivered diamonds to the Accused, and diamonds were delivered to the Accused on his behalf in or before 1999 while he was in detention.
In March 2000, FodaySankoh visited South Africa and travelled through Monrovia on his way back to Sierra Leone, meeting with the Accused in Monrovia. According to one witness, among the diamonds delivered to the Accused during this meeting were a 45 carat diamond and two 25 carat diamonds… From June 2000 until the end of hostilities in 2002, IssaSesay delivered diamonds to the Accused, including on one occasion a 36 carat diamond. Eddie Kanneh also delivered diamonds to the Accused on Sesay’s behalf. Sometimes the diamonds were delivered to the Accused supposedly for “safekeeping” until Sankoh’s release from detention and, at other times, in exchange for supplies and/or arms and ammunition.”
PS: In my last article on the verdict on Taylor, I noted that his trial reportedly cost $250 million. Peter Andersen, the spokesman for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, wrote me immediately after reading it that that figure represented the entire cost of the court, including all the other trials. I made a quick check of the figures from the court and elsewhere. The Taylor trial cost far less than $250 million, but the entire operation of the court cost far more than that figure. Culled from African Herald Express... (posted May 22 2012) . ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ....
Poor remuneration is bane of Nigerian Police
Published:
The Nigeria police, especially the rank and file, are the least paid among corresponding security agencies in Nigeria, a failing that fuels corruption.
Ghetto barracks and training camps
The shocking conditions at police barracks are evident around the country, even in the federal capital, Abuja. Yet, if the decay in the barracks is tolerable, it is more serious at police training schools.
 |
| From left to right, The Nigeria's Inspector General of Police, The D.G of the State Security Services & The Chairman of the EFCC |
Tens of thousands of officers of the Nigerian police receive some of the poorest pay even in the West African sub-region, and the worst hit are the rank and files-the force’s foot soldiers who spend decades in the line of duty but are hardly promoted, accommodated or paid well.
Across Nigeria, wretched officers live in squalid neighbourhoods within and outside the barracks.
Analysts believe the dismal reward package contributes directly to the alarming rate of corruption in the force and rampant attack on civilians by personnel.
Salary reviews don’t compare
Ghanaian authorities reviewed the salary of the country’s police service in 2011, raising the monthly pay of a Constable from 140 Ghanaian Cedi (GHC) (N9, 000) to GHC750 (48,549.31), Sergeant from GHC400 (N25, 892.96) to GHC1200 (N77, 6788.89). An Assistant Superintendent of Police in Ghana who earned GHC600 (N38839.44) ahead of the review, now earns GHC1, 700 (N110, 045.09).
“The changes took effect from 2011 under a new pay structure called Single Spine Salary Structure meaning equal pay for equal work,” said Fortune Alimi, Editor of The Guide, one of Ghana’s most-widely read private newspapers.
While Nigeria also reviewed the salaries of its police about the same time as Ghana, the raise could hardly compare. The Consolidated Police Salary Structure, CONPOSS, released in March 2011 and exclusively obtained by PREMIUM TIMES shows a marked difference.
Sylvanus Udo has a telling way of explaining how to keep a wife and four children, pay for the children’s school fees, rent an accommodation and buy food for years with a little more than N40, 000 – his take home pay after 25 years as police officer.
“Only through black magic could anybody feed his wife and four children for 30 days with the kind of salary the Nigeria Police pays me,” he said recently.
Intensely passionate about his job, Mr. Udo works under weather elements at his traffic duty post in Lagos, shrewd at persuading wayward motorists to obey traffic laws.
But after putting in a quarter of a century on a job he so cherishes, his gross annual salary stands at N577, 234, while his gross monthly pay stands at N55, 147. When tax and sundry deductions are made, Mr. Udo, a sergeant, goes home with less than N48, 000, 00 every month.
His colleagues with accommodations in the police barracks, part with additional N7, 000 for that privilege and go home with even less monthly.
On all categories of personnel, Ghanaian police officers for instance earn more money than their Nigerian counterparts, receive better training and welfare, a PREMIUM TIMES investigation has shown. Mr. Udo’s equivalent rank in Ghana receives about N77, 000.
A police recruit earns a consolidated annual salary of N108, 233, 00 and a monthly consolidated salary of N9, 019.42 but when N676.46 is deducted as pension, the recruit goes home with N8, 342.96.
A police constable on grade level 02 (1) earns a gross monthly salary of N42, 508.13 while the one on grade level 02 (10) earns a total of N46, 840.86 with rent.
A police constable grade level 03 (1) earns a gross monthly salary of N43, 293.80 while the one on step 10 earns N48,619.16 including rent while a corporal on grade level 04 (1), earns N44,715.53 and a corporal on grade level 04 (10) goes home with N51,113.59 per month including rent subsidy.
The gross monthly salary of a police sergeant on grade level 05 (1) is N48, 540.88 while a Sergeant on step 10 earns N55, 973.84.
A sergeant major on grade level 06 (1) earns N53, 144.81 and the one on grade level 06 (10) earns N62, 204.88 per month.
For senior officers, the package appears relatively improved.
A cadet inspector on grade level 07 (1) earns N73, 231.51, an Inspector on grade level 07 (10) earns N87, 135.70 including rent subsidy while a cadet Assistant Superintendent of Police, ASP, on grade level 08 (1) earns N127, 604.68 and an ASP on grade level 08 (10) earns N144,152.07.
An ASP1 on grade level 09 (1) earns N136, 616.06, an ASP on grade level 09 (10) earns N156, 318.39, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) on grade level 10 (1) earns a total monthly salary of N148, 733.29, a DSP on grade level 10 (10) earns N170, 399.69, a Superintendent of Police (SP) on grade level 11 (1) earns N161, 478.29, an SP on grade level 11 (8) earns N187, 616.69.
A Chief of Superintendent of Police, CSP, on grade level 12 (1) earns N172, 089.06, a CSP on the same level on step 8 earns N199, 723.96, an Assistant Commissioner of Police on grade level 13 (1) earns N183, 185.73, an ACP on grade level 13 (8) earns N212, 938.16 while a Deputy Commissioner of Police, DCP, on grade level 14 (1) earns N242, 715.65, a DCP on grade level 14 (7) earns N278, 852.79.
A Commissioner of Police, CP, on grade level 15 (1) earns N266, 777.79; a CP on step 6 earns N302, 970.47. While an Assistant Inspector General of Police (AIG) on grade level 16 (1) gets N499, 751.87, an AIG on step 5 earns N546, 572.73.
Still, the salary of the Nigerian Inspector-General of Police, IG, is meagre compared with those of the heads of the State Security Services, SSS, National Intelligence Agency, NIA and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
While the IGP earns N711, 498 per month, the Director General of the SSS earns N1, 336 million per month and the EFCC Chairman, N1.5 million, per month.
Finding illegal, corrupt ways to survive
Long before the Lagos State authorities outlawed the use of motorcycles, Sergeant Udo’s black magic – as he said – was ferrying passengers around town during off-duty periods to earn some more cash. He would not explain his alternative since the government barred the use of motorcycles in the state.
The sergeant’s story in many ways reflects the deplorable conditions thousands of Nigerian police personnel face daily amid rising corruption and declining productivity in the force. Mr. Udo refused to be fully identified for fear he might be penalized by his superiors. His first name was replaced with Sylvanus for this story.
Before being posted to Ikeja, the sergeant served in Ikorodu where he was allocated a one bedroom apartment in the barracks. But in Ikeja, which has the highest number of police personnel in Lagos, he could not get a place in the barracks.
With Ikeja’s high rental rates, he did what many of his colleagues have done overtime –erect a makeshift structure within the barracks to accommodate his family, after tipping a corrupt senior officer N10, 000 for a few square meters of land near the ravine area of Ikeja barracks. With the help of an itinerant carpenter, he constructed a “house,” using pieces of woods, discarded billboard tarpaulins and used zinc sheets.
To avoid the usual squabbles associated with using the single toilet and bathroom shared by many residents of the barrack’s ghetto, the sergeant wakes up early for bath long before others get off from bed, and hurries out for work immediately where he stays mainly standing till about10.pm.
“Nobody gives me a sachet of water to quench my thirst, nobody provides me with a lunch pack to quell my hunger, but everybody blames me if I make a slight mistake,” he said.
Mr. Udo joined the force in 1989 with the West African School Certificate, WASC. His last promotion was in 2002, having waited for eight years to be made a sergeant. Twelve years on, his name has consistently missed out from promotion lists.
But in spite of the appalling working conditions, the sergeant remains grateful for his job and considers himself lucky to serve a nation he says has failed to appreciate its police men and women.
“I thank God I have this job. It is what brings me happiness and satisfaction. I love to serve and I am proud to stand under the sun and in the rain to ensure people move freely on the road,” he said. “Even though they have refused to promote me after so many years, I still put in the best to ensure the road is safe.”
Abandoned reforms
While submitting a report on suggestions on improving the welfare of the Nigerian police personnel in 2012, former Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Parry Osayande told President Goodluck Jonathan how police in Nigeria were the worst paid in the West African sub-region. Mr. Osayande’s report only drew from several past documents from government panels identifying poor remuneration and conditions of service as factors affecting performance in the force.
“The poverty of the ordinary police officer, coupled with weak institutional governance predisposes him to engaging in all sorts of schemes for self-help and survival. While parallel organisations carved out of the police only perform part of its functions, their staff are better remunerated and motivated than the police,” Mr. Osayande noted.
He called for urgent review of working terms to boost performance, instil discipline and restore the dignity of the police officer. The report, like the rest, remains unimplemented two years after.
Ghetto barracks and training camps
The shocking conditions at police barracks are evident around the country, even in the federal capital, Abuja. Yet, if the decay in the barracks is tolerable, it is more serious at police training schools.
The Police Training School, Bauchi, cuts a picture of a broken down goat pen, but the facility trains thousands of officers during promotion examination.
The CLEEN Foundation, a nongovernmental organization which has conducted years of research on the Nigeria police, painted a gloomy picture of condition at police stations well-known to Nigerians.
A police officer in Umuahia, Abia State, told PREMIUM TIMES that he buys his uniform, and shoes from Ariaria Market in Aba.
“In the past, they used to issue us with uniforms, badges and shoes but that has stopped a long time ago. Most of us buy our uniforms and shoes in the open market. For instance, I bought my uniform and shoes in Ariaria Market in Aba,” he said.
He explained that the non-availability of uniforms and shoes in the police store is responsible for the lack of uniformity in the dressing of personnel, especially the rank and file.
Retired FTC Commissioner of Police, Lawrence Alobi, blamed the Federal Government for the disgraceful condition of the Nigeria Police.
“In the United Kingdom, UK, policemen earn more than some members of the Armed Forces. In fact, when former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was asked why a Chief Constable earned more than her, she was quoted to have replied, ‘if the chief constable does not maintain law and order, we cannot sit in parliament’,” Mr. Alobi said.
“The police never went on strike, except in 2003 when just a handful embarked on an industrial action. In this country, the Army has taken over the government, workers have gone on strike. The police officer is 24 hours on duty and is the least paid. We do not even have a union that can at least negotiate our salary. In Canada, Ghana and South Africa, the police have a union. Here, we don’t and that makes our case very precarious. We are at the mercy of the politicians who manipulate us,” he lamented.”
The Nigeria police loses either ways, analysts say. Without a union to project its concerns, the force also lacks a crucial support from the public in agitating for reforms; a partnership that is missing with the force’s corruption, and its overzealous officers’ daily assault on members of the public.
“We must also factor in the public perception of the Nigeria Police. If there is a crime in a neighbourhood, people no longer have the confidence to call the police but will call the Army. People now have more confidence in the Army than the Police. This is because of the level of impunity and corruption in the police,” said Uche Duruke, the national president of Civil Liberties Organisation.
“I was in a place where the issue of poor salary for the Police was discussed and somebody jokingly said, ‘will they take double portion,’ apparently referring to the bribes some of them take at roadblocks. It was like a joke but he made a valid point.”
This post is supported by the Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Programme, funded by DFID and managed by a consortium led by the British Council
Facts you didn't know about Coca-Cola
The Daily Meal
It's easy to jump on the "down with big soda" train, seeing as more and more evidence links Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and their thousands upon thousands of products with obesity, aggression, and health problems galore. But did you know that back in the day, soda's leading lady, Coca-Cola, was in fact produced, and marketed, as a health tonic?
Because we obviously can't get enough of soda, we took a tripdown memory lane to discover just how America's sugary drink of choice came to be. Coca-Cola, which was first served in 1866, today has more than 40 percent of the market share of sodas. But the drink has a long, twisting road as to how it came to be.
We got a peek at Mark Pendergast's the third edition of the book For God, Country and Coca-Cola: The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company That Makes It, that gives an in-depth picture of the cultural and societal factors that made Coca-Cola into what it was. From the "nerve tonic" it was originally sold as to the intoxicating soda it is today, Coca-Cola was eventually crowned the queen of all sodas, even amid the competition. "Coca-Cola is the world's most widely distributed single product, available (legally) in every country in the world except North Korea and Cuba," said Pendergast in a Q&A. "It is the second best-known word on Earth, after 'OK.' In the vast sweep of human history, Coca-Cola has not been around that long, and no one can predict far into the future. But I do not foresee another brand becoming as iconic any time soon." We'd have to agree.
1Fact #1
ReutersCoke is the world’s most widely distributed product, and is sold in more than 200 countries — that’s more countries than there are in the United Nations.2Fact #2
Coca ColaWhen Coca-Cola first appeared on the market in the 1860s, it was marketed "nerve tonic," made to help ease the woes of modern civilization. More and more people were displaying signs of what was called "neurasthenia," or neurotic and psychosomatic symptoms. Coca-Cola would change all that.3Fact #3
Coca ColaCoca-Cola, at the time, was said to cure opium and morphine addiction — and even Sigmund Freud was a believer. Freud was excited by Coca-Cola because he said it cured him of periodic depression and gave him a sex drive. That explains a lot.4Fact #4
ReutersWhen Coca-Cola came out, coca was being made into tablets, wine, liqueurs, hypodermic injections, and coca-leaf cigarettes.5Fact #5
Coca ColaEver wondered where the "cola" part of the name came from? The kola nut, it turns out. The kola nut, found in Africa, where it had been an integral part of life for centuries, was said to have lots of medicinal effects, and the alkaloid better known as caffeine.More from The Daily Meal
No comments:
Post a Comment