Concerning The Genocide Of The Nigerian Christians
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 7 months ago
Raymond Ibrahim writing at PJM.
Not only is Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari behind what several international observers are calling a “genocide” of Christians in his nation—but Barack Hussein Obama played a major role in the Muslim president’s rise to power: these two interconnected accusations are increasingly being made—not by “xenophobic” Americans but Nigerians themselves, including several leaders and officials.
Most recently, Femi Fani-Kayode, Nigeria’s former minister of culture and tourism, wrote in a Facebook post:
“What Obama, John Kerry and Hilary Clinton did to Nigeria by funding and supporting Buhari in the 2015 presidential election and helping Boko Haram in 2014/2015 was sheer wickedness and the blood of all those killed by the Buhari administration, his Fulani herdsmen and Boko Haram over the last 5 years are on their hands.”
Kerry’s and Clinton’s appeasement of Boko Haram—an Islamic terror organization notorious for massacring, enslaving, and raping Christians, and bombing and burning their churches—is apparently what connects them to this “sheer wickedness.”
For example, after a Nigerian military offensive killed 30 Boko Haram terrorists in 2013, then secretary of state Kerry “issued a strongly worded statement” to Buhari’s predecessor, President Goodluck Jonathan (2010-2015), a Christian. In it, Kerry warned Jonathan that “We are … deeply concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations” against the terrorists.
Similarly, during her entire tenure as secretary of state, Clinton repeatedly refused to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, despite nonstop pressure from lawmakers, human rights activists, and lobbyists—not to mention Boko Haram’s countless atrocities against Nigerian Christians.
“Those of you that still love the evil called Barack Obama,” Fani-Kayode added in his post, “should listen to this short clip and tell me if you still do.” He was referring to a recent Al Jazeera video interview of Eeben Barlow, a former lieutenant-colonel of the South African Defence Force and chairman of a private military company hired in 2015 by Jonathan, when still president, to help defeat Boko Haram.
“In one month,” Barlow said in the interview, “we took back terrain larger than Belgium from Boko Haram. We were not allowed to finish because it came at a time when governments were in the process of changing,” he said in reference to Nigeria’s 2015 presidential elections. “The incoming president, President Buhari, was heavily supported by a foreign government, and one of the first missions [of Buhari] was to terminate our contract.”
On being asked if he could name the “foreign government,” the former lieutenant-colonel said, “Yes, we were told it was the United States, and they had actually funded President Buhari’s campaign, and the campaign manager for President Buhari came from the US.
I think it’s fairly well established by now that Obama hated Christians. He and his henchmen bear a huge degree of responsibility for raped little girls and dead Christians in Nigeria.
However, I’m going to say something a wee bit more controversial now. So do the Nigerian Christians. Christians should not, and must not, look to the state for redemption or safety.
God gave men the responsibility and duty to defend the little ones. No one else can do it, and no one else has been told to engage in such protection (Romans 13 is an exception to what I’m saying, but that is a normative statement, a statement of God’s expectations for the state, not of His boundaries for His followers, or in other words, He raises the bar for the state, not lowers it for citizens of a state).
Nigerian Christians should have armed and gone to war with the Muslim terrorists in Nigeria until every last one of them was dead. Nothing else will do when your family is under threat. Until Christians jettison this notion of Jesus as the Bohemian, peacenik, flower child pacifist, they will continue to be run over, abused, raped, tortured and slaughtered.
And the frustrating thing is that it’s all so unnecessary and based on false teaching.
On April 22, 2020 at 11:34 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Re: “I think it’s fairly well established by now that Obama hated Christians.”
Yes, but only to someone with eyes to see the evidence and the courage to go where it leads.
Barack Obama is a practicing Sunni Muslim, and has been since his childhood adoption by his stepfather, Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetaro. Under sharia law, young Barack would have been considered a Sunni Muslim as soon as his father adopted him. That identity was strengthened when Barack Obama was sent to an Islamic school in Indonesia, where he memorized passages in Arabic from the Koran, passages which he is still able to recite from memory today.
When Barack Obama began to evidence political ambitions, he joined the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Chicago, IL. Wright’s “church” was unique in several ways. First, he and his flock followed so-called “black liberation theology,” a radical neo-Marxist interpretation of traditional Christianity which bears very little in common with the real thing. Second, members of the church were allowed to keep their affiliations with other faiths, such as Islam. Third, this ideology – one hesitates to call it a legitimate theology – was characterized by its virulent hatred of western civilization, traditional Christianity and the other foundations upon which our soceity was built. Wright himself was an unapologetic racist.
Membership in Wright’s so-called church served as a perfect fig leaf for the Obamas, who could run for the White House secure in the knowledge that a sympathetic MSM would keep their secrets for them.
And despite some slip-ups along the campaign trail – anyone remember Obama saying “…my Islamic faith..” in an interview, and George Stefanopoulos quickly correcting him, saying “Don’t you mean ‘your Christian faith’?” – that’s pretty much how Obama was able to keep his real identity as a Muslim under wraps until getting into the Oval Office.
For those able to see the signs and other evidence, it was pretty easy to discern Obama’s identity as a Muslim.
First, his middle name – which is Hussein – a name which is extremely common in the Islamic world, but which is found almost nowhere else.
Early in his presidency during his first term, Obama was invited to speak at Notre Dame in Indiana, the famous Catholic University. Obama and his people agreed, but only if all symbols of Christianity – crosses, crucifixes, and the like – were covered up during his visit.
There was to be no visible evidence of the school’s Christian identity displayed whatsoever. Many leftists, being secular and non-religious, if not actually atheistic, probably cheered without thinking what a strange request it was. Not to mention an actual insult to the millions of Catholics and other Christians, not only graduates of Notre Dame, but elsewhere across the country and around the world.
Who would make such an unusual and backhandedly insulting gesture? Only someone with an abiding hatred of Christianity and/or a practicing Muslim, or both. If one is at all knowledgeable about Islamic doctrine, there can be no other conclusion. Symbols of other religious faiths, whether Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever – are considered haram (forbidden) under sharia law, an affront to the “one true faith.”
A second very strong “tell” that Obama was a practicing Muslim came from his choice of guests during his time in the White House. The guest register looked like a “who’s who” of movers-and-shakers in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nation of Islam, and similar groups. Not to mention his evidently genuine celebration of Ramadan and the Iftar feast, which are explicitly Islamic holidays and observances.
One of the new president’s very first international addresses was delivered in Cairo, Egypt, on 4 June 2009. Such a choice was no coincidence; Cairo has been one of the centers of the Islamic world for more than a thousand years. It is also the seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, at al-Azar University, where sharia law is formulated and codified.
More evidence of Obama’s identity and sympathies surfaced before, during and after the Egyptian presidential elections of 2012. The Obama regime threw its support behind Mohamed Morsi, the candidate of the Ikhwan or Muslim Brotherhood. When Morsi won the presidency briefly, the White House did everything in its power to keep Morsi in power, and when the Egyptian Army – specifically, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi – removed him from power in a coup, Obama and his people did everything they could to reinstall Morsi.
The Egyptians have had a long and somewhat bloody history with the Ikhwan virtually since its founding in the 1920s, and the coup was not the first time the army has stepped in to oppose the Muslim Brothers. Obama must have known this, but he backed Morsi anyway.
Yet another tell was in how Obama, Clinton, Kerry et al. handled the Benghazi crisis. The official narrative is that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, as well as two American contractors – former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Dougherty – lost their lives in an attack by the jihadist group Ansar al-Sharia in the attack upon two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.
The official explanation offered was that the jihadists were retaliating against an allegedly disrespectful video made by an obscure Los Angeles film-maker, but this rationalization does not hold up to any degree of analysis.
The real secret inside of the whole Benghazi affair is that the Obama regime was running weapons to Sunni jihadists and anti-Assad forces in Syria, including al-Qaeda and ISIS/The Islamic State. Having deposed and then executed Libyan dictator President Muammar Gaddafi, the Obama regime – working through cutouts and intermediaries such as the CIA, of course – looted weapons and ordnance from the late Colonel Gaddafi’s arms warehouses, and transshipped them to jihadists in Syria.
Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had plenty of time in which a rescue mission or other aid to the beleaguered and besieged inhabitants of the compound could have bee mounted, but those requests were refused. Why? To protect the real secret of Benghazi – that Obama, Kerry, Clinton, et al. were aiding the very same jihadists who were filmed cutting the heads off of innocent and helpless Coptic Christian captives and others in Europe and elsewhere, the Middle East and Africa.
There are other threads and pieces of evidence, but the above is sufficient to show that it ought not to be a surprise whatsoever that Obama and his top people have been revealed to have helped Boko Haram and the Islamists in Nigeria.
Re: “Nigerian Christians should have armed and gone to war with the Muslim terrorists in Nigeria until every last one of them was dead. Nothing else will do when your family is under threat.”
Dr. Peter Hammond, author and missionary in Africa, has seen a great deal during his time in Africa. In his excellent book, “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat,” he recounts witnessing Sudanese Army helicopter gunships of the former dictator of the Sudan, General Omar al-Bashir, bombing, rocketing and strafing Christian villages and churches. In other words, it isn’t just irregulars, terrorists and jihadists committing these acts, but military forces of Islamic nations/rulers.
The non-Muslim people of the Sudan – Christians and others alike – have been so persecuted over the years by the Muslims that they had to form a nation of their own (in part by force of arms), namely the South Sudan. And what did the Janjaweed and other jihadists start to do immediately? Why, conduct raids and attacks into their new southern neighbor. It’s what they do.
Nigerian Christians may have to follow the example of their coreligionists in the South Sudan, and break away somehow. That isn’t going to be easy, however, since unlike in the Sudan, there are billions in oil and natural gas deposits in play in the disputed territories. Riches that the jihadists and their paymasters aren’t going to surrender easily.
On April 23, 2020 at 9:39 am, Old Bill said:
I was going to chime in, but Georgiaboy covered everything already.
I’ll add only this: we are in a war, like it or not. Unless you wish to abandon all those who might have come to the faith and been saved in the future, you must defend the faith now. Whether it is boldly speaking out, or taking up arms to defend the helpless, the Kingdom of God needs defending, and He put you here, now, for a reason.
On April 23, 2020 at 11:49 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Pardon the lengthy post before – I write as if I am being paid by the word! – but there’s another bit of information or germane to the subject of Barack Hussein Obama and Islam.
Remember these quotes from some years ago? Obama’s Islamic supporters certainly do…
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”
And this chestnut…
“The Muslim call to prayer is one of the most-beautiful sounds on earth”
According to Islamic doctrine, once a place has been occupied and/or ruled over by Muslims, it belongs to them for good. Five hundred years after being thrown out of Spain by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Muslims (including Osama Bin Laden) still refer to it by the Islamic name, “al-Andalus.” Now that B. Hussein has been in the White House, he and his coreligionists surely believe that it – and this nation – belong to them.
Yet, our “friends” on the Left still scoff at the notion that Obama is a Muslim!
On April 23, 2020 at 11:50 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “but there’s another bit of information or germane to the subject of Barack Hussein Obama and Islam”
Should read…
“but there’s another bit of information or two germane to the subject of Barack Hussein Obama and Islam”…
Pardon the error.
On April 23, 2020 at 12:00 pm, MTHead said:
The parable of the wheat and the weeds comes to mind. We grow up together. Fighting for root space below. Fight for light above. What’s not for a Christian to understand?
On April 23, 2020 at 12:18 pm, Fred said:
Even before Hussein, Ozark Billy was bombing the Christians in Kosovo? or Sarajevo? and taking the side of the muz in that conflict. I was not a Christian at the time and worked Pac Theater(s) issues but it struck me as odd, seemed antithetical to the West and America, and the histories of the Western peoples.
I really don’t know anything about that conflict except that we chose the side that was not the closes kin in spirit and blood. Maybe somebody, GB, knows more about that.
On April 23, 2020 at 12:26 pm, Fred said:
And another bit of truth about Hussein is that the Bush Crime Family’s literal kissy face relations and money entanglements with the House of Saud lead to the funding and politics where the Neocons would not vehemently oppose a muz president.
The Mango Mussolini fixed all of this already thought, right?
On April 23, 2020 at 1:14 pm, Ned2 said:
We should all be reminded the commandment is
“thou shalt not murder”
Most Christians unfortunately say “thou shalt not kill”, which is a very different thing.
I am most certainly justified in killing when I need to protect myself, my family or my community. Killing has a moral, justifiable reason, murder does not.
On April 24, 2020 at 9:17 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Fred
Re: “Even before Hussein, Ozark Billy was bombing the Christians in Kosovo? or Sarajevo? and taking the side of the muz in that conflict. I was not a Christian at the time and worked Pac Theater(s) issues but it struck me as odd, seemed antithetical to the West and America, and the histories of the Western peoples.”
When future historians write the history of our times, they will identify the establishment of the petrodollar regime, circa 1973, as the inflection point when the American government surrendered control of its foreign policy to the sheiks in the Arab oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf region.
In brief, the petrodollar system consists of the pledge by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and OPEC to conduct their business only in U.S. dollars, accepting no other currencies than the USD for oil sales/transactions. The Saudis also accepted an arrangement whereby the profits thereby generated would be “recycled” into U.S. government securities and other debt instruments – and held in western banks.
In return, the U.S. promised to defend Saudi Arabia and the members of OPEC fro all enemies, whether internal or external. Having just lost the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Arabs were anxious to have protection from Israel, amongst other threats.
Forming defense ties with the Arab nations has led to an enormous American military presence in the Gulf, as well as equally-enormous and highly-lucrative arms sales to the Saudis and their neighbors.
The petrodollar system has proven to be enormously-lucrative to the U.S. government, the financial/banking sector, as well as many private-sector firms. However, it has not come without cost. When the Saudi monarch picks up the phone, he gets put through to the President, and if he demands that the U.S. deploy forces in the region for some purpose, the President is obligated to comply, at least to an extent – or risk losing the goose which lays the golden eggs. Risk losing the petrodollar and all of that cheap and easy money it provides.
In plain language, if the Saudis say “Jump!,” the President has to ask “How high?”
It is against this historical backdrop that some events during the Balkans civil war of the 1990s can be best understood. Southeastern Europe has long been a simmering pot of conflicting ethnic, cultural, national, sectarian, and tribal identities – and the region has been noted as geopolitically-unstable since the time of World War One.
When the U.S. was a Christian nation; when its government still paid lip-service to our Christian heritage – we never would have bombed Serbian forces as we did during the 1990s Balkans intervention. Historically, Serbia has long-been considered one of the bulwarks of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Moreover, when were a more-sensible and prudent nation, we would have steered clear of the crisis entirely, or at least refrained from helping Serbia’s enemies and antagonizing Russia, a nation which regards Serbia as one of its closest friends and allies in the region.
During the Balkans crisis, atrocities were committed on all sides; civil wars are exceptionally ugly things even by the standards of modern war – but the Clinton regime seized upon the “genocide” of Bosnian Muslims as a pretext for intervening in the region. Undoubtedly, they were prompted to do so by the Saudis and the other Sunni Arab nations in the Gulf.
What better way to hammer Serbia than by sending their new watch dogs after the malefactors? The sheiks must have had themselves quite a laugh discussing how easily the foolish Americans could be manipulated into doing their dirty work for them!
Idiots all, President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright and NATO head General Wesley Clarke very nearly blundered their way into WWIII against an enraged Russia; most Americans to this day have no idea whatsoever of just how close we came to a hot “shooting” war with Russian peace-keeping forces in that region, during our intervention there. Luckily, the Russians were cool-headed enough that a crisis was averted – no thanks to our traitorous and incompetent so-called “leaders”!
Unless and until the petrodollar regime is ended and our government’s illegitimate ties to the Arab oil states are cut, the people of the U.S. have little hope of regaining control of the nation’s foreign policy. One which will continue to put Islamic (Arab) interests ahead of our own.
On April 25, 2020 at 10:04 am, Fred said:
And there you have it. Thank you.