THIS IS STRICTLY FOR THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS BIGOTS

"CHIEFS OF ARMY STAFF

We have had 9 Chiefs of Army Staff, (Victor, Alex, Agwai, Azazi, Luka, Dambazau, Ihejirika, Minima and Buratai) only Dambazau and Buratai are Muslims.

The both have spent 5 years of the close to 20 years which means Christians held that position for 15 years. Christians 75%, Muslims 25%

1.3 CHIEFS OF AIR STAFF.

We have had 8 Chiefs of Air Staff, (Isaac, Jonah, Dike, Petirin, Dikko, Alex, Amosu and Sadiq).
Only Sadiq and Dikko are Muslims and both have spent 5 years of the close to 20 years. Christians held that position for 15 years. Christians 75% Muslims 25%.

1.4 CHIEFS OF NAVAL STAFF.

We have had 8 Chiefs of Navy Staff (Ombu, Afolayan, Adeleke, I. Ibrahim, S. Ibrahim,
Ezeoba, Jibrin and Ibak). Only Jibrin who seved 2 years and one of the Ibrahims is a Muslims, both Ibrahim served 2 years each, so Muslims served 4 years. Christians 16 years, Muslims 4 years. Christians 75% Muslims 25%.

1.5 CHIEFS OF DEFENCE STAFF.
We have had 9 CDS (Ogohi, Ogomudia, Agwai, Azazi, Dike, Petinri, Ibrahim, Alex and Abayomi). Only Ogohi and Ibrahim are Muslims, not so sure of Petinri. Both Ogohi and Ibrahim spent 5 years. Meaning Christians have spent 15 years, and Muslims 5 years.
Christians 75% and Muslims 25%.

1.6 DIRECTORS GENERAL OF DSS

We have had 6 DGs of DSS (Are, Gadzama, Ekpeyong, Lawal, Mathew and Bichi). Only Lawal and Bichi are Muslims. Both of them have just spent slightly above 3 years out of nearly 20 years. Christians 85% and Muslims 15%
In the above analysis, who is dominating who in the leadership of the nation's security architecture? Those who have enjoyed it the most, are the ones crying foul.

2.0 THEIR VOICE WAS SILENT WHEN GOODLUCK PLANTED SIMILAR SEED.
When President Jonathan was president, he planted the same seed that is being reaped today. When he was doing it, those shouting today, never raised a voice.

President Jonathan took Chief of Army Staff from a Muslim and gave it to a Christian, they shouted "Hallelujah".
He took CBN Governor from a Muslim and gave it to a Christian, they shouted "glory".

He took GMD of NNPC, gave it to a Christian, they shouted "ride on".

He took DG NOA from a Muslim, and gave it to a Christian, they shouted "good work."

😞😞😞
Pastor Eneche was silent all these while,same with the hordes of Clergies speaking as of their indignation is born out of holy anger.

That is what I called being a conformist and being compromised and using your religious office to manipulate and beguile people.

More from Religion

@Kate_SdE @PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew Hindu nationalism should not have a negative connotation. It’s not exclusivist because Hinduism isn’t a religion - rather, it’s a way of life, and the term “Hindu” refer broadly to the people around and east of the Sindhu. This transcends the modern construct of religions.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew For “Hindus” - a broad-brush stroke for a people whose culture is underpinned by a knowledge system that provides logical structure for adopters of a plethora of philosophies, “Hindu nationalism” by definition, is inclusive and pluralistic. It gives space to everyone.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew If Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva-Mimamsa, Buddhist and Jain philosophies are studied in comparison with Abrahamic faiths, India’s unique Carl Popper Paradox comes to light. The imposition of a western matrix of secularism on a pluralistic culture has done much harm.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew Because the traditions are rooted in universalist philosophies, India gladly hosts followers of non-proselytizing faiths. Supremacist theocratic ideologies find little resonance with the people of the land. To understand “Hindu nationalism,” one has to study Indic philosophy.

@PriyamvadaGopal @ChathamHouse @AdomGetachew Equally, it is important to view history objectively, know the excesses of supremacist invaders/colonizers, and importantly, understand the asymmetries created by the “secular” state which structurally disadvantage the vastly heterogeneous so-called “Hindu” majority.

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".